(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of New Hampshire, January, 1889"

II 



47 253 







DOCUMENTS 
OEPT. 










r/UUi^. 



JOU RNAL 



OF THE 





OF THE 



STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 



JANUARV, IS8Q. 



MANCHESTER, N. H. : 

PRINTED BY JOHN B. CLARKE. 
1889. 



s <3 



JOU RNAL 



OF THE 



CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 



CONCORD, N. H., January 2, 1889. 

The delegates of the Constitutional Convention assembled in 
the hall of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, January 
2, 1889, at ii o'clock A. M., and were called to order by John 
W. Morse of Bradford. 

On motion of John D. Lyman of Exeter, G. W. M. Pitman 
of Bartlett was chosen temporary chairman. 

On motion of G. C. Gilmore of Manchester, A. W. Baker of 
Lebanon was chosen temporary secretary. 

On motion of Luther P. Durgin of Concord, Rev. James 
Thurston of Dover was called upon to open the convention with 
prayer. 

On motion of W. S. Davis of Hopkinton, 

Resolved, 'That a committee consisting of two delegates from 
each county be appointed by the chair to inquire who are 
elected delegates to this convention. 

The following-named gentlemen were appointed as such com- 
mittee : 

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. . 

John Hatch of Greenland. 
E. R. Blake of Danville. 



424982 



4 JOURNAL 'OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 



STRAFFORD COUNTY. 

C. C. Hayes of Milton. 

J. F. Farrington of Rochester. 

BELKNAP COUNTY. 

W. L. Melcher of Laconia. 
J. N. Sanborn of Sanbornton. 

CARROLL COUNTY. 

J. B. Nash of Conway. 

A. S. Libbey of Wolfeborough. 

MERRIMACK COUNTY. 

W. S. Davis of Hopkinton. 
A. W. Sulloway of Franklin. 

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. 

G. C. Gilmore of Manchester. 

D. S. Fessenden of Brookline. 

CHESHIRE COUNTY. 

C. B. Hopkins of Hinsdale. 
G. B. Williams of Walpole. 

SULLIVAN COUNTY. 

George S. Bond of Charlestown. 
J. P. Smith of Sunapee. 

GRAFTON COUNTY. 

J. D. Weeks of Canaan. 

E. R. Ruggles of Hanover. 

coos COUNTY. 

D. E. Cummings of Colebrook. 
I. S. M. Gove of Whitefield. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1889. 5 

On motion of C. C. Danforth of Concord, 

Resolved, That when this convention adjourns it adjourn to 
meet this afternoon at 2 o'clock. 

On motion of Mr. Danforth of Concord, the convention 
adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

The convention met at 2 o'clock, according to adjournment. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton, for the Committee on Credentials, 
reported that prima facie evidence had been presented to them 
of the election of the following-named persons as delegates to 
this convention : 

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. 

Atkinson William C. Todd. 

Auburn Alfred D. Emery. 

Brentwood Arthur W. Dudley. 

Candia ..... Jonathan C. Hobbs. 

Chester George W. Currier. 

Danville . . . Edmund R. Blake. 

Deerfield Herbert N. Clark. 

Derry . . . . . Greenleaf K. Bartlett. 

Leonard H. Pillsbury. 

East Kingston .... George W. Sanborn. 

Epping ..... William H. Drury. 

Exeter ..... John H. Brown. 

Charles H. Bell. 

John D. Lyman. 

Fremont ..... Harrison Sanborn. 

Greenland ..... John Hatch. 

Hampstead .... William Sanborn. 

Hampton ..... Joseph Johnson. 

Hampton Falls .... Emmons B. Towle. 

Kensington .... John W. Yorke. 

Kingston Andrew J. Cilley. 

Londonderry .... Rosecrans W. Pillsbury. 



6 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 



Newcastle . 

Newington 

Newmarket 

Newton 

North Hampton . 

Northwood 

Nottingham 

Plaistow 

Portsmouth Ward i 



Ward 2 



Ward 3 
Ward 4 



Raymond . 
Rye . 

Salem 

Sandown . 
Seabrook . 
South Newmarket 
Stratham 
Windham . 



Forrest Becker. 
John I. Trefethen. 
George A. Bennett. 
Aaron L. Mellows. 
Hervey N. Gould. 
Thomas I. Batchelder. 
William Knowles. 
Benjamin W. Crawford. 
Charles W. Cass. 
Marcellus Eldredge. 
William E. Littlefield. 
John E. Locke. 
George B. French. 
Mark A. Scott. 
Calvin Page. 
Frank Jones. 
James A. Sanborn. 
John T. Bartlett. 
Charles J. Brown. 
Ruel F. Wheeler. 
Thomas Duston. 
James Hunkins. 
William Boynton. 
Amos Paul. 
Charles W. Jones. 
James Cochran. 



STRAFFORD COUNTY. 



Harrington . 
Dover Ward i 

Ward 2 
Ward 3 
Ward 4 



William E. Waterhouse. 
Joseph E. Porter. 
William T. Page. 
James Thurston. 
Burnham Hanson. 
George S. Frost. 
John Holland. 
Joseph Hayes. 
Horatio G. Hanson. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1889. 

Dover Wards Patrick E. Mallon. 

Robert McMahan. 

Durham Albert DeMerritt. 

Farmington .... Frank Emerson. 

James E. Fernald. 

Sewell H. Parker. 

Lee Howard M. Glidden. 

Madbury Jacob D. Young. 

Milton Charles C. Hayes. 

New Durham .... Ichabod P. Berry. 
Rollinsford .... Charles T. Wood. 

Somersworth .... William D. Knapp. 

Christopher H. Wells. 

Charles M. Dorr. 

Hiram A. Hayes. 

Patrick Leahy. 

Strafford Hiram S. Hill. 

Rochester ..... James F. Farrington. 

Josiah H. Whittier. 

Cyrille Pageot. 

Samuel D. Felker. 

Frank B.- Preston. 

BELKNAP COUNTY. 

Alton ..... Morrison Bennett. 

Barnstead M. V. B. Nutter. 

Belmont Edwin P. Thompson. 

Center Harbor .... Hiram S. McCrillis. 
Gilford ..... Benjamin F. Drake. 

John B. Morrill. 

Gilmanton .... Horace Edgerly. 

Laconia . ... Ellery A. Hibbard. 

Woodbury L. Melcher. 

Frank M. Beckford. 
Meredith ..... Solomon Lovejoy. 

John Webster. 

New Hampton .... David H. Smith. 
Sanbornton .... Joseph N. Sanborn. 
Tilton John J. Pillsbury. 



8 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 



CARROLL COUNTY. 



Albany and Madison . 
Bartlett 
Brookfield . 
Chatham . 
Conway 

Eaton 

Effingham . 

Freedom 

Jackson and Livermore 

Moultonborough 

Ossipee 

Sandwich . 

Tamworth . 

Tuftonborough . 

Wakefield . 

Wolfeborough . . . 



Allenstown 

Andover . 

Boscawen . 

Bow . 

Bradford . 

Canterbury 

Chichester . 

Concord Ward 2 
Ward 3 
Ward 4 



Ward 5 
Ward 6 



Augustus Lary. 
George W. M. Pitman. 
Dudley C. Coleman. 
Charles H. Binford. 
Lycurgus Pitman. 
John B. Nash. 
Francis M. Hatch. 
Francisco W. Barker. 
William M. Furbush. 
Charles W. Gray. 
Wesley J. Wilkins. 
David W. Davis. 
Joseph H. Quimby. 
Arthur E. Wiggin. 
James A. Bennett. 
John W. Sanborn. 
Alvah S. Libbey. 
George F. Mathes. 



MERRIMACK COUNTY. 



John H. Sullivan. 
Ephraim G. Graves. 
Willis G. Buxton. 
Alfred Davis. 
John W. Morse. 
Alfred G. Chase. 
George W. Lane. 
George H. Curtis. 
Benjamin T. Putney. 
Joseph B. Walker. 
Amos Hadley. 
Luther P. Durgin. 
Charles C. Danforth. 
Edgar H. Woodman. 
George H. Emery. 
Benjamin A. Kimball. 
James L. Mason. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1889. 



Concord Ward 7 

Danbury 

Dumbarton 

Epsom 

Franklin 



Henniker . 
Hill . 
Hooksett . 
Hopkinton 

London 
Newbury . 
New London 
Northfield . 
Pembroke . 

Pittsfidd . 

Salisbury . . 
Sutton 
Warner 
Webster . 
Wilmot 



Amherst 
Antrim 
Bedford . 
Bennington 
Brookline . 
Francestown 
Goffstown . 
Greenfield . 
Greenville . 
Hancock . 
Hillsborough 



Isaac P. Clifford. 
John Frazier. 
John D. Bunten. 
John H. Dolbeer. 
Frank N. Parsons. 
Isaac N. Blodgett. 
Alvah W. Sulloway. 
William H. M. Gate. 
James E. Newton. 
Arah W. Prescott. 
Joseph Barnard. 
Walter S. Davis. 
Henry C. Morse. 
William H. Sawyer. 
James E. Shepard. 
Edwin J. Young. 
Martin H. Cochran. 
George P. Little. 
Henry W. George. 
John P. Watson. 
John C. Smith. 
William H. Chadwick. 
Albert P. Davis. 
Henry H. Gerrish. 
Sumner E. Philbrick. 



HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. 



Josiah G. Davis. 
George A. Cochran. 
George H. Wiggin. 
Moses H. Newton. 
David S. Fessenden. 
William H. Farnum. 
James G. Taggart. 
George P. Holt. 
George F. Merriam. 
George I. Hay ward. 
William H. Manahan. 



10 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 



Hollis 
Hudson 

Lyndeborough . 
Manchester Ward i 

Ward 2 
Ward 3 



Ward 4 



Ward 5 



Ward 6 

Ward 7 
WardS 



Mason 
Merrimack 
Milford . 

Mont Vernon 
Nashua Ward i 
Ward 2 
Ward 3 



Charles W. Hardy. 
David O. Smith. 
Luther Cram. 
Charles H. Manning. 
Rufus Wilkinson. 
David Cross. 
Isaac W. Smith. 
James F. Briggs. 
Abram B. Story. 
Charles H. Bartlett. 
Benjamin F. Clark. 
Charles A. Luce. 
John C. Bickford. 
George C. Gilmore. 
George H. Hubbard. 
Henry E. Burnham. 
George A. Laighton. 
Jeremiah J. Hayes. 
James F. Cavanaugh. 
John C. Ryan. 
James S. Butler. 
Thomas F. Collins. 
Michael C. Griffin. 
Herbert S. Clough. 
Amos B. Page. 
William H. Huse. 
Abner J. Sanborn. 
Marshall P. Hall. 
Horatio Fradd. 
Oswald Paris. 
George Whittaker. 
Horace W. Wilson. 
Robert M. Wallace. 
William W. Howard. 
Charles J. Smith. 
Charles W. Holt. 
James B. Fassett. 
John J. Flood. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1889. 



11 



Nashua 



Ward 4 
Ward 5 
Ward 6 



Ward 7 
Ward 8 

New Boston 

New Ipswich 

Pelham 

Peterborough 

Temple 
Weare 

Wilton 
Windsor 



George B. French. 
Dennis Cone. 
Nelson S. Whitman. 
Thomas H. Clarkson. 
Charles D. Parker. 
Elbridge P. Brown. 
John L. H. Marshall. 
Niel McLane. 
Francis W. Pritchard. 
Daniel Marshall. 
Riley B. Hatch. 
John R. Miller. 
Samuel M. Child. 
Harvey J. McKellips. 
John R. B. Kelley. 
Charles A. Bales. 
Herbert F. Dresser. 



CHESHIRE COUNTY. 



Alstead 

Chesterfield 

Dublin .... 

Fitzwilliam 

Gilsum .... 

Hinsdale .... 

Harrisville .... 
Jaffrey .... 
Keene Ward i 

Ward 2 

Ward 3 

Ward 4 

Ward 5 

Marlow .... 
Marl borough 

Richmond .... 
Rindge .... 
Roxbury, Sullivan, and Surry 



Hiram F. Newell. 
Oran E. Randall. 
Charles J. Ellis. 
Amos J. Blake. 
George B. Ravvson. 
Charles J. Amidon. 
Charles B. Hopkins. 
George W. Mason. 
Thomas Annett. 
Clark F. Rowell. 
Charles H. Whitney. 
Wilton H. Spalter. 
Charles H. Hersey. 
Charles P. Pitcher. 
Jonas W. Fletcher. 
Luther G. Bemis. 
Charles W. Conway. 
Warren W. Emory. 
George K. Harvey. 



12 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 



Swanzey 
Stoddard . 
Troy . 
Walpole . 

Westmoreland 
Winchester 



Acworth 
Charlestown 
Claremont . 



Cornish 
Croydon 
Goshen 
Grant ham . 
Langdon . 
Lempster . 
Newport 

Plainfield . 

Springfield 

Sunapee 

Unity 

Washington 



Alexandria 
Ashland 
Bath . 
Benton 
Bethlehem . 
Bridgewater 



George W. Willis. 
Sidney A. Green. 
Edwin Buttrick. 
Curtis R. Crowell. 
George B. Williams. 
Willard Bill, Jr. 
Hosea W. Brigham. 
Henry Abbott. 



SULLIVAN COUNTY. 



Joab N. Davis. 
George S. Bond. 
Ira Colby. 
George H. Stowell. 
Robert E. Muzzey. 
Israel D. Hall. 
William H. Sisson. 
George W. Dunbar. 
Frederick C. Stevens. 
Thomas J. Morrill. 
Thomas Winch. 
Asbury F. Perley. 
Dexter Richards. 
Levi AV. Barton. 
John T. Duncan. 
James K. Richardson. 
Joseph P. Smith. 
Granville J. Marshall. 
Clark S. Spaulding. 



GRAFTON COUNTY. 



Charles W. Buttrick. 
Richard F. Sanborn. 
Benjamin H. Poor. 
William W. Eastman. 
Moses C. Noyes. 
Hiram S. Tilton. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1889. 



13 



Bristol 

Campton . 

Canaan 

Dorchester . 

Enfield 

Eaton and Landaff 

Ellsworth and Woodstock 

Franconia and Lincoln 

Grafton 

Haverhill . 

Hanover 

Hebron 

Holderness 

Lebanon 



Lisbon. 
Littleton ,, 

Lyman 

Lyme 

Monroe 

Orford 

Piermont 

Plymouth 

Rumney 

Thornton 

Warren 

Wentvvorth 



Berlin 
Carroll 
Colebrook . 
Columbia . 



Gustavus Roby. 
Charles H. Damon. 
Joseph D. Weeks. 
Frederick A. Dolloff. 
David A. Johnson. 
Moses Whitcher. 
William H. Hill. 
Daniel Whitney. 
George H. Randall. 
Charles G. Smith. 
Charles Fisher. 
Edward R. Ruggles. 
Charles B. Do we. 
Hiram S. Tilton. 
William M. Wallace. 
Charles A. Dole. 
Alpheus W. Baker. 
William P. Burton. 
Augustus A. Woolson. 
John L. Foster. 
Asa Coburn. 
Royal D. Rounsevel. 
Joseph F. Sherman. 
Benjamin T. Washburn, 
Henry G. Jones. 
Paul Lang. 
Eleazer P. Andrass. 
Hazen D. Smith. 
Charles C. Craig. 
Frank A. Barnard. 
Joseph M. Little. 
Samuel G. Currier. 



coos COUNTY. 



