Democracy, Liberty, and Property. Группа авторов

whole Commonwealth taken in the aggregate of its population. Salem would send one representative for every 3130 inhabitants and Boston one for every 4200 inhabitants, while every town but the 24 largest would send one for every 1144 inhabitants! What then becomes of the favorite doctrine of the basis of population? I would ask the gentleman in his own emphatic language, is not this system unjust, unequal and cruel? If it be equal, it is so by some political arithmetic, which I have never learned and am incapable of comprehending.

      A few words upon the plan of the select committee, and I have done. Sir, I am not entitled to any of the merit, if there be any, in that plan. My own was to preserve the present basis of the senate, not because I placed any peculiar stress on the basis of valuation; but because I deemed it all-important to retain some element that might maintain a salutary check between the two houses. My own plan for the house of representatives was representation founded on the basis of population in districts, according to the system proposed by the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. Lyman]. Finding that this plan was not acceptable to a majority of the committee I acquiesced in the plan reported by it. I have learned that we must not, in questions of government, stand upon abstract principles; but must content ourselves with practicable good. I do not pretend to think, nor do any of its advocates think, that the system of the select committee is perfect; but it will cure some defects in our present system which are of great and increasing importance. I have always viewed the representation in the house under the present constitution, as a most serious evil, and alarming to the future peace and happiness of the State. My dread has never been of the senate, but of that multitudinous assembly, which has been seen within these walls, and may again be seen if times of political excitement should occur. The more numerous the body the greater the danger from its movements in times, when it cannot or will not deliberate. I came here therefore willing and ready to make sacrifices to accomplish an essential reduction in that body. It was the only subject relative to the constitution on which I have always had a decided and earnest opinion. It was my fortune for some years to have a seat in our house of representatives; and for a short time to preside over its sittings, at a period when it was most numerous, and under the most powerful excitements. I am sorry to say it, but such is my opinion, that in no proper sense could it be called a deliberative assembly. From the excess of numbers deliberation became almost impossible; and but for the good sense and discretion of those who usually led in the debates, it would have been impracticable to have transacted business with anything like accuracy or safety. That serious public mischiefs did not arise from the necessary hurry and difficulty of the legislative business is to be accounted for only from the mutual forbearance and kindness, of those who enjoyed the confidence of the respective parties. If the State should go on in its population we might hereafter have 800 or 900 representatives according to the present system; and in times of public discontent, all the barriers of legislation may be broken down and the government itself be subverted. I wish most deeply and earnestly to preserve to my native State a deliberative legislature, where the sound judgment, and discretion, and sagacity of its best citizens may be felt and heard and understood at all times and under all circumstances. I should feel the liberties of the State secure, if this point were once fairly gained. I would yield up the little privileges of my own town and of any others, that our children may enjoy civil, religious and political liberty, as perfectly, nay more perfectly than their fathers. With these views I am ready to support the report of the select committee—not in part, but as a whole—as a system—and if part is to be rejected I do not feel myself bound to sustain the rest. Indeed upon no other ground than a great diminution of the house of representatives can I ever consent to pay the members out of the public treasury. For this is now the only efficient check against an overwhelming representation. By the plan of the select committee the small towns are great gainers—a sacrifice is made by the large towns and by them only. They will bear a heavier portion of the pay of the representatives, and they will have a less proportionate representation than they now possess. And what do they gain in return? I may say nothing. All that is gained is public gain, a really deliberative legislature, and a representation in the senate, which is in fact a popular representation, emanating from and returning to the people, but so constructed that it operates as a useful check upon undue legislation and as a security to property.

      I hope that this system will be adopted by a large majority, because it can scarcely otherwise receive the approbation of the people—I do not know that it is even desirable that the people should, nay, I might go further, and say that the people ought not to adopt any amendment which comes recommended by a bare majority of this Convention. If we are so little agreed among ourselves, as to what will be for the future public good, we had much better live under the present constitution, which has all our experience in its favor. Is any gentleman bold enough to hazard the assertion, that any new measure we may adopt can be more successful? I beg gentlemen to consider too what will be the effect if the amendments we now propose should be rejected by the people, having passed by a scanty majority. We shall then revert to the old constitution—and new parties, embittered by new feuds, or elated by victory, will be formed in the State and distinguished as constitutionalists and anti-constitutionalists; and thus new discontents and struggles for a new convention will agitate the Commonwealth. The revival of party animosities in any shape, is mostly to be deprecated. Who does not recollect with regret the violence with which party spirit in times past raged in this State, breaking asunder the ties of friendship and consanguinity? I was myself called upon to take an active part in the public scenes of those days. I do not regret the course which my judgment then led me to adopt; but I never can recollect, without the most profound melancholy, how often I have been compelled to meet, I will not say the evil but averted eyes, and the hostile opposition of men with whom, under other circumstances, I should have rejoiced to have met in the warmth of friendship. If new parties are to arise, new animosities will grow up, and stimulate new resentments. To the aged in this Convention, who now bow down under the weight of years, this can, of course, be of but little consequence—for they must soon pass into the tranquillity of the tomb;—to those of middle life it will not be of great importance, for they are far on their way to their final repose; they have little to hope of future eminence, and are fast approaching the period when the things of this world will fade away. But we have youth, who are just springing into life—we have children whom we love—and families, in whose welfare we feel the deepest interest. In the name of heaven, let us not leave to them the bitter inheritance of our contentions. Let us not transmit to them enmities which may sadden the whole of their lives. Let us not—like him of old, blind and smitten of his strength—in our anger seize upon the pillars of the constitution, that we and our enemies may perish in their downfall. I would rather approach the altar of the constitution and pay my devotions there, and if our liberties must be destroyed, I, for one, would be ready to perish there in defending them… .