Abner K. Cole. 
Ephraim L. Miles. 
Daniel E. Cummings. 
Horace C. Sawyer. 



14 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Dalton Thomas J. Smith. 

Dummer Daniel Cole. 

Gorham John F. Noonan. 

Jefferson ..... Benjamin C. Garland. 

Lancaster William S. Ladd. 

William H. Smith. 

Milan ..... Samuel A. Collins. 

Pittsburg Winfield S. Schoppe. 

Randolph . . . . Fred Messenger. 

Stark Woodbury Cole. 

Stewartstown .... Lorenzo Farnham. 

Stratford Fred N. Day. 

Whitefield Ira S. M. Gove. 

Willard N. Armington. 

On motion of Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, the report was 
accepted and adopted. 

On motion of L. W. Barton of Newport, proceeded to ballot 
for president of the convention. 

On motion of Mr. Foster of Lisbon, the following resolution 
was adopted : 

Resolved, That the chair appoint five tellers to assist in sorting 
and counting the ballots. 

The chair appointed as tellers the following-named gentlemen : 

Messrs. Foster of Lisbon, Durgin of Concord, Sanborn of 
Wakefield, Briggs of Manchester, Rowell of Keene. 

The ballot for president resulted as follows : 

Whole number of ballots cast .... 305 
Necessary to a choice . . . . .153 

Alpheus W. Baker i 

William H. Ladd i 

Isaac W. Smith ...... 141 

Charles H. Bell 162 

and Charles H. Bell, having received a majority of all the ballots 
cast, was declared elected president of the convention. 



WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 2, 1889. 15 

Messrs. Smith of Manchester and Hibbard of Laconia were 
appointed to conduct the president elect to the chair. 

Upon assuming the chair, the president addressed the conven- 
tion as follows : 

Gentlemen of the Convention : 

Accept my sincere thanks for the honor you have conferred 
upon me by choosing me to preside over your deliberations. It 
shall be my endeavor to deserve this expression of your confi- 
dence by a strict and impartial attention to the duties of the po- 
sition ; and my task will be rendered easier by the knowledge that 
I can at all times rely on the aid and counsel of the many able and 
experienced gentlemen in the convention. The work which we 
are chosen to perform ought not to detain us long. The amend- 
ments to the Constitution which are generally expected and con- 
sidered needful are so few that they can be numbered on the 
fingers of one hand. Our Constitution as it stands contains all 
the essential elements of civil liberty and good government. It 
was framed by the fathers who took part in winning the inde- 
pendence of the country, and it bears their impress in its phrase- 
ology. Three generations have lived under its provisions pros- 
perously and happily. It is not strange, therefore, that the 
people have manifested a strong attachment to the instrument and 
desire that it should be amended in those particulars only which 
the changed conditions of the times render essential. I have 
entire confidence, gentlemen, that your wisdom and patriotism 
will enable you to accomplish the purposes for which the conven- 
tion is assembled, speedily and to the complete satisfaction of 
the people of the State. 

On motion of Mr. Danforth of Concord, the following reso- 
lution was adopted : 

Resolved, That a committee of twenty, to consist of, two from 
each county, be appointed by the chair to select and report to 
the convention the names of persons to fill the offices of secre- 
tary, assistant secretary, sergeant-at-arms, chaplain, and three 
doorkeepers for the session. 



16 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

The president appointed the following gentlemen as such com- 
mittee : 

Messrs. Danforth of Concord, George of Pittsfield, Page of 
Portsmouth, Pillsbury of Londonderry, Frost of Dover, DeMer- 
ritt of Durham, Bartlett of Manchester, Manahan of Hillsbor- 
ough, Melcher of Laconia, Pillsbury of Tilton, Pitman of Con- 
way, Wilkins of Moultonborough, Amidon of Hinsdale, Abbott 
of Winchester, Spaulding of Washington, Bond of Charlestown, 
Woolson of Lisbon, Dole of Lebanon, Sawyer of Columbia, Smith 
of Lancaster. 

On motion of Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam, the following resolu- 
tion was adopted : 

Resolved, That the rules of the constitutional convention of 
1876 be adopted as the rules of this convention until otherwise 
ordered. 

On motion of Mr. Hibbard of Laconia, the following resolu- 
tion was adopted : 

Resolved., That A. J. Shurtleff be appointed official reporter 
of the convention, all questions relating to the publication of the 
debates or proceedings to be subject to the future action of the 
convention. 

On motion of Mr. Todd of Atkinson, the following resolution 
was adopted : 

Resolved, That the clerk of the convention, as soon as is prac- 
ticable, place in a box the name of each delegate written on a 
separate slip of paper ; that he then proceed in the presence of 
the convention to draw from the box, one at a time, the slips of 
paper, and as each is drawn he shall announce the name of the 
delegate, who shall thereupon choose his seat ; provided., that 
before the drawing shall commence the president shall cause each 
seat to be vacated, and that he shall see that every seat continues 
vacant until it is selected under this order, and that any seat after 
having been selected shall be deemed forfeited if left unoccupied 
before the drawing is finished. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1889. 17 

On motion of Mr. Walker of Concord, the following resolu- 
tion was adopted : 

Resolved, That until otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting 
of the convention be 10.30 o'clock in the forenoon and 2 
o'clock in the afternoon. 

On motion of Mr. Pitman of Conway, 

Resolved, That the hour for drawing seats be fixed at u 
o'clock in the forenoon Thursday, January 3, 1889. 

On motion of Mr. Hadley of Concord, the following resolu- 
tion was adopted : 

Resolved, That a committee of ten, one from each county, be 
appointed by the chair to report rules for the government of the 
convention and recommend methods of procedure. 

The president appointed the following gentlemen as such com- 
mittee : 

Messrs. Hadley of Concord, Smith of Manchester, Hatch of 
Greenland, Knapp of Somersworth, Pitman of Bartlett, Hibbard 
of Laconia, Blake of Fitzwilliam, Barton of Newport, Ruggles 
of Hanover, Ladd of Lancaster. 

On motion of Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, the convention 
adjourned. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1889. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Prayer was offered by Rev. J. G. Davis of Amherst v 

Mr. Danforth, for Committee on Permanent Organization, re- 
ported recommending the following-named gentlemen for the 
several offices, and the report was accepted and adopted : 



18 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Secretary, James R. Jackson of Littleton ; assistant secretary, 
William Tutherly of Claremont ; sergeant-at-arms, Timothy Til- 
ton of Laconia ; doorkeepers, John Underhill of Chester, George 
E. Chesley of Concord, Almon H. Sweetser of Lancaster ; chap- 
lain, Rev. James Thurston of Dover. 

Thereupon James R. Jackson, William Tutherly. Timothy 
Tilton, John Underhill, George E. Chesley, and Almon H. 
Sweetser, respectively secretary, assistant secretary, sergeant-at- 
arms, and doorkeepers, appeared, signified their acceptance of 
their respective offices, and severally were duly sworn to the 
faithful discharge of the duties thereof. 

Attest : A. W. BAKER, 

Temporary Secretary. 

Mr. Hadley of Concord, from the Committee on Rules and 
Method of Procedure, submitted the following report : 

1. The president shall take the chair at precisely the hour to 
which the convention shall have adjourned, shall immediately call 
the members to order, and at the commencement of each day's 
session shall cause the journal of the preceding day to be read. 
He shall preserve decorum and order, and may speak on points 
of order in preference to other members, and may substitute any 
member to perform the duties of the chair, such substitution not 
to extend beyond an adjournment. 

2. All committees shall be appointed by the president, unless 
otherwise directed by the convention ; and the first named mem- 
ber of any committee appointed by the president shall be chair- 
man. 

3. No person but the members and officers of the convention 
shall be admitted within the chamber unless by invitation of the 
president or some member of the convention. 

4. No member shall speak more than twice to the same ques- 
tion without leave of the convention. 

5. When any question is under debate, no motion shall be 
received but, ist, to adjourn ; 2d, to lay on the table ; 3d, to 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1889. 19 

postpone to a day certain ; 4th, to commit; 5th, to amend 
which several motions shall take precedence in the order in which 
they are arranged. Motions to adjourn and lay on the table shall 
be decided without debate. 

6. Any member may call for a division of the question, when 
the sense will admit of it ; but a motion to strike out and insert 
shall not be divided. 

7. A motion for commitment, until it is decided, shall pre- 
cede all amendments to the main question ; and all motions and 
reports may be committed at the pleasure of the convention. 

8. No vote shall be reconsidered unless the motion for recon- 
sideration be made by a member who voted with the majority. 

9. Every question shall be decided by yeas and nays, when- 
ever a demand for the same shall be made and sustained by at 
least ten members. 

10. The convention may resolve itself into a Committee of 
the Whole Convention at any time on the motion of a member ; 
anu, in forming a Committee of the Whole, the president shall 
leave the chair and appoint a chairman to preside in committee ; 
and the rules of proceeding in convention, and the rule relating 
to calls for the yeas and nays, shall be observed in Committee 
of the Whole, except the rule limiting the times of speaking. 

11. After the journal has been read and corrected, the order 
of business shall be as follows : First, the presentation of resolu- 
tions and petitions ; second, the reports of committees ; third, 
the unfinished business of the preceding day. 

MODES OF PROCEDURE. 

Resolved, That the methods of procedure in revising the Con- 
stitution shall be as follows : 

i. All amendments proposed shall be offered in writing, and 
shall be read by the secretary for the information of the conven- 
tion, when, unless rejected or otherwise disposed of, the same 
shall be referred to an appropriate committee, who shall examine 
and report the amendments referred to the convention, with such 



20 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

recommendations as they may deem advisable. No proposition 
for an amendment shall be received after Tuesday of the second 
week, unless by unanimous consent of the convention or upon 
the recommendation of the committee. 

2. There shall be appointed by the president five separate 
committees, consisting of two members from each county, which 
shall be committees on the following subjects : 

(i.) On bill of rights and executive department. 
(2.) On legislative department. 
(3.) On judicial department. 

(4.) On future mode of amending the Constitution, and other 
proposed amendments. 

(5.) On time and mode of submitting to the people the 
amendments agreed to by the convention. 

The report, on motion of Mr. Manahan of Hillsborough, was 
accepted and adopted. 

Mr. Page of Portsmouth submitted the following resolution, 
which was adopted : 

Resolved, That five hundred copies of the rules adopted by 
the convention be printed for the use of members. 

Mr. Emery of Auburn offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the secretary procure for the use of members 
of the convention five hundred copies of the " Daily Monitor " 
and " Daily Union." 

On motion of Mr. Hibbard of Laconia, the resolution was 
amended by adding " and the Concord ' People and Patriot.' " 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester moved to amend by adding to the 
list the Manchester " Mirror." 

Mr. Laighton of Manchester : I move that the entire matter 
be laid upon the table. I do not see the use of so many news- 
papers. They are kicked around here and then are taken down 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1889. 21 

stairs for old junk. I think we had better consider this matter a 
little further before we order this large quantity of newspapers. 

The motion to lay on the table prevailed. 

The president announced that the special order of the day, 
the drawing of seats, would be attended to. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester offered the following resolution, 
which was adopted : 

Resolved, That the secretary have printed an alphabetical roll 
of members for the use of the convention. 

Mr. Colby of Claremont : I would inquire what provision, if 
any, has been made to furnish each delegate with a copy of the 
Constitution. It would seem to be necessary to have copies of 
the Constitution before the delegates while the revision is going 
on. Some gentleman may have a plan in mind in regard to this 
matter. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : I would suggest in regard to 
Mr. Colby's inquiry that perhaps some gentleman at noon time 
can see the printers and be able in the afternoon to inform the 
convention whether copies of the Constitution can be delivered 
here by Tuesday, when the copies of the rules are to be deliv- 
ered. It is important that they should be obtained as early as 
possible, and not later than Tuesday morning. If the subject is 
deferred until after dinner, I will endeavor to find out about the 
matter. 

Mr. Wallace of Milford : The secretary of state has copies of 
the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and every amendment made 
by the previous convention. Whether he has enough to distrib- 
ute to this convention I do not know, but if he has, that would 
supply the want perhaps in a better form than any other. 

Mr. Colby : I may be in error, but I have the impression that 
those are printed copies of the Constitution as it was submitted 
to that convention, and not of the Constitution as amended. 

Mr. Wallace of Milford : They are printed copies of the old 
Constitution and of the amendments which were adopted, as I 
understand it. 



22 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : It seems to me that the suggestion 
of the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Gilmore) is quite sen- 
sible. I move that the convention do now adjourn. 

The motion prevailed. 

AFTERNOON. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Mr. Wallace of Milford introduced the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to procure five hun- 
dred copies of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of New 
Hampshire, to be printed and bound with the rules and method 
of procedure of this convention and the alphabetical list of 
members for the use of this convention. 

Mr. Wallace of Milford : At the close of the proceedings this 
morning I made a suggestion in regard to copies of the Con- 
stitution which are in the office of the secretary of state. I find, 
upon inquiry, that there are but few of those copies, not 
enough to go around in this convention. I also find upon exam- 
ination that those copies contain the Constitution as it was 
before it was amended in 1876, with the amendments which 
were proposed at that time, and not with the amendments which 
were adopted. Therefore I have offered the resolution which 
has just been read. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : Agreeably to my promise to the 
convention this forenoon, and in connection with the secretary 
and several other gentlemen, I had a conference with Mr. Put- 
ney, the representative of the state printer, and "he says that 
copies of the Constitution can be printed and delivered here so 
the convention can have them Tuesday morning, provided the 
manuscript is presented to the printer to-day, which I under- 
stand the secretary promises to do. Consequently they can be 
here in pamphlet form by Tuesday morning. 

The resolution was adopted. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1889. 23 

Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That article 3, part 2, of the Constitution, relating 
to the General Court, be amended by striking out the word 
"June " and inserting the word " January." 

On motion of Mr. Rowell of Keene, the resolution was laid 
on the table pending the appointment of the committees. 

The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Smith of 
Manchester : 

Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended as to provide 
that in all elections of civil officers by the people of this State, 
whose election is provided for by the Constitution, the person 
having the highest number of votes shall be deemed and declared 
to be elected. 

On motion of Mr. Rowell of Keene, the resolution was laid 
on the table pending the appointment of committees. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I move that the proposed amend- 
ment be referred to the Committee of the Whole. I do not pro- 
pose that this convention now go into Committee of the Whole, 
but that this proposition be considered in the first place in Com- 
mittee of the Whole. It presents the naked question whether 
certain officers whose election is provided for by the Constitution 
shall be elected by a majority or plurality vote. I see no advan- 
tage in sending that proposition to a committee of twenty to get 
their opinion in the first instance. The proposition is of such a 
character that I think the convention is able to consider it with 
as much advantage as if it was referred to a special committee. 
Therefore, if during the afternoon we have no other business, I 
will move that the convention go into Committee of the Whole 
for the purpose of considering it. We are all anxious to employ 
the time at our disposal in the consideration of as many of the 
proposed amendments as possible this week, in order that we may 
adjourn at the earliest possible day. 

Mr. Pitman of Conway : I trust that it will take that direction. 
The vote whereby the resolution was tabled pending the ap- 



24 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

pointment of committees was reconsidered, and the resolution 
laid on the table to be considered in Committee of the Whole. 

On motion of Mr. Bickford of Manchester, the following res- 
olution was adopted : 

Resolved, That a Committee on Mileage be appointed by the 
chair, consisting of one member from each county. 

Mr. Kelley of Weare offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to procure for the 
use of each of the delegates and officers of this convention one 
copy of either of the daily papers published in Concord, and a 
copy of one other daily paper published in this State outside of 
Concord, and that each delegate and officer of the convention 
place upon paper and give to the secretary the names of the two 
daily papers he desires to read ; and also that the papers receiv- 
ing the patronage of this convention be requested to print the 
rules adopted to-day in to-morrow's issue. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : If one or two gentlemen prefer a cer- 
tain paper and no one else wants it, that paper would be required 
to publish a good deal that it might not wish to publish. If 
everybody was of my opinion we should take the two newspapers 
here in Concord and that would be the end of it. 

The resolution was rejected. 

A. J. Shurtleff of Concord was qualified as official stenogra- 
pher for the convention. 

Mr. Felker of Rochester introduced the following resolution : 

Resolved, By this convention that article 6 of the Bill of 
Rights be amended by striking out the word " Protestant." 

On motion of Mr. Danforth of Concord, the resolution was 
laid upon the table pending the appointment of committees. 

Mr. Baker of Lebanon offered the following resolution, which 
was adopted : 

Resolved, That the president be authorized to appoint two 
pages and also a teller for each division of the house. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1889. 25 

On motion of Mr. Smith of Manchester, the convention re- 
solved itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the resolu- 
tion relating to the election of civil officers by a plurality vote. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Briggs of Manchester in the chair.) 

The resolution offered by Mr. Smith of Manchester, provid- 
ing for the election of civil officers by a plurality vote, was 
considered. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : Mr. Chairman, It may be ex- 
pected that inasmuch as I introduced this proposition for amend- 
ing the Constitution, I should say a few words in its favor. I 
wish to say in the outset that I do not come here with any special 
preparation for advocating this measure. The reasons which I 
shall give will be those which may occur to me upon the spur of 
the moment. 

The proposition which has been read is an exact copy of an 
article in the Constitution of Massachusetts. There are at least 
three sets of officers which the Constitution of New Hampshire 
provides shall be elected by a majority of votes. The officers are 
the governor, members of the council, and senators. I am not 
certain whether there is a provision requiring representatives to the 
General Court to be elected by a majority vote. That can be 
easily ascertained by an inspection of the Constitution. The naked 
issue this proposition presents is this : Is it expedient that New 
Hampshire shall adhere to the rule that has governed it for a 
century requiring a majority vote for the election of those officers, 
or shall they be elected by a plurality vote? I suppose the gen- 
eral purpose is this : to get as near as we can to the popular voice, 
and the theory of a majority vote is that the majority should 
rule. Of course we all agree to that proposition ; but it some- 
times happens that the people fail to indicate by a majority of 
votes whom they will have to fill these offices. The result is 
either that there must be a new election, or that in some other way 
the vacancy must be provided for. Now in regard to the gov- 
ernor, the Constitution provides that the Legislature in joint 



26 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

convention shall elect one of the two highest candidates. If the 
Legislature should elect the candidate who has the smaller num- 
ber of votes, I suppose all will agree that such an election does 
not come so near the popular voice as it would if the one who had 
the larger number of votes was elected ; so, if the theory is that 
we are to get as near to the voice of the people as we can, the 
person who gets the highest number of votes should be elected. 
Now in regard to senators, the Constitution provides that the 
Legislature in joint convention shall elect one of the two highest- 
candidates ; and the same remarks will apply to senators as to 
governor. If we are to get the closest to the popular voice that 
we can, the person who has the highest number of votes should 
be declared elected. The Constitution has another provision, 
that whenever there is a vacancy in the office of senator by death, 
resignation, or otherwise, the Legislature shall from the two re- 
maining candidates who received the highest number of votes 
elect one to fill the office for the remainder of the term. It- 
has more than once happened that in making such choice the 
Legislature has elected a candidate who received a very small 
number of votes, perhaps less than ten. Every one will admit 
that the election of such a person does not come very near the 
popular voice. 

Now I believe, although I have not gone through the consti- 
tutions of the various States of this Union, I believe that in 
most of them the plurality rule prevails. Massachusetts a score 
of years ago adopted the plurality rule. Our sister State of 
Maine adopted it some ten years ago. Wherever it has been 
adopted I do not remember that it has ever been abandoned. 
Viewing the question upon all its sides, I have come to the con- 
clusion that if the candidate who receives the highest number of 
votes shall be declared elected we shall as a rule come nearer to 
the popular voice than in any other mode. 

New Hampshire has partially tried this rule. It has applied it 
to the election of members of Congress ; and for many years (I 
do not remember how many) our members of Congress have been 
elected by a plurality of votes. I have heard no complaint from 
any source that the plurality rule has not worked to the satisfac- 
tion of the people. I believe the candidates for presidential 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1889. 27 

electors are also elected in the same way ; I do not wish to speak 
with absolute certainty for I have not examined the statutes. My 
friend from Atkinson (Mr. Todd) informs me that this is so. 
We have also applied the plurality rule to the election of city 
officers, and my recollection is that in all the cities of this State 
the officers chosen by the people are elected by a plurality vote. 
New Hampshire also extended the rule to the election of officers 
of school districts before it abandoned the school district system. 
It has also extended the principle to the election of moderators 
in town meetings, because it was found that frequently the whole 
day and sometimes two or three days were consumed in the elec- 
tion of a moderator at the annual meeting when the majority rule 
prevailed. So far as I can learn, no dissatisfaction has been ex- 
pressed with the change. So, New Hampshire is taking no new 
departure if it adopts this rule. 

Possibly a person may be found inquiring " How will this 
affect my political party ?" The answer is obvious. Sometimes 
the party will gain and sometimes it will lose by the operation of 
th / rule, but I think it may safely be assumed that upon the whole 
the gains will offset the losses ; but, however that may be, it is 
upon a higher plane that I would put this. I would exclude po- 
litical considerations altogether and put the question upon the 
broad principle that we want to get as near to the popular voice 
as we can in the choice of our officers ; and I believe that if we 
adopt the plurality rule we shall get nearer to the popular voice 
than in any other way. 

I am reminded by my friend from Conway (Mr. Pitman) that 
we have extended the plurality rule to the election of county 
officers ; so, it would seem that the election of governor, sena- 
tors, and councilors by a majority vote is the exception rather 
than the rule in this State at this day. 

I do not desire to precipitate this question upon the conven- 
tion. As there was no other business to engage our attention, I 
ventured to open the debate upon it, and if the convention is 
not ready to dispose of the question this afternoon I know of 
course it will go over to some future day. If the convention is 
ready to dispose of it this afternoon, we shall make so much, 
progress towards the disposal of the business that calls us here. 



:28 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Knapp of Somersworth : As no one seems ready to occupy 
the time, I will add one word to what has been said. It will not 
be expected that any person can have much to say upon this 
question without some opportunity to consider it. It has come 
upon us suddenly and we have had very little time to think about 
it, There are a few facts, however, to which I will call your at- 
tention. I have looked into the constitutions of nearly all the 
.States, and find that with the exception of four States, the gov- 
ernors are elected by a plurality, and those four States are New 
Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Outside 
of New England, every governor is elected by a plurality of 
votes. If what other people do should have any influence in di- 
recting our course, certainly this fact is important. As has been 
said here, Massachusetts began by a majority rule, but in 1855 
she came up to the point of adopting this amendment, and so 
far as I know it has worked satisfactorily. In Maine they have 
adopted the rule of electing the governor by a plurality, and are 
satisfied with it. No State has ever gone back to the majority 
rule after it has adopted the plurality rule. It is well known to 
all of us that at the time our Constitution was framed there were 
but two parties, no one thought of more than two parties ; 
great questions divided the people into two parties, and not into 
three or four. Since that time other questions have come up, 
and we have had other parties, third parties and fourth parties, 
and, for aught I know, we are likely to have third and fourth 
parties hereafter; so that the rule of majorities is not what it was 
in the early history of the State. It seems to me that now the 
only way we can have a majority rule is by adopting the plural- 
ity rule, at least, there is no way we can come so near the 
majority rule as through the plurality rule. Perhaps that sounds 
like a paradox, but what I mean is that when there is no possi- 
bility of electing by a majority, the next best way is to elect by 
a plurality. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I do not rise to discuss the ques- 
tion ; I have nothing that I wish to say upon it. It seems to 
me, however, that it is not advisable to take the sense of the 
committee at this time upon so important a question. It has 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1889. 29 

come up here this afternoon without notice; there may be gen- 
tlemen of the convention who would be glad to discuss it, and if 
there is no one who wishes to say any more about it at this sitting 
of the committee, I move that the committee rise, report pro- 
gress, and ask leave to sit again. 

The motion prevailed, and the committee arose. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester, chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, reported that the committee had had under considera- 
tion the resolution providing for the election of civil officers by 
a plurality vote, but had not concluded the same, and asked 
leave to sit again. 

Leave was granted. 

Mr. Hadley of Concord : Representation has been made to 
myself and probably to other members of the Committee on 
Rules and Method of Procedure that the time limited for intro- 
ducing amendments, which is fixed as Tuesday morning, had 
better be changed to Wednesday morning. Good and sufficient 
reasons having been presented to me, I would move the reconsid- 
eration of the vote by which those rules were adopted, and if the 
motion prevails, I will then move to amend by inserting 
Wednesday in the place of Tuesday. 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : What are the reasons for Wednes- 
day instead of Tuesday ? 

Mr. Hadley : The reasons are that quite a number of business 
men may be detained away and cannot be present conveniently, 
and they wish an opportunity to present amendments. 

Mr. Dan forth of Concord : Could not the purpose be reached 
quicker by moving to amend the rules by changing Tuesday to 
Wednesday? 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester: I suppose those rules, having been 
passed, cannot be reconsidered until they are brought back 
before the convention. 



30 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Hadley : That is what I supposed, and the reason I made 
the motion. 

The motion of Mr. Hadley to reconsider the vote whereby the 
rules were adopted prevailed. 

Mr. Hadley moved to amend the report of the committee by 
inserting in the twelfth rule Wednesday in the place of Tuesday. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : Upon reflection it seems to me that 
this motion to amend ought not to prevail. Next Tuesday is 
late enough for the admission of proposed amendments if the 
convention is to adjourn next week, as we all hope and trust it 
certainly will. If there is any gentleman who has private busi- 
ness on Tuesday, I think he can arrange with some other mem- 
ber to present any amendment which he wishes to propose ; and 
there is also an outlet in the plan recommended by the commit- 
tee that by unanimous consent or upon recommendation of 
one of the committees new amendments may come in later. I 
think we had better not change the plan that was adopted this 
morning. 

Mr. Abbott of Winchester : It seems to me that as a deliber- 
ative body we should take sufficient time for the purpose of intro- 
ducing amendments. As has been stated here and as must be 
well known to the business men of this convention, upon Tues- 
day next there are more corporation meetings in the State of 
New Hampshire than I was going to say, than upon all the 
other days of the year, and many will be obliged to be away 
attending to their business until Tuesday night. It seems to me 
that one day cannot seriously retard the progress of this conven- 
tion. Let us act deliberately and take sufficient time. I believe 
that the introduction of amendments should be permitted until 
Wednesday night. Instead of hindering this convention I think 
it would expedite business. 

The question being stated, the motion prevailed. 

Mr. Rowell of Keene moved that the convention adjourn. 

The motion was rejected. 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 31 

Mr. Woolson of Lisbon moved that when the convention ad- 
journs it adjourn until Friday at 10.45 A - M - 

The motion did not prevail. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : I dislike very much to fly in the 
face of the inevitable, but prior to the motion to adjourn, the 
secretary had asked me to move an adjournment in order that he 
might get his copy ready to go down to the public printer at 5 
o'clock. It would facilitate business, because we might otherwise 
lose a whole day. I was about to make that motion, and I would 
move that the convention do now adjourn. 

The motion prevailed, and the convention adjourned. 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 
The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 
The journal of Thursday was read and approved. 
The president announced the appointment of tellers as follows : 

Division i. Manahan of Hillsborough. 

2. Emery of Auburn. 

3. Brown of Nashua. 

4. Hoit of Nashua. 

5. Danforth of Concord. 

The president announced the appointment of pages as follows : 
Lewis C. Patterson of Concord and Leon Coleman of Cole- 
brook. 

The president laid before the convention the following com- 
munication : 



32 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

To Hon. Charles H. Bell : 

The executive committee of the Woman's Christian Tem- 
perance Union beg leave to appear before the honorable the 
constitutional convention, Friday morning, January 4, at n 
o'clock, to present the subject of an amendment to the Constitu- 
tion prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. 

J. R. CARPENTER, 
In behalf of the W. C. T. U. 
JANUARY 3, 1889. 

Mr. Beckford of Laconia : I move that the Woman's Christian 
Temperance Union be permitted to appear before this convention 
at the hour named in the communication. 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : I think it important to do what 
business we can this morning. I am in favor of listening to 
these ladies, but some members of the convention may desire to 
leave before they conclude their remarks. I think some later 
hour might accommodate them and be better for us. I would 
suggest either half-past one this afternoon or 12 o'clock this fore- 
noon. I propose half-past one this afternoon as an amendment ; 
or it may be that some earlier hour would accommodate them 
better, and perhaps there is some gentleman here who is able to 
speak for them. 

Mr. Beckford : I accept the amendment. 
The motion as amended prevailed. 

On motion of Mr. Bartlett of Manchester, it was voted that 
when the convention adjourns this forenoon it adjourn to meet 
at half-past one this afternoon. 

On motion of Mr. Davis of Hopkinton, it was voted viva voce 
that when the convention adjourns this afternoon it adjourn to 
meet on Monday at 7 o'clock p. M. An amendment by Mr. 
Hoit of Nashua fixing the time of adjournment at 3 o'clock 
p. M., Monday, instead of 7 o'clock p. M., was accepted by Mr. 
Davis, and the motion prevailed, on a division. 

Mr. Beckford of Laconia introduced the following resolution : 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 33 

Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to procure for the 
use of the delegates and officers of the convention three hundred 
and fifty copies;each of the "Daily Monitor," " Daily Patriot," 
Manchester "Union," and "Daily Mirror," from January 7 
(Monday) until the close of the convention. 

Mr. Beckford : There has never been a legislative body assem- 
bled in this hall up to this time which has not taken the daily 
papers of our State. It seems to me that we can ill afford to pass 
by this precedent. It is penurious not to take the papers. We 
have spent more money in debating this question up to this time 
than we should in taking all four of these papers. These papers 
have shown enterprise ; they have sent here four expert reporters 
and, as I understand, a short-hand reporter. Now, we are not 
obliged to read all these papers. If my Republican friends can- 
not stand the " Patriot," they need not read it; it has given me 
a good many hard raps, but I can enjoy reading it. The bill 
will be very small probably not what one of these reporters is 
paid. It seems to me the resolution ought to pass without dis- 
cu: sion. Let us, as all legislative bodies have done in the past, 
vote to take these papers, and let them be placed upon our desks 
from next Monday until the close of the convention. 

Mr. Laighton of Manchester : A resolution of like nature was 
tabled on my motion yesterday. That bill will amount to twenty- 
five dollars a day to this convention. Now, doubtless, members 
of this convention have been members of legislative bodies of 
this State, and doubtless they have seen these papers brought in 
here, piled on their desks, not opened, merely brushed away and 
carried off. Now, it seems to me that it is unnecessary for this, 
convention, supposed to be a conservative body of men and who 
doubtless have criticised legislatures for doing this same thing, 
to take so many papers when we all know that three fourths of 
the members will read the morning papers before they appear in 
this convention. Three of those papers are merely evening edi- 
tions ; one of them is a morning paper. Now, I do not believe 
that it is economy to do anything of the kind. To be sure this 
is a short session, but our action establishes a precedent for future 
legislative bodies assembled here. They will say, " The consti- 

3 



34 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

tutional convention did so, and it is well enough for us to do 
likewise." It seems to me it will be just as well not to have 
these papers encumbering our desks. The rustling of papers dis- 
turbs the proceedings, and we are not here for the purpose of 
reading newspapers. 

The resolution was rejected. 

Mr. Farnham of Stewartstown offered the following resolution, 
which on motion of Mr. Davis of Hopkinton was laid upon the 
table : 

Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to procure three 
hundred and fifty copies each of the Concord " Daily Monitor," 
and the Manchester " Union " for the use of the convention be- 
ginning Monday, January 7. 

Mr. Beckford of Laconia introduced the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the secretary procure, for the use of the mem- 
bers of the convention, three hundred and fifty copies each of 
the Concord " Daily Monitor " and Manchester " Union." 

Mr. Beckford : I hope this resolution will pass. We have 
spent money enough talking about the matter to pay for these 
papers. It costs ten dollars every minute you delay. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : In order to save time I move that 
this resolution be laid on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table prevailed. 

The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Cross of 
Manchester : 

Resolved, That part second of the Constitution be amended 
by providing that the General Court shall have power to exclude 
from the privilege of voting or being eligible to office any person 
convicted of crime. 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : I do not propose to discuss this 
question now, but merely to bring it to the attention of the con- 
vention and then ask that it be referred to its appropriate com- 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 35 

mittee. My attention was called to this matter by Professor 
Colby, of Dartmouth College, who is professor of law in that 
institution and the successor of Minister Phelps (our minister 
to England) as lecturer in the law department of Yale Col- 
lege. I think Professor Colby has written to some other gentle- 
men, members of this convention, calling their attention to this 
matter. You are aware that by the Constitution " every male 
inhabitant of each town, and parish with town privileges, and 
places unincorporated, in this State, of twenty-one years of age 
and upward, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying 
taxes at their own request," have a right to vote. There is no 
other exception than that of paupers and persons excused from 
paying taxes. In all the States except New Hampshire there is 
a provision, either in the Constitution or the statute law, excluding 
criminals from the right to vote. I have an extract from the 
Constitution of Ohio, which reads in this way : " The General 
Assembly shall have power to exclude from the privilege of voting 
or of being eligible to office any person convicted of bribery, 
perjury, or other infamous crime." They have a like provision 
in Illinois, in Alabama, in Indiana, in Iowa, in Minnesota, in 
New York, and in West Virginia. Many States insert this in 
their Constitution. Other States give to the Legislature the 
power to exclude criminals from the right to vote. I have drawn 
this resolution broadly, using the term "crime." In many of 
the States they exclude those who are convicted of bribery, per- 
jury, arson, burglary, and various other crimes. To-day if the 
men confined in the state prison could come out they would 
have a legal right to vote. The men confined in the prisons of 
this State have a legal right to-day to vote. They are enemies of 
our free institutions. If they defy the law, if they bring dis- 
grace upon themselves and upon the State, what is our duty, 
acting in the interests of our people? Shall we allow the same 
rights to those men who have forfeited their rights ? Shall we 
allow them to vote and be elected ? I have brought this to the 
attention of the convention, Mr. President, and I ask that it be 
referred to its appropriate committee and there considered. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I would like to ask the gentleman 
from Manchester (Mr. Cross) if he understands it would be in- 



36 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

competent now for the Legislature to provide that such disability 
and incapacity should attach to persons convicted of crime. 

Mr. Cross : I do so understand it, and I desire that it go to 
one of the committees because I have made this provision broad, 
using the word "crime," and upon conference it might be 
thought best to use the words burglary, arson, and various names 
rather than the broad term " crime." 

On motion of Mr. Cross the resolution was laid on the table, 
pending the appointment of committees. 

The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Davis of 
Hopkinton : 

Resolved, That article 28 of the Constitution be amended so 
as to read : " No person shall have the right to vote or be eligi- 
ble to office under the Constitution of this State who shall not be 
able to read the Constitution in the English language, and write 
his name ; provided, however, that the provisions of this amend- 
ment shall not apply to any person prevented by a physical disa- 
bility from complying with its requisitions, nor to any person 
who now has a right to vote, nor to any person who shall be 
sixty years old or upwards at the time this amendment shall take 
effect." 

On motion of Mr. Davis, the resolution was laid on the table, 
pending the appointment of the committees. 

The following resolution was introduced by the same gentle- 
man : 

Resolved, That article 39 of the Constitution be amended by 
striking out the words, "and, in like manner, all vacancies in 
the Senate arising by the death, removal out of the State, or 
otherwise shall be supplied as soon as may be after such vacancies 
happen," and insert, "any other vacancy in the Senate shall be 
filled by election by the people of the unrepresented district 
upon the order of a majority of the senators elected." 

Mr. Davis : Mr. President, This amendment proposes to 
change the form of filling vacancies in the Senate caused by 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 37 

death, removal out of the State, or in any other way, except 
where there is no election. Now, where there is no election, the 
Legislature is required to make an election from the two highest 
candidates that have been supported at the election ; and the 
Constitution also provides that all other vacancies shall be filled 
in the same way. For instance, if a senator dies the Legislature 
is obliged to elect from the two highest remaining candidates 
who were in the field at the time. This change provides that 
where a vacancy occurs by a death there shall be an election to 
fill such vacancy instead of the former method. 

On motion of Mr. Davis, the resolution was laid on the table. 

Mr. Craig of Rumney presented a petition of Lyman Merrill 
and thirty-five others, citizens of Rumney, asking that the Con- 
stitution be so amended that justices of the peace should have 
exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil causes where the debt 
or damage does not exceed $100 and the title of real estate is not 
concerned, but with right of appeal to either party to some other 
cour;. 

The petition, on motion of Mr. Lyman of Exeter, was laid 
upon the table. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That there shall be biennially elected a lieutenant- 
governor, whose title shall be His Honor, and who shall be qual- 
ified in point of age and residence in the same manner with the 
governor, and the manner of his election and the qualifications 
of the electors shall be the same as are required in the election of 
a governor. The return of the votes for this officer and the dec- 
laration of his election shall be in the same manner. 

Whenever the chair of the governor shall become vacant by 
reason of his death, absence from the State, or otherwise, the 
lieutenant-governor for the time being shall, during said vacancy, 
perform all the duties incumbent upon the governor, and shall 
have and exercise all the powers and authorities which, by this 
Constitution, the governor is vested with when personally 
present. 



38 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Whenever the chair both of the governor and lieutenant- 
governor shall become vacant, by reason of their death or other- 
wise, the president of the Senate shall, during such vacancies, 
have and exercise all the powers and authorities which by this 
Constitution the governor is vested with when personally pres- 
ent ; but when the president of the Senate shall exercise the office 
of governor he shall not hold his office in the Senate. 

The lieutenant-governor shall be president of the Senate, but 
shall have no vote unless it be equally divided. 

The Senate shall choose its other officers, and also a president 
pro tempore in the absence of the lieutenant-governor, or when 
he shall exercise the office of governor. 

On motion of Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam, the convention 
resolved itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the res- 
olution in regard to changing the time of holding the sessions of 
the Legislature. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Woolson of Lisbon in the chair.) 

The proposed amendment relative to changing the time of 
holding sessions of the Legislature from June to January under 
consideration. 

Mr. Blake : I do not propose to occupy much of the time of 
the committee in discussing this important proposed amendment 
of the Constitution. I think it is generally understood, and 
generally conceded, that the proposed amendment was one of 
the prime objects for which this convention was called. When 
the question was submitted to the people by the act of the Legis- 
lature, whether it was expedient that a convention be called to 
revise the Constitution, when the legal voters in the various 
wards and towns of this State were asked to vote upon' that ques- 
tion, the inquiry was, What is the object of the convention? 
and the universal answer was that one of the prime objects 
one of the first objects of the convention would be to change 
the time of the meeting of the Legislature from June to January. 

The natural inquiry is, What is the object of this change ? 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 39 

One objection to the assembling of the Legislature in June since 
the change to biennial sessions is that twice in every six years a 
vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator from the 
4th of March to the assembling of the Legislature the following 
June. If this proposed amendment is adopted it will obviate 
that difficulty, and the State of New Hampshire will then be rep- 
resented in the United States Senate by a senator elected by the 
Legislature of the State, instead of one appointed by the execu- 
tive to fill a vacancy twice occurring in every six years. 

There are a great many other advantages and reasons why the 
time of assembling the Legislature should be changed from the 
first Wednesday of June to the first Wednesday of January. It 
is well known that since the adoption of our Constitution a hun- 
dred years ago the modes of traveling in New Hampshire have 
materially changed. At that time the members of the Legisla- 
ture were obliged to travel on foot or on horseback, and it would 
take from five to eight days for representatives from Northumber- 
land,. Stewartstown, or Clarksville to arrive at the capital of the 
State, and it would have been almost impossible for them to 
travel during the month of January. This objection is now 
done away with by the railroads and the other means of convey- 
ance. 

Then, again, it is well known by this body that the great 
majority of the members of the Legislature of New Hampshire 
are farmers, who can better leave their farms in the month of 
January to come here and attend the session of the Legislature, 
which will generally be expected to adjourn before the com- 
mencement of the warm summer months. And thus, in a great 
many instances there will be shorter sessions, and considerable 
expense to the State will be saved. There are many other rea- 
sons why this change should be made, which perhaps it is not 
necessary that at this sitting of the committee I should take the 
time to explain. This is a very important amendment, and I 
think if made it will be ratified by the people without any 
doubt whatever. 

Mr. Walker of Concord : There are one or two other consid- 
erations that may as well be discussed in connection with this 
proposition. I suppose it would be for the advantage of the 



40 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

people of this republic if all the legislatures of the different 
States were in session at one and the same. time. That has been 
felt for a great while, and the state legislatures have been gravi- 
tating, imperceptibly perhaps, but all the while gravitating to 
winter sessions. There is an advantage in having the representa- 
tive bodies of this republic in session at the same time, if it can 
be done without great inconvenience, for various reasons. There 
was a time twenty-five years ago when we were in a very dis- 
turbed condition in this republic of ours, and exigencies were 
liable to arise when it was necessary to have legislative action, 
and to have it immediately. Now, if that legislative action 
could be had simultaneously, a great advantage would accrue, 
and if it was demanded, under the present condition of things, 
during the winter when most other legislatures are in session, 
the New Hampshire Legislature would have to be assembled by a 
special call. We can, as a people, act better if we are all in ses- 
sion at the same time through the whole country, and at the 
same time that Congress is in session. I do not know that I 
have made my point clear, but I think if I have you will see that 
there is force in it, that there is an advantage in having the 
sessions of the various legislatures assembled at the same time ; 
and that we are gravitating towards that imperceptibly means 
something. It means that there is an advantage. 

Mr. Barton of Newport : Twelve years ago I happened to be 
a member of the constitutional convention, and I happened to 
be one this year. Now the ground that I then took in favor of 
changing the time of the meeting of the Legislature from June 
to January, and the reasons I gave then, I have now. I agree 
with the mover of this resolution (Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam) 
that we ought to change the time from June until sometime in 
the winter. At the former convention we urged the change to 
January, and I am for January now. The reasons for the change 
lie on the surface ; every intelligent man who has thought upon 
this subject apprehends them, and I have no doubt that nearly 
every one has come to the conclusion that the change ought to 
be made. We should have carried the measure twelve years ago 
if it had not been for the influence of the president, who left his 
place and came down on the floor and made a convincing argu- 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 41 

ment against it and in favor of retaining the old time. Scarcely 
had the convention adjourned before there was a feeling that we 
had made a mistake. One reason was the same that the gentle- 
man from Fitzwilliam, I think, has stated here, the senatorial 
question. And there was another reason why I urged it then and 
why I urge it now : we are in a better condition to legislate at 
this season of the year than we are in June. I think this conven- 
tion here is in better trim for action than it would be in the 
spring. We want good legislation, and we can secure it better 
at this season of the year than we can in the spring or in the 
summer. 

Now I am not going to occupy the attention and time of the 
convention by going into details. As I said, the reasons lie on 
the surface. One of the reasons I urged then and I urge now is 
that the time is too long between the election and the sitting of 
the Legislature. I am glad that the proposition we then urged 
has been vindicated by the expression I have seen manifested 
outside this convention and inside the convention, and I hope 
the change will be made. One of the reasons urged against the 
change was that this hall could not be warmed in the winter. 
Now I think it is too warm here this very minute for any of us ; 
so it is proved that there will be no trouble in getting the hall 
warm enough. One of the reasons urged against the change was 
if we were here in the winter season we should stay here longer 
than we ought. I have been here a great many times when it 
was very warm ; I have seen members of the Legislature who 
ought to have been in the house out under the trees lying around 
in different places because it was so warm inside. It was often 
difficult to get a quorum because it was so warm here the mem- 
bers had rather take the outside than the inside. Now if we meet 
here in the winter season the hall can be warmed, and I submit 
that when one is braced up by the cold weather he can think 
better and work better than he will in the spring when the whole 
system is relaxed. These are my reasons for changing the time 
of holding the Legislature from June to January, and I approve 
of the first Wednesday of January as provided in the resolution. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I am not in favor of presenting 
.many amendments to the people for ratification, but I am in 



42 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

favor of presenting this. I am satisfied that this convention 
would not now be here if it had not been for so much dissatis- 
faction with the time of holding the sessions of the Legislature, 
and chiefly because the time provided by the Constitution is in 
antagonism with, I might say nullification of, a law of the 
United States. My opinion is that January is the best of all 
times for the Legislature to assemble. My opinion also is that 
the first Wednesday of January is the best of all the days in Jan- 
uary. As no gentleman has yet given any statistics in regard to 
when other legislatures meet, I will say that in two thirds of the 
States the legislatures meet in January, and of those which meet 
in January in half of the States they meet the first week in Jan- 
uary. The tendency is, as the gentleman from Concord has said, 
to adopt January, and changes will be made from time to time, 
and it is my judgment that the time is not far distant when all or 
nearly all the legislatures will meet in January. I am heartily 
in favor of this amendment. It is what the people expected from 
this convention when they voted in favor of calling it. If they 
got nothing else they expected this, and I hope that it will be 
adopted. 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : I think that years ago I do not 
know how long ago the New Hampshire Legislature did meet 
in the winter. I wish some one would give the reasons for the 
change. As to what the people want, I do not think they wanted 
this convention at all. Out of about ninety thousand voters 
there were only twenty-one thousand who cared enough about a 
convention to vote at all, and of those I think about eleven 
thousand voted in favor of it and ten thousand against it. As I 
said, I would like to know the reasons why the change was made 
from the winter to the summer if anybody can tell. 

Mr. Barton of Newport : I would inquire if that was only a 
special session? If at any time since we adopted the Constitu- 
tion we have ever had regular sessions in the winter, I did not 
know it. 

Mr. Hadley of Concord : As I understand it, every four years, 
for the purpose of apportionment, there was a special session of 
the Legislature held in the winter. 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 43 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : The gentleman (Mr. Hadley) is right. 
It was for the apportionment of the state tax, and that continued 
in practice to the time when Mr. Thomas L. Tullock was secre- 
tary of state. They had a committee appointed at the regular 
session to prepare the tax and then they met in the fall to pass 
the bill. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : Before this question is put I would 
like to say a word in regard to it. There has been some talk 
perhaps not a great deal about changing to annual sessions 
from biennial sessions ; also about changing the manner of com- 
pensating the members of the Legislature from a per diem to a 
salary. But there is another thing of minor importance that I 
did wish to speak about, and that is in regard to the day of 
assembling the Legislature. My idea is that perhaps it would not 
be best to fix that day absolutely on the first Wednesday of Jan- 
uary, because we are now getting to consider that the holidays 
run from Christmas to the first of January, and sometimes, of 
course, the first Wednesday of January might come on the first 
day of the month. For that reason I would move this amend- 
ment to the resolution, I move to substitute " the Wednes- 
day after the first Monday of January " in the place of " the first 
Wednesday of January." 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : I did not propose to say any- 
thing upon this question. I understand that the action of this 
committee is merely recommendatory to the convention. Now 
there are several other matters connected with this question which, 
after an expression of the sentiment of this committee, will have 
to be considered. Undoubtedly this committee is in favor of a 
change, and I know of no one against it. The gentleman from 
Hopkinton has suggested a matter for consideration. Another 
question is as to when this change shall first take place. You 
will have to shorten the term of the members of the next Legis- 
lature five months, the first meeting of the Legislature under the 
proposed amendment being in January, 1891. I merely mention 
these matters which will have to be considered in connection 
with the proposed change when the Committee of the Whole re- 
port to the convention in favor of the adoption of the amend- 
ment, as they undoubtedly will. 



44 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

The question being stated, the amendment proposed by Mr. 
Davis was rejected. 

The question recurred upon the adoption of the resolution 
offered by Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam. 

The question being stated, the resolution was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Bartlett of Manchester, ordered that the 
committee rise and report the resolution. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Woolson, chairman, reported that the Committee of the 
Whole had had under consideration the resolution providing for 
changing the time of holding the sessions of the Legislature from 
June to January, and had adopted the same and directed him to 
report the resolution to the convention. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : I suppose it will be necessary for 
the committee to meet again to consider this matter. I move 
that this report be laid on the table, subject to be taken up for 
discussion in the convention. 

The question being stated, the motion was rejected. 

Mr. Manahan of Hillsborough : I move that the report of the 
Committee of the Whole be adopted. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I suppose it will be necessary to the 
.adoption of this general resolution that it be read into the Con- 
stitution. There must be some provision for changing the 
phraseology of the Constitution as it will necessarily be changed 
by the incorporation of this amendment ; and I do not know 
about the practice. It occurred to me in looking over the rec- 
ords of the last constitutional convention that perhaps it might 
be convenient and proper to refer the matter to one of the stand- 
ing committees to be put in form, or some other committee 
might be created by the convention to fit it into the Constitu- 
tion. I do not know how many changes this general proposition 
may involve, but a general amendment of this character would 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 45^ 

naturally involve a number of changes in the phraseology. In 
this view I would renew the motion that the report lie upon the 
table for the present, so that some provision may be made for 
reading it into the Constitution. 

The President : I understand that the practice of the last con- 
vention was, after a general resolution had been reported from 
the Committee of the Whole, to send it to a special committee 
for the purpose of making the phraseology suitable to carry out 
the intent. Although our mode of procedure is not strictly the 
same as the procedure of that convention, it would seem as if 
that would be the natural course to take in this case. In form, 
the proposition, of course, as it comes before the convention, is 
a resolution. It must be modified to make it suitable for its 
object. 

Mr. Manahan of Hillsborough : I can see the wisdom of refer- 
ring this report to a proper committee, and I will withdraw my 
motion 

On motion of Mr. Ladd of Lancaster, the report was laid 
upon the table, to be referred to one of the standing committees 
after their appointment. 

On motion of Mr. Todd of Atkinson, the convention ad- 
journed. 

AFTERNOON. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Mr. Emery of Auburn offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to procure for the 
use of the officers and members of the convention three hundred 
and fifty copies of the " Daily Union," beginning with Monday, 
January 7, 1889, and continuing to the close of the session. 

The question being stated, a division was called for, and 
seventy-three having voted in the affirmative and one hundred' 
and ten in the negative, the resolution was rejected. 



46 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Gate of Henniker offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the Constitution of New Hampshire be so 
amended that the pay of members of the General Court be fixed 
at a stated salary, and that said salary be fixed at $300 per ses- 
sion, not including mileage. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid on 
the table, pending the appointment of the committees. 

On motion of Mr. Smith of Manchester, the convention went 
into Committee of the Whole to take into consideration the 
subject matter embraced in the letter received from the Woman's 
Christian Temperance Union. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Smith of Manchester in the chair.) 

The chair stated that the communication of Mrs. J. I. Car- 
penter, in behalf of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 
was before the committee for consideration. 

The committee was addressed by Mrs. H. M. Knox of Man- 
chester, Mrs. Mclntire of Exeter, and Mrs. Richardson of 
Amherst. 

Mrs. Knox presented and read the following petition : 

We, members of the executive committee representing the 
Woman's Christian Temperance Union of New Hampshire, 
most respectfully present the very great evils arising from the 
traffic and use of alcoholic and intoxicating drinks ; that by the 
nearly unanimous agreement of all those who have given atten- 
tion to these very great evils, and are seriously in earnest to alle- 
viate them, no method has yet been devised so nearly able to 
cope with them as the entire prohibition of the traffic in such 
beverages and the transport of the same through the State ; that 
to prevent agitation of the subject at every election, and because 
we believe it is the right thing to do, we deem it most desirable 
that such prohibition should be by constitutional enactment. 

We, therefore, respectfully pray your honorable body to pre- 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 47 

sent to the people of this State, to be adopted by them, an 
amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the manufacture or 
sale within this State of any liquor containing alcohol in any 
proportion, except the sale of approved liquors by agents duly 
appointed in behalf of respective towns for medicinal and me- 
chanical purposes only, and the transportation within this State 
of any such liquors except to and from such agents. 

We respectfully ask your body to submit the following to the 
people : That the manufacture, or sale, or keeping for sale, of 
any alcoholic or intoxicating liquors, whether brewed, fermented, 
or distilled, or any components thereof, or any compound of 
which such liquors constitute a part, to be used as a beverage, be 
prohibited within this commonwealth, but the manufacture and 
sale of such liquors, or compounds thereof, for the purposes other 
than a beverage shall be regulated by law. The general assem- 
bly, after the adoption of this article by the qualified electors of 
the commonwealth, shall without delay enforce its provisions by 
.adequate penalties. 

On motion of Mr. Ladd of Lancaster, the committee arose. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president in the chair.) 

Mr. Smith of Manchester, chairman, reported that the Com- 
mittee of the Whole had had under consideration the subject 
matter embraced in the communication of the Woman's Chris- 
tian Temperance Union, and reported progress. 

On motion of Mr. Smith of Manchester, the convention 
resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole for the considera- 
tion of the resolution providing for the election of civil officers 
by a plurality vote. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Briggs of Manchester in the chair.) 

The resolution being read and question stated, Mr. Lyman of 
Exeter submitted the following resolution, which the chair stated 
would be treated as a substitute for the pending resolution : 



48 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that any or all 
officers elected by the people may be elected by a plurality of 
votes whenever the Legislature shall pass a law to that effect. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I have nothing to say at this time 
with respect to either of these propositions, for the reason that I 
for one have not sufficiently considered them to make an intelli- 
gent choice between the two. I should be glad of a little more 
time for the consideration of the propositions, especially the one 
presented by the gentleman from Exeter (Mr. Lyman). I can 
see that that proposition would leave the Constitution in a hom- 
ogeneous form, so to speak; it would leave the whole matter to be 
disposed of by the Legislature. As the Constitution now stands, 
a portion of the civil officers of the State, governor, council- 
ors, and senators, must be elected by a majority vote. As to 
all other civil officers, as I understand it, the Constitution is 
silent ; it is left to be determined and fixed by the Legislature, 
and the Legislature has not adopted a uniform rule. As I re- 
member the statutes on the subject, quite a proportion of the 
town officers, perhaps all except the moderator, must be elected 
by a majority vote; and that is fixed by a statute passed by the 
Legislature. The other officers moderator of town meetings 
and county officers, as I understand, are elected by a plurality 
vote ; and that has all been arranged by statute, the Legislature 
exercising the power to arrange the mode as the people may 
desire. 

It seems to me that considerable might be said in favor of 
adopting the same rule as to all civil officers governor, coun- 
cilors, and senators as well as municipal officers, leaving to be 
fixed and determined by the Legislature, as may be found upon 
experiment to be most convenient, the arrangement of the de- 
tails in carrying on the scheme of government established by the 
Constitution. Of course we understand that the Constitution is 
very general in its terms, as it ought to be. In the first place, it 
establishes certain private rights of the citizens of the State in 
the Bill of Rights ; and then it provides in very general terms,, 
as I think it ought, for a scheme of government ; and it goes 
very little into detail. This provision that the governor, coun- 
cilors, and senators shall be elected by a majority vote, is one 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1889. 49 

of the few details that is fixed by the Constitution. Now, whether 
we had better seek uniformity in one direction or the other is a 
matter as to which I for one desire more time for consideration. 
It would make uniformity if the Constitution should provide that 
all civil officers in the State must be elected by a plurality vote. 
It would make uniformity, on the other hand, to strike all pro- 
visions on the subject out of the Constitution, leaving the whole 
matter within the range of legislative power. I for one am not 
prepared to vote upon the question at the present moment ; at any 
rate, I should prefer a little more time for consideration. Of 
course we should all be aided by discussion, and I have no doubt 
we should all be glad to hear from those gentlemen who have 
considered both views of the matter. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I do not wish to occupy the time of 
the committee. I am very much in the condition of my friend 
from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd) in relation to this subject. It is a 
pretty important matter. I offered this resolution because I 
wanted time to consider the subject myself and because I wished 
that this able body should consider the matter. My own im- 
pressions are, on general principles, that the details had better be 
left to the Legislature. If this proposition should be adopted by 
this convention and approved by the people, the Legislature 
could enact that all these officers should be elected by a plurality, 
and if it did not work well they could repeal the law and come 
back to the majority system. Or, if they found that the arrange- 
ment as it is now was working well, they might leave well enough 
alone and let it remain as it is. The proposition simply leaves 
the matter to the representatives of the people in Legislature as- 
sembled, untrammeled by any provision of the Constitution. 

Mr. Ladd : I am constrained to move, for the reasons I have 
already suggested, that if nothing more is to be said in committee 
at this time upon this proposition, the committee rise, report 
progress, and ask leave to sit again. 

The question being stated, the motion was adopted. 






50 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Briggs, chairman for the Committee of the Whole, stated 
that the committee had had under consideration the resolution 
providing for the election of civil officers by a plurality vote, 
reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. 

Leave was granted. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : In behalf of a friend I ask the 
indulgence of this convention. Mr. Manning, a delegate from 
Manchester, is somewhat deaf. I understand there is no objec- 
tion to his having a chair back of the stenographer, and I move 
that he have leave to occupy a chair at that place. 

The question being stated, the motion prevailed. 

On motion of Mr. Woolson of Lisbon, the convention ad- 
journed. 



MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1889. 
The convention met according to adjournment. 
(The president in the chair.) 

Prayer was offered by Rev. Wesley J. Wilkins of Moulton- 
borough. 

The journal was read and approved. 

The president announced the following standing committees : 

STANDING COMMITTEES. ' 

ON BILL OF RIGHTS AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Smith of Manchester, Hayes of Milton, 

Pillsbury of Derry, Little of Pembroke, 



MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1889. 51 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Drake of Gilford, Farrington of Rochester, 
Wilkins of Moultonborough, Shepard of New London, 

Bemis of Marlborough, Nutter of Barnstead, 

Richards of Newport, Pitman of Bartlett, 

Ruggles of Hanover, Rowell of Keene, 

Armington of Whitefield, Spaulding of Washington, 

Cone of Nashua, Smith of Haverhill, 

Todd of Atkinson, Smith of Lancaster. 

ON LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Briggs of Manchester, Child of Temple, 

Lyman of Exeter, Jones of Portsmouth, 

Young of Madbury, DeMerritt of Durham, 

Walker of Concord, Blodgett of Franklin, 

Melcher of Laconia, Sanborn of Sanbornton, 

Caiman of Brookfield, Nash of Conway, 

Amidon of Hinsdale, Willis of Swanzey, 

Sisson of Cornish, Morrill of Grantham, 

Woolson of Lisbon, Weeks of Canaan, 

Schoppe of Pittsburg, Garland of Jefferson. 

ON JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Hibbard of Laconia, Edgerly of Gilmanton, 

Page of Portsmouth, Cochran of Windham, 

McMahan of Dover, Knapp of Somersworth, 

Collins of Manchester, Davis of Amherst, 

George of Pittsfield, Young of Northfield, 

Pitman of Conway, Libbey of Wolfeborough, 

Randall of Chesterfield, Hersey of Keene, 

Stowell of Claremont, Smith of Sunapee, 

Rounsevel of Littleton, Roby of Bristol, 

Cummings of Colebrook, Collins of Milan. 



52 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

ON FUTURE MODE OF AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION, AND OTHER 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Ladd of Lancaster, Gove of Whitefield, 

Hatch of Greenland, Paul of South Newmarket, 

Fernald of Farmington, Wells of Somersworth, 

Brown of Nashua, Cross of Manchester, 

Sulloway of Franklin, Kimball of Concord, 

Pillsbury of Tilton, Thompson of Belmont, 

Sanborn of Wakefield, Barker of Effingham, 

Williams of Walpole, Abbott of Winchester, 

Marshall of Unity, Colby of Claremont, 

Smith of Plymouth, Lang of Orford. 

ON TIME AND MODE OF SUBMITTING TO THE PEOPLE THE AMEND- 
MENTS AGREED TO BY THE CONVENTION. 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Dole of Lebanon, Currier of Wentworth, 

Dudley of Brentwood, Bartlett of Raymond, 

Porter of Dover, Felker of Rochester, 

Wallace of Milford, Smith of Mont Vernon, 

Davis of Warner, Sullivan of Allenstown, 

Bennett of Alton, Webster of Meredith, 

Wiggin of Tamworth, Bennett of Tuftonborough, 

Blake of Fitzwilliam, Fletcher of Marlow, 

Barton of Newport, Davis of Acworth, 

Cole of Berlin, Sawyer of Columbia. 

The president appointed the following Committee on Mileage : 

COMMITTEE ON MILEAGE. 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Bickford of Manchester, Green of Stoddard and 

Brown of Exeter, Nelson, 

Berry of New Durham, Duncan of Plainfield, 

Davis of Hopkinton, Noyes of Bethlehem, 

Smith of New Hampton, Farnham of Stewartstown. 
Davis of Ossipee, 



MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1889. 53 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : I have an amendment to offer in 
regard to filling vacancies in the Senate. I did not know at the 
time I prepared it that there had been any amendment proposed 
in regard to the subject ; but as I think it is a little more compre- 
hensive, I venture to submit it : 

Resolved, That the Constitution of New Hampshire be so 
amended that all vacancies in the Senate arising from failure to 
elect, death, removal out of the State, or otherwise, shall be filled 
by a new election by the people by requisition of the governor 
as soon as may be after such vacancy shall happen. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legislative 
Department. 

Mr. Sisson of Cornish offered the following resolution, which 
was referred to the same committee : 

Resolved, That article 26 of the Constitution be amended by 
striking out the words " by the proportion of direct taxes paid 
by ihe said districts," and inserting therefor the words " by the 
legal voters in said district." 

Mr. Thompson of Belmont offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That article 99, part second of the Constitution of 
New Hampshire, relating to the method of future revisions of 
the Constitution, be amended as follows : 

Strike out the words " and proportioned as the representatives 
to the General Court " before the word " provided," and insert 
the words "as members of the State Senate, and each senatorial 
district shall be entitled to elect two delegates," so that the sec- 
tion as amended shall read as follows : 

" ARTICLE 99. It shall be the duty of the selectmen and 
assessors of the several towns and places in this State, in warning 
the first annual meetings for the choice of senators, after the ex- 
piration of seven years from the adoption of this Constitution as 
amended, to insert expressly in the warrant this purpose among 
the others for the meeting, to wit, to take the sense of the 
qualified voters on the subject of a revision of the Constitution ; 
and the meeting being warned accordingly, and not otherwise, 



54 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

the moderator shall take the sense of the qualified voters present 
as to the necessity for a revision ; and a return of the number of 
votes for and against such necessity shall be made by the clerk, 
sealed up, and directed to the General Court at their then next 
session ; and if it shall appear to the General Court by such 
return that the sense of the people of the State has been taken, 
and that, in the opinion of the majority of the qualified voters 
in the State, present and voting at said meetings, there is a 
necessity for a revision of the Constitution, it shall be the duty 
of the General Court to call a convention for that purpose ; 
otherwise, the General Court shall direct the sense of the people 
to be taken, and then proceed in the manner before mentioned, 
the delegates to be chosen in the same manner as members of 
the State Senate, and each senatorial district shall be entitled to 
elect two delegates ; provided, that no alterations shall be made 
in this Constitution before the same shall be laid before the 
towns and unincorporated places, and approved by two thirds of 
the qualified voters present and voting on the subject." 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Future Mode 
of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amend- 
ments. 

Mr. Farnham of Stewartstown offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That part second, article 9, of the Constitution be 
so amended that the mean increasing number of inhabitants 
necessary to entitle towns and wards in cities to elect more than 
one representative be eighteen hundred instead of twelve hundred. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legislative 
Department. 

On motion of Mr. Danforth of Concord, the resolution offered 
by Mr. Cate of Henniker, relative to fixing the salaries of 
members of the General Court, was taken from the table and 
considered. 

Mr. Davis of Bow offered the following amendment to the 
resolution : 

Amend by striking out the words " three hundred," and 



MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1889. 55 

inserting in place thereof the words " one hundred and seventy- 
five." 

The question being stated, on motion of Mr. Danforth of 
Concord the resolution was referred to the Committee on Legis- 
lative Department. 

The president laid before the convention the following com- 
munication from the secretary of the Woman's Christian Tem- 
perance Union : 

CONCORD, January 4, 1889. 
To the Honorable Constitutional Convention : 

At the close of the hearing this afternoon the representatives of 
the Woman's Christian Temperance Union halted in the rotunda 
and passed the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the thanks of the representatives of the New 
Hampshire Woman's Christian Temperance Union are hereby 
tendered to the honorable constitutional convention for the 
very courteous reception granted them this afternoon. 

CLARA E. ROWELL, 

Recording Secretary. 

On motion of Mr. Barton of Newport, all resolutions on the 
table were taken therefrom and referred as follows : 

To the Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Consti- 
tution and Other Proposed Amendments : 

The resolution relating to the qualifications of voters, intro- 
duced by Mr. Cross of Manchester. 

To the same committee : 

The resolution relating to the qualification of voters, intro- 
duced by Mr. Davis of Hopkinton. 

To the Committee on Legislative Department : 

The resolution presented by Mr. Davis of Hopkinton, relating 
to the method of filling vacancies in the Senate. 



56 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

To the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Depart- 
ment : 

The resolution of Mr. Lyman of Exeter, relating to the estab- 
lishment of the office of lieutenant-governor. 

The resolution introduced by Mr. Blake of Fitzvvilliam in 
regard to changing the time of assembling of the General Court 
was taken from the table and considered. 

The question being stated, the resolution was adopted and re- 
ferred to the Committee on Legislative Department. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I think the resolution needs some 
additional provisions before it goes to the committee ; and if 
the vote just passed can be recalled I will be prepared in the 
morning to offer by way of amendment such additional provi- 
sions as occur to me. 

On motion of Mr. Todd of Atkinson, the reference to the Com- 
mittee on Legislative Department was reconsidered and the res- 
olution was laid upon the table. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I fear that not only will there be 
no discussion and no progress made in the debate of any ques- 
tion to-day, but very little to-morrow, unless something can be 
done to forward the presentation of questions and have them in 
order for discussion in the convention. The plurality resolution 
is before the convention, and is to be referred, I suppose, to the 
Committee of the Whole again, and that may give rise to some 
discussion. I hope that it may be understood that everybody 
who wants to speak upon that resolution will be prepared to- 
morrow morning, and that question at least may be disposed of. 
What other question can be ready for discussion under the mode 
of procedure which has been adopted by the convention I do not 
know. The mode of procedure, in my judgment, is an errone- 
ous one ; but it has been adopted, and everything that is now 
before the convention, except the plurality resolution, is tied up 
in the committees; and it certainly cannot be expected that 
there will be any reports ready to-morrow morning, although it 



MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1889. 57 

may be that when the trains come in in the evening there will be 
a sufficient number of members of the committees present so that 
there can be some meetings of committees this evening and some 
resolutions reported. I hope, at least, that it may be understood 
that the plurality resolution will be ready for debate to-morrow 
morning, and that everybody who has anything to say about it 
will be prepared, so that the matter will not have to be delayed 
any longer. And I think all of us had better do everything that 
lies in our power to see that we are not obliged to remain here 
with no business ripe for discussion. I make the motion that the 
resolution providing for the election of civil officers by a plu- 
rality vote be made the special order for Tuesday morning, after 
the disposal of business under the general order. 

The motion prevailed. 

Mr. Walker of Concord offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That article 24 of part second of the Constitution 
of this State be amended by striking out the words " any one 
member," and inserting instead thereof the words " any four 
members in the Senate, or thirty members in the House," so that 
the article thus amended may read : 

" ARTICLE 24. The journals of the proceedings and all public 
acts of both houses of the Legislature shall be printed and pub- 
lished immediately after every adjournment or prorogation, and 
upon motion made by any four members in the Senate or thirty 
members in the House, the yeas and nays upon any question 
shall be entered on the journal, and any member of the Senate 
or House of Representatives shall have a right, on motion made 
at the same time for that purpose, to have his protest or dissent, 
with the reasons, against any vote, resolve, or bill passed, entered 
on the journal." 

On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was referred 
to Committee on Legislative Department. 

On motion of Mr. Woodman of Concord, the convention 
adjourned. 



58 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 
The journal of Monday was read and approved. 

RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED AND REFERRED. 

By Mr. Durgin of Concord, 

Resolved, That article 3 of part second be amended by striking 
out the word " biennially " and inserting in its place the word 
" annually," and also in all sections relating to the meetings of 
the General Court. 

Referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive 
Department. 

By Mr. Hadley of Concord, 

Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by substituting 
for articles 98, 99, 100, the following: "Any amendment or 
amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Gen- 
eral Court, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of 
the members elected to the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives, such proposed amendment or amendments shall then be 
entered on the journals of the two houses, with the yeas and nays 
taken thereon, and shall be referred to the Legislature then next 
chosen, and shall be duly published ; and if, in the Legislature 
next afterwards chosen, such proposed amendment or amendments 
shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each 
house, and the same be recorded on their journals, with the yeas 
and nays taken thereon, then it shall be the duty of the Legis- 
lature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the 
people, and if two thirds of the qualified voters of this State 
present and voting thereon at meetings legally warned and held 
for that purpose, shall approve and ratify the same, then such 
amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Consti- 
tution." 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 59 

On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid on 
the table to be considered in Committee of the Whole. 

By Mr. Davis of Warner, 

Resolved, That the Constitution be amended as follows : 
Amendments to the Constitution may be submitted to the people 
by the General Court, or any specific and particular amendment 
or amendments to the Constitution be proposed in the General 
Court and agreed to by two thirds of the members of each house 
present and voting thereon. Such proposed amendment or 
amendments shall be entered on the journals of the two houses, 
with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and shall be published with 
the laws passed at the same session ; and it shall be the duty of 
the General Court to submit such proposed amendment or amend- 
ments to the people at the next succeeding biennial election, and 
if they shall be approved and ratified by two thirds of the quali- 
fied voters voting therein, they shall become part of the Consti- 
tution of this State. 

On motion of Mr. Durgin of Concord, the resolution was laid 
on the table to be considered in Committee of the Whole. 

By Mr. Felker of Rochester, - 

Resolved, By this convention, that article 6 of the Bill of 
Rights be stricken out. 

Referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive 
Department. 

By Mr. Pitman of Conway, 

Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by adding at the 
end of article 73 the following words: "but in no case shall 
such removal be for political reasons," so that the provision in 
said article will read as follows: "Provided, nevertheless, the 
governor, with the consent of the council, may remove them 
upon the address of both houses of the Legislature, but in no 
case shall such removal be for political reasons." 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Future Mode 
of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments. 



60 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

By Mr. Smith of Manchester, 

Resolved, That article 10, part second, of the Constitution, be 
amended as follows : 

Strike out the following words: "And, in every such class, 
the first meeting shall be held in the town, place, or ward 
wherein most of the inhabitants reside, and afterwards in that 
which has the next highest number, and so on biennially in 
rotation through the several towns, places, and wards forming 
the district," and in place thereof insert the following: "And 
in every such class, the qualified voters shall biennially, in the 
month of November, within the towns, places, or wards where 
they respectively dwell, give in their votes for a representative. 
The manner of calling and conducting the meetings for the 
choice of representatives by such classes, and of ascertaining 
their election, shall be prescribed by law." 

On motion of Mr. Hibbard of Laconia, the resolution was 
referred to the Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : Why might not that resolution be 
laid on the table and referred to the Committee of the Whole 
with the resolutions previously introduced by the gentleman from 
Manchester on the subject of plurality elections ? I understood 
perhaps I misunderstood that the resolution was a provision 
for the election of representatives by plurality. 

The President : In classed towns and places, if I remember. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I have not the slighest objection 
to this resolution being considered in the Committee of the 
Whole. It has nothing whatever to do with the previous resolu- 
tion to which the gentleman from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard) refers. 
It simply provides that the inhabitants of classed towns may vote 
in their own towns instead of being obliged to travel ten, twenty, 
or forty miles to vote in another town. It does not touch the 
subject of plurality election. 

Mr. Hibbard : My understanding was that the gentleman 
intended that this amendment should be adopted if his resolution 
relating to plurality election should be adopted, and not other- 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 61 

wise. I therefore move that the vote whereby the resolution was 
referred to the Committee of the Whole be reconsidered. 

The motion prevailed. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was referred 
to the Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution 
and Other Proposed Amendments. 

By Mr. Whittier of Rochester, 

Resolved, That the Constitution of New Hampshire be so 
amended that the General Court may by special act divide towns 
containing more than three thousand inhabitants into voting 
precincts, and make necessary provision for the sorting, count- 
ing, and return of the ballots so cast. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Future Mode 
of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments. 

PETITIONS PRESENTED AND REFERRED. 

The following petitions, asking for an amendment to the Con- 
stitution enlarging the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, were 
presented and referred to the Committee on Judicial Depart- 
ment : 

By Mr. Smith of Plymouth, petition of W. W. Russell and 
fifty-nine others, citizens of Plymouth. 

By Mr. Craig of Rumney, petition of Lyman Merrill and 
thirty-five others, citizens of Warren. 

By Mr. Currier of Wentworth, petition of Samuel G. Currier 
and eighteen others, citizens of Wentworth . 

On motion of Mr. Danforth of Concord, the resolution offered 
by Mr. Felker of Rochester, proposing to strike the word " Prot- 
estant ' ' from the Bill of Rights, was taken from the table and 
referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive 
Department. 

Mr. Felker of Rochester presented the folio wing resolution : 



62 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Resolved, That the Constitution be amended so that justices of 
police courts shall be appointed by the Governor and Council 
for a term of five years instead of for life. 

Referred to the Committee on Judicial Department. 

Mr. Abbott of Winchester offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That all amendments to the Constitution before 
being acted upon shall be printed and laid upon the desks of the 
members of the convention. 

Mr. Abbott : It is not possible for the members in the back 
part of the hall to understand the motions and amendments as 
read from the desk. We cannot act understand ingly unless they 
are printed and distributed. I believe we would get along faster 
by so doing. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : That resolution might have the effect 
to delay matters that have already been referred to committees. 
The resolution says "all amendments." I do not know whether 
it is intended that every amendment that is proposed here shall 
be printed before any further action is taken, or exactly what the 
scope of the resolution may be. I would move, however, to 
amend the resolution so that it will not apply to matters that have 
already been referred to the committees. Perhaps it had better 
be so amended as not to apply to matters that have been already 
proposed in the convention. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : It appears to me that there are two 
difficulties here. One is that the gentlemen sitting in the back 
part of the hall cannot hear all that is said nor understand the 
proceedings on account of not hearing, and it would be very 
proper, of course, to have these resolutions printed and laid 
before them. The other difficulty is that such a course would 
delay us a good deal. Now, perhaps we had better suffer delay 
than compel men to vote upon what they do not understand. 
How would it do, I ask my friend from Winchester (Mr. 
Abbott), to have all the proposed amendments printed and laid 
upon the desks as soon as may be, without prohibiting ourselves 
absolutely from acting upon any of them before they have been 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 63 

thus printed and laid upon the desks? There may be a case 
where we might want to act upon one before the printers had 
prepared it. I simply want to get out of the difficulty and 
accommodate everybody if possible. 

Mr. Ladd : It strikes me that the suggestion of the gentleman 
from Exeter is better than the suggestion contained in my 
motion, and I withdraw my proposed amendment if there is no 
objection. 

The President : The amendment proposed by the gentleman 
from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd) is withdrawn. 

Mr. Lyman moved to amend as follows : 

Strike out the words "before being acted upon," and insert 
instead the words " as soon as may be." 

The question being stated, Mr. Manahan of Hillsborough 
moved to amend as follows : That it apply only to such pro- 
posed amendments as are reported back favorably from the com- 
mittees to which they are referred, or from the Committee of the 
Whole. 

The question recurred upon the amendment proposed by Mr. 
Lyman of Exeter. 

The question being stated, Mr. Hatch of Greenland moved to 
lay the resolution on the table. 

The motion was rejected. 

Mr. Page of Portsmouth moved as a substitute that copies of 
the Manchester "Daily Union" and of the Concord "Moni- 
tor ' ' be taken for the use of the members. 

The President : The substitute proposed is hardly germane. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I suppose all members of the conven- 
tion want to get a clear understanding of the measures that are 
proposed. It appears to me that if the amendment of the gen- 
tleman from Hillsborough prevails, proceedings will be delayed. 
Some gentlemen may want to vote for the original resolution and 
not for the report of the committee. The majority of the dele- 



64 JOUKNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

gates are not upon committees and they want the privilege of 
examining these matters, as well as those gentlemen who happen 
to be so placed ; therefore I hope that the amendment will not 
prevail. 

The question being stated, the amendment proposed by Mr. 
Manahan was rejected. 

The question recurred upon the amendment proposed by 
Mr. Lyman of Exeter. 

The question being stated, the amendment was adopted and 
the resolution passed. 

On motion of Mr. Baker of Lebanon, the following resolution 
was adopted : 

Resolved, That the president be authorized to appoint a com- 
mittee of ten, one from each county, on finance, to approve the 
accounts of the officers of the convention for their compensation. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : I am reminded that we have prob- 
ably made a mistake in rejecting the motion of the gentleman 
from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard) to order three hundred and fifty 
copies each of the " Monitor " and " Patriot." As the resolu- 
tion was laid on the table on my motion, I now move that it be 
taken from the table and considered. 

The question being stated, a division was called for with the 
following result : 

Thirty-nine having voted in the affirmative and ninety-seven 
in the negative, the motion did not prevail. 

On motion of Mr. Buxton of Boscawen, the following resolu- 
tion was adopted : 

Resolved, That committee rooms be assigned as follows : 

To Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department, 
room of sergeant-at-arms. 

To Committee on Legislative Department, hall of House. 
To Committee on Judicial Department, room No. i. 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 65 

To Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution 
and Other Proposed Amendments, senate chamber. 

To Committee on Time and Mode of submitting to the People 
the Amendments agreed to by the Convention, room No. 2. 

On motion of Mr. Cate of Henniker, the resolution offered by 
him fixing the salary of members of the Legislature, and all 
pending resolutions relating to the subject matter, was made a 
special order for consideration at half- past two in the afternoon. 

On motion of Mr. Davis of Hopkinton, the resolution intro- 
duced by Mr. Durgin of Concord, with reference to providing 
for annual sessions of the Legislature, was assigned for the con- 
sideration of the Committee of the Whole at the same hour. 

The President : By vote of the convention yesterday the sub- 
ject of election by plurality vote, the resolution introduced by 
the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith), was made the special 
order for consideration by the Committee of the Whole this 
mor ling immediately after the routine business was completed ; 
and that hour has now arrived. I wait a motion that the con- 
vention resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for that 
purpose. 

On motion of Mr. Lyman of Exeter, the convention resolved 
itself into a Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
the proposed amendment providing for the election of civil offi- 
cers by a plurality vote. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Hibbard of Laconia in the chair.) 

The resolution providing for the election of civil officers by a 
plurality vote under consideration. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I believe that the question is upon the 
adoption of the substitute offered by myself. 

The Chairman : There is pending before the committee a prop- 
osition to amend the pending resolution by substituting the fol- 



66 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

lowing resolution offered by the gentleman from Exeter (Mr. 
Lyman) : 

" Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that any or 
all officers elected by the people may be elected by a plurality of 
votes whenever the Legislature shall pass a law to that effect." 

The question is upon the proposed substitute in the nature of 
an amendment. Is the committee ready for the question ? 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : This is a question upon which we are 
all interested, and a question which should be duly considered. 
If the amendment offered by myself be adopted it will be in 
accordance with the Constitution as it now stands in relation to 
the election of county treasurer, register of probate, solicitor, 
sheriff, and register of deeds, and the provision is this: "Pro- 
vided, nevertheless, the Legislature shall have authority to alter 
the manner of certifying the vote and the mode of electing those 
officers, but not so as to deprive the people of the right they now 
have of electing them." 

It is well known that the Legislature represents the people of 
New Hampshire, in theory at least, and I have no doubt but gen- 
erally in practice. Now if we are to change this in the least, or 
to permit it to be changed, my impressions are that it would be 
better to leave it to the Legislature. I am not afraid to trust 
that body. I do not think the citizens of New Hampshire are 
afraid to trust it. When you put this into the Constitution you 
have got to abide by it whether it works well or ill, unless another 
convention is called or the Constitution is in some way amended. 
If you leave it to the legislators to act at their discretion, 
they can provide that all or a part of these officers may be 
elected by a plurality ; and if at any time it is discovered that 
the scheme does not work well, then they can repeal the law, 
having no constitutional provision to prevent them. We have 
noticed that in various respects the people have actually annulled 
certain provisions of the Constitution because they were not con- 
sistent with their convictions. We have seen members of the 
Catholic church sit here year after year, notwithstanding the pro- 
hibition in the Constitution. We have seen men elected to office 
and discharge the duties acceptably to all who had not the prop- 
erty qualification, although that property qualification was in the 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 67 

Constitution. Now my impressions are that we had better not 
go too far. We had better consider that we do not possess all 
the wisdom of the world or more wisdom than the future legisla- 
tors of New Hampshire may possess. If we make any amend- 
ment let us leave it to the Legislature to say whether these officials 
shall be elected by a plurality or by a majority, as in their wis- 
dom they shall think proper. 

Mr. Bennett of Alton : I supposed that we came here for the 
purpose of amending the Constitution as we thought proper ; I 
supposed that these amendments' were to be submitted to the 
people. I see no reason why this body of men does not contain 
as able and intellectual minds as any future Legislature may con- 
tain. I do not see the propriety of leaving to future Legislatures 
what we ought to decide ourselves, and what the people may 
adopt if they see fit. It seems to me that it is very improper for 
this convention to raise the question of the propriety of submit- 
ting one matter or another matter to future Legislatures. 

Mr. Manahan of Hillsborough : Until the present time it has 
not been my purpose to say a word upon this subject, and now I 
shall ask the attention of the convention only for a single 
moment. What I say will apply as well to the resolution intro- 
duced by the gentleman from Exeter (Mr. Lyman)*as to the 
original resolution, both of which relate to the manner of deter- 
mining the election of certain officers. While under one resolu- 
tion the change from the present system of election is made 
positive, under the other resolution the change is made merely 
possible. I have listened with pleasure to the remarks of the 
gentleman who proposed this amendment and others who have 
advocated it, and while I admit the plausibility of the proposition 
and the fairness of the argument, yet I am opposed to it. I fail 
to see evils of such magnitude existing that are to be overcome 
or remedied, or inconvenience that is suffered by our people so 
great that demands so important and radical a change in the fun- 
damental law of our State, or any benefits that are to be derived 
to warrant us in departing from the method of determining the 
election of officers that was handed down to us by the framers of 
the Constitution, of whom it has been truly said, " If they did 



68 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

not build better than they knew, they certainly did build wisely 
and well." In a State like ours, where political sentiment is so 
evenly divided and party lines so closely drawn, our elections are 
accompanied by bitter local contests, and the struggle to gain 
supremacy or retain the mastery is surrounded by much that is 
pernicious and demoralizing. I seriously question in my own 
mind, if we make this change, whether it will not multiply these 
contested election cases, increase the bitterness of our local con- 
tests, and instead of closing the door throw it wider open and 
furnish additional incentives and more opportunities for the 
practice of those methods which are so pernicious and baneful in 
themselves and so demoralizing to communities. Experience 
and the light of history teach us that in all the great political 
contests of the nation the close States are the battle-grounds, and 
it is there that the fight wages the most furiously and the most 
bitterly. Our experience in our own State is, that the close 
towns are the sections where the contest is marked by the most 
acrimony and the most bitterness, and where those methods are 
employed that are the least honorable. I believe it is our duty, if 
we legislate at all, or propose any amendment, to have it in the 
line to soften the bitterness of our political contests and decrease 
the opportunities for the practice of dishonorable methods. The 
president of our convention said in opening it that the amend- 
ments to the Constitution which the people desire to act upon 
can be counted upon the fingers of a single hand ; and it might 
just as truly be said that the nature of those amendments is so 
generally well understood by the members of this convention that 
he who runs may read and that none need err therein. If we 
load down these amendments by others, although they may seem 
wise in themselves, for which the people are not prepared, we may 
add the very straw that shall serve to defeat the purposes for 
which this convention was called and render more doubtful and 
uncertain the adoption of those which are remedies for existing 
evils. It is truly said that the framers of our Constitution 
handed down to us their acts like the Acts of the first apostles, 
and yet their resolutions have never reached us. What I believe 
the people of New Hampshire need, is fewer resolutions, more 
action, more business and enterprise tending to a grander pros- 






TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 69 

parity, and less of legislative action, less politics, and less 
tinkering with the Constitution of the State. 

Mr. Durgin of Concord : I heartily concur in the main with 
the gentleman (Mr. Manahan) who has just taken his seat. I 
think the majority principle is the true one f6r a republic, that 
the people should rule ; and when we say the people we do not 
mean a large faction of the people, but a majority of the people. 
This was the principle of the fathers, and was acted upon in this 
government down until about the year 1850. My recollection 
goes back very plainly to the time when the great struggle on the 
question of human freedom came up in this land, and a party of 
conscience came before the people desiring to be heard. It was 
the desire and purpose of the great dominant parties at that time 
to crush out the principles of the new party, and, although they 
could not do it and did not do it, they did their best to do it. 
Failing in doing it, the theory of plurality rule was advanced. I 
distinctly recollect when, in the State of Massachusetts, which was 
referred to by the gentleman introducing the first resolution here, 
there was a general breaking up of old party lines. The Free 
Soil party, under the leadership of Charles Sumner and Henry 
Wilson, succeeded in so reducing the vote of the heretofore 
dominant party that very often there was no choice in the con- 
gressional elections from 1844 to 1852, when there was no choice 
in nine districts out of twelve in the State, and Hon. George S. 
Boutwell defeated the venerable Robert C. Winthrop as governor 
of Massachusetts in 1851, followed by the election of Charles 
Sumner to the United States Senate. All these things were very 
vexatious to the old ruling parties, and consequently this prin- 
ciple was introduced to overcome the difficulty. But I tell you, 
gentlemen, that the people love this majority principle, and I 
believe it is the only country in the world where the majority 
does not prevail where the people have an opportunity to vote. 
France, with all its republican and communistic spirit, 
retains this majority principle to-day, and if a man is not able 
to bring his influence to bear upon the people so as to get a 
majority, the question is tried over and over again until an elec- 
tion is obtained. In England there has never been any other 
principle adopted but the majority principle ; it exists there 



70 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

to-day, as I understand. I believe it was a sorry day for this 
republic when we started out on the line of the plurality rule. 
The father of his country, George Washington, in his last 
address to the people warned them of factions which would arise 
and attempt to control the country. If we will turn our atten- 
tion for one moment to the city of New York, I do not speak 
of it in a political sense at all, but simply to illustrate the prin- 
ciple which I seek to establish, a man to-day is mayor of the 
city of New York who does not represent more than one third 
of the people of that city, yet he has the patronage of $50,000,000 
at his back, it is said. Is that justice? Is that right that a third 
of the people, or a little more than that, should rule? The 
fathers of the country when they framed the Constitution had in 
view the promotion of justice. It seems to me that the principle 
of justice is better promoted when a majority of the people have 
the rule. For one, I certainly desire that this convention should 
vote down any such measure ; and if it is adopted by the conven- 
tion, I sincerely hope and trust that the people will put their foot 
upon it with contempt. 

Mr. French of Nashua : We are not here to amend the Con- 
stitution, but we are here to vote to submit such things to the 
people of New Hampshire as we think or as we know from our 
experience and observation they wish to vote upon. That is my 
idea of our duty. Now the Legislature of New Hampshire in 
certain cases has provided for electing certain officers by plurality 
vote ; but, notwithstanding the Legislature of New Hampshire 
has had the power for many years to provide for the election of 
representatives, and I speak of this as being a parallel case to 
the matter of the election of senators, I believe they have not 
provided yet for the election of representatives by a plurality 
vote ; nor have they, unless I am mistaken, made such provis- 
ion with reference to the election of the selectmen of towns. 
Now the Legislature represents probably the feeling of the people 
about as near as anything that we can get hold of. It represents 
what the people are thinking about and what is being agitated ; 
and, since they have failed to see the importance of providing 
in the case of the election of representatives that it shall be by 
a plurality vote, I cannot believe that the people of this State 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 71 

wish to vote upon that question. If either of the amendments 
suggested here is to be passed, I think it should be the one 
giving the discretion and power to the Legislature to provide 
that these officers may be elected by majority vote. But what- 
ever may be my opinion as to the principle involved, and I be- 
lieve that the plurality principle may be the correct one, I think 
there is one thing that we, as a convention, ought to steer clear 
of, and that is submitting any amendment to the people that will 
arouse partisan discussion, that will be treated as a party political 
question. The amendments to the Constitution I think will not 
be classed as Republican or Democratic measures, so far as I can 
judge of any that have been brought before us or any that are 
likely to be brought before us. Now since this matter of plu- 
rality vote has come up, I have found in talking with some of 
the politicians of the State that the query has invariably been, 
How will this affect this party or that party ? And they look 
back and cite precedents as to how it would have affected this or 
that party in a given year. I think if we submit an amendment 
of this kind to the people it will lead to partisan discussion and 
that the question uppermost in the minds of the people will be, 
How will it affect the results with reference to the respective 
parties? I am very anxious that in none of these amendments 
there shall be anything that will raise that question, because I 
think it will imperil the success of such amendments as do not 
raise that question. 

Mr. Barton of Newport : Will the convention indulge me in a 
single remark? What is the objection in leaving the election of 
governor and councilors as it has been for a hundred years ? Has 
there been any trouble ? Does the necessity of the case require 
any change ? We have lived a hundred years under the Constitu- 
tion as it now is. Have we not always elected our governor with- 
out trouble ? Is not the mode of electing our officials acceptable 
to the people ? When this convention was called how many peo- 
ple supposed this question was coming up ? I do not believe the 
people demand it. I do not think there is any necessity for it. 
I hope the resolution as proposed by the gentleman from Man- 
chester (Mr. Smith) and the amendment offered by the gentle- 
man from Exeter (Mr. Lyman) will be voted down by this 



72 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

convention. I do not propose to go into the results it would 
have upon parties in this State ; I have nothing to say about that. 
The question with me is, Is it required at our hands at this time ? 
If it is, let us act upon it ; if it is not, let us dismiss it. 

Mr. McMahan of Dover : We should consider this question 
both as to its principle and as to its practical effect. It is good in 
principle, and in the earlier days of our history the majority sys- 
tem worked well ; but even before now the people of this State 
have thought best to make such changes in our laws that the plu- 
rality system might be tried, and the same is true of other States. 
It has been tried in the election of certain officers and has given 
good satisfaction. We have made satisfactory progress under the 
majority system ; but its usefulness is vanishing. It seems to me 
that it is not so well suited to our condition to-day as it was when 
first adopted. We have more offices to fill than in former years, 
and there seems to be considerable more contention in regard to 
the filling of them. I think by changing the present system in 
regard to the election of some officials, if not all, elections would 
be made more speedily and easily and many difficulties be 
avoided. Under the present system, in the case of failure to 
obtain a majority at the polls, it is not a majority which decides 
the election in the end. A majority of the Legislature does not 
change the vote of the people when they give a candidate only 
a plurality. Many cases have arisen lately where the majority 
rule proved of no value because there was no election by a ma- 
jority of the people, and in effect the officers were elected by a 
plurality. To somewhat obviate contention and secure a better 
system, I think it would be well to make this change, even if it is 
not strictly in accordance with the theories of our forefathers. If 
it will facilitate speedy elections, with less contention than prevails 
under the system we have at the present time, I think the change 
should be made. We have tried the plurality system with good re- 
sults, and I think there is reason for its continuance and extension. 
The plurality principle, so far as it has been adopted, must have 
been adopted for some reason, and that reason apparently was 
the fact that the majority system was troublesome, that some of 
its features were an annoyance to the people. I hope, for the 
benefit of the people of the State, that the present method of 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 73 

election will continue no longer. The plurality system, in my 
opinion, will give better satisfaction. 

Mr. Bell of Exeter : It was not my intention to say one word 
upon this subject, but there have occurred to my mind one or 
two considerations that perhaps may have a little weight with the 
gentlemen of the convention, as they certainly have with myself. 
One of them is this : I have never heard that there was any pub- 
lic or even private demand, before I came here, for election by 
plurality vote. My friend who sits near me says he heard the 
thing suggested once, but certainly there could have been no 
great desire for it. Now on general principles I think it is not 
wise for this convention to do anything for which there is no 
considerable call on the part of our constituents. We might go 
on amending to the day of doom, for aught I know, and perhaps 
in many cases make things a little better than they were before, 
but certainly we should not succeed in having our constituents 
ratify our doings if we did that. I am a gray-headed man and 
I have become conservative ; I think it is wiser not to go much 
beyond what is absolutely demanded by the people of the State. 

Another consideration is this : I observe, rather to my surprise, 
no person on this floor who seems to be seriously in earnest in 
advocating this proposition of election by a plurality. The orig- 
inal mover thought it apparently a matter that ought to be con- 
sidered, as it certainly should be; but I did not observe that he 
advocated it with very much vehemence. I thought he rather 
threw it out as a proper subject for the consideration of the con- 
vention, but without strenuously urging it. And so the gentle- 
man who moved this amendment apparently offered it because he 
thought it was not quite so objectionable as the original proposi- 
tion. Now these considerations have strongly impressed my 
mind. It seems to me that if the original mover does not think 
the resolution to be absolutely necessary and the mover of the 
amendment does not consider it very important for our interests 
that the amendment should be adopted, we ought to inquire of our- 
selves, Is it worth while for us to send to the people such a prop- 
osition, and is there any great probability that the people would 
adopt it? 



74 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Thurston of Dover : Strange to say, I am not convinced 
by the arguments of the gentlemen who have stood up here and 
opposed this proposition. I am a believer in the policy of 
adopting the plurality rule in the election of the officers specified. 
You know we are getting very much mixed up in our politics. 
There are third parties, fourth parties, and I do not know how 
many more are likely to arise ; and it may come to this, that we 
shall delegate the power of electing our governors, councilors, 
and senators and we are not far from it now to the Legisla- 
ture, because the people will not be able under the present sys- 
tem to elect them at all. And we know about these Legislatures 
something about them ; many of us have been in them. We 
know how things are likely to go sometimes in the Legislature. 
I know of an instance when a senator died, his place was to be 
filled, and the Legislature selected to fill that place a man who 
had just a scattering vote, whom the people had not indicated 
that they wanted for a senator, they had pretty clearly 
indicated that they did not want him. The Legislature took 
him; I was here; I voted for him because I did not want the 
other fellow ; and that was politics. Now we want to get as far 
as we can from any possibility of party politics coming in and 
taking the place of the choice and voice of the people. It seems 
to me that these gentlemen who have spoken about the possible 
peril of this measure have quite forgotten how many very impor- 
tant offices are filled in that way and we never have any trouble 
about it. How many States have that rule and they get along 
finely, never having any trouble. I have heard a great many 
people say, when we have failed to fill certain offices by the vote 
of the people owing to other parties that come up, and the 
people have a right to form parties, I have heard a great many 
people say that we ought to have the plurality rule. Perhaps 
these gentlemen have not heard people say anything about it, but 
I have. I have not heard people specify any desire to have this 
constitutional convention take any action upon it ; but at the 
time of the elections I have heard a great many say it. We have 
no trouble about our congressmen or our municipal officers ; 
everybody is satisfied ; the man who is wanted by more people 
than any other man gets there, and the people are satisfied. I 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. v 75 

dislike to stand up here and antagonize the opinions of such 
gentlemen as these from Hillsborough, Exeter, Newport, and 
Concord, but I have my opinions about it and always have had ; 
they have not been changed here to-day. I hope this conven- 
tion will give the people a chance to say whether they want to 
have these confusions, delays, disappointments, and uncertainties 
connected with our elections of these officers, or whether they 
want to have it settled so that when we have an election it will 
be by the people and not by somebody else whose action is un- 
certain. Now who is going to be our next governor? We can 
only guess at it. Who knows ? We have had a chance to vote, 
but it still hangs in the wind. 

Mr. French of Nashua : In looking over the minutes of the 
last convention I find that they started out with a great many 
resolutions with reference to the amendment of the Constitution, 
and that one of them now before this convention was rejected by 
the people. I will not say which one it is. This fact suggests 
an idea. The people have not taken this matter into considera- 
tion or discussed it ; they have not indicated that it is a griev- 
ance ; and what is the use of putting things before them to vote 
upon that they have not considered and discussed. We are not 
going to the people as in any political campaign to discuss such 
amendments as we may propose to them, and they will not have 
much opportunity for the consideration of the pros and cons of 
the different questions. These matters will come before the 
people without much of any discussion, except as there may be 
some in the newspapers. I wish to make more plain what I said 
before with reference to the House of Representatives. By the 
Constitution the Legislature is to determine how the House of 
Representatives shall be elected. That provision has been in 'the 
Constitution for years and years, yet the Legislature of New 
Hampshire has never seen fit to vote that the House of Repre- 
sentatives should be elected by a plurality vote. The members 
of the Legislature come from the people. They know what is dis- 
cussed by the people, and they are practical men. We know 
to-day that this question of plurality rule did not occur to us 
until we were elected to this convention, and some of the news- 
papers of this State began to discuss it. Now what I say is, the 



76 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
/ 

people have not through the Legislature indicated that they were 
opposed to the present mode of election ; that this matter will 
not come before the people in a way that it can be discussed 
upon its merits ; and, therefore, until they indicate by some dis- 
cussion, by some expression of feeling, that they are in favor of 
this change, it is not best to submit it to them, because it will be 
rejected and will be so much lumber that will sink the rest. 

Mr. Bartlett of Raymond : I beg leave to differ with some of 
the gentlemen who have made suggestions with reference to this 
matter.' It seems to me that the great question for us to deter- 
mine is not whether the people of New Hampshire have asked 
for this measure, but whether it will better the condition of the 
people of New Hampshire. Now, if ten men are voters in an 
election, and two of them vote for one man, three of them vote 
for another man, and five of them vote for a third man, that the 
union of the five men should predominate over the scattered 
forces of the other five men, and that, if the man who receives 
the five votes is declared elected to the office, whether it be to 
the office of governor of New Hampshire or only to some minor 
office lower down in the scale, we come nearer to the voice of 
the people than we do if one of the other men is in some way 
elected. It seems to me that when a thousand or more men, 
legal voters, have said they desire one man to fill a certain office, 
and those thousand men are a larger number than those who 
have said they desire another man to fill that office, the fair way 
is for the man who has received the larger number of votes to fill 
the office. I know of no way by which the voice of the people 
can be obtained so well as by having the man who receives the 
largest number of votes fill the office to which he is nominated. 
Now, as has already been said, very many conflicting questions 
arise after election, and men have taken the highest office in the 
will of the people who have never been elected to that office ; 
and when they have taken the executive chair, they must have 
felt as though it would be better for them to stand down and let 
some other man take it than to fill an office to which the people 
never elected them. I hope this question will be submitted to the 
people of New Hampshire, and let them determine whether they 
w ill have it or not. 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 77 

The question being stated, upon the adoption of the substitute 
offered by Mr. Lyman of Exeter, it was rejected. 

The question recurring upon the adoption of the proposed 
amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Manchester, it was adopted. 

Upon this question, the yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. 
Dan forth of Concord. 

Pending the call of the roll, on motion of Mr. Davis of Hop- 
kinton, ordered that the committee rise, report progress, and ask 
leave to sit again. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia, chairman, reported that the Com- 
mittee of the Whole had had under consideration the proposed 
amendment to the Constitution providing for the election of 
civil officers by a plurality vote, had made progress, and asked 
leave to sit again. 

Leave was granted. 

On motion of Mr. Pitman of Conway, the convention 
adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 
(The president in the chair.) 

Mr. Wallace of Holderness presented the petition of Nathan B. 
Whitten and fourteen others, citizens of that town, asking for 
the submission of an amendment enlarging the jurisdiction of 
justices of the peace. 

The petition was referred to the Committee on Judicial 
Department. 

Mr. Durgin of Concord offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Henniker (Mr. Gate) be so amended that it will read : " That 



78 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

members of the Legislature receive the sum of $250 for the term 
of their election, and that their mileage be fixed at the actual 
expense to and from the capital once in each session." 

On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid upon 
the table to be considered in Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. Dudley of Brentwood introduced the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that the salary 
of the speaker of the House and president of the Senate shall be 
double that of members. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid on 
the table to be considered in Committee of the Whole, with 
others covering the same subject matter. 

Mr. Kelley of Weare introduced the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is expedient to reduce the membership of 
the House of Representatives, and it is the sense of this conven- 
tion that the number of representatives should not be less than 
one hundred and fifty nor more than two hundred. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legislative 
Department. 

On motion of Mr. Todd of Atkinson, the convention went 
into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of resolutions 
relating to the salary of members of the Legislature. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Bartlett of Manchester in the chair.) 

The chair stated that the resolution introduced by Mr. Gate of 
Henniker fixing the salary of members of the Legislature, and 
the several substitutes and amendments offered to the same, were 
before the committee for consideration in their order, beginning 
with that fixing the salary at the highest sum. 

Mr. Davis of Bow : I offered this amendment to the resolution 
introduced by the gentleman from Henniker (Mr. Gate) because 
I believe three hundred dollars to be too large a sum to pay to 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 79 

members of the Legislature. In my opinion the sessions of the 
Legislature should not continue longer than eight weeks. I think 
two months are ample for our law-makers to be in session. The 
resolution of the gentleman from Henniker points, in effect, to 
a term of one hundred days at the present rate of three dollars a 
day. I hear no gentleman complain now that the pay is too 
small ; on the contrary, I hear the mass of the people complain 
that the sessions of the Legislature are too long and too expen- 
sive. Adopt my amendment, thereby giving notice in advance 
to the members of the Legislature that they are expected to 
transact their business in two months and go home, and the tax- 
payers of the State of New Hampshire will bless us for making 
short sessions. 

Mr. Felker of Rochester : I simply arise for information as to 
whether the question of having annual instead of biennial ses- 
sions was not also referred to this committee at this time, and, if 
so, whether it would not be better to settle that question first, and 
then we could tell better about the compensation. 

The Chair : The chair is informed that that resolution is not 
pending before this committee. 

Mr. Durgin of Concord : I understand that it was referred to 
this committee. 

The Chair : The memorandum is that it was referred to the 
Committee on the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. Durgin : Subsequently it was referred to this committee, 
to be taken up in connection with this matter of compensation. 

The Chair : The chair has learned that the resolution is before 
the committee. 

Mr. Durgin : Perhaps it would be proper that, having intro- 
duced this amendment, I should say a few words in support of it. 
It was very properly stated the other day when this question was 
up in regard to the meetings of the Legislature being changed 
from June to January, that in a very large proportion of the 
States of this Union the Legislatures hold annual meetings of 
the Legislature in January, and if the meetings of our Legislature 



80 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

were at the same time we should be able to co-operate with them 
in cases of necessity. If we meet only once in two years there 
might occur the same reasons for calling an extra session of the 
Legislature as though we met in June, but if we have annual 
sessions we should be able to co-operate with all those States who 
meet in January in any way in which the national exigencies 
might require. 

Another reason why I favor the change to annual sessions is 
because, as legislation has been conducted, a great many laws 
have been hastily carried through and we have done hurriedly 
often times what we have repented of at leisure. In my judgment, 
if we had annual sessions there would not be so much temptation 
for hasty legislation. Another thing to be considered is that a 
large majority of the Legislature at the present time is composed 
of new men who have had no particular experience in legislation. 
They come here and are practically in the hands of a few old 
heads who have run the machine for years, and they are not very 
useful aids in legislation. But if there were two sessions, any 
general legislation could be introduced at the first session and 
laid upon the table until the next session. In the mean time at 
their homes and with their constituents they could consult in re- 
gard to these measures and be able to come to a practical con- 
clusion as to what is best, and our legislation would more truly 
and practically represent the people. If the salary is placed at 
the right figure two sessions will cost the State no more than one 
session practically, especially if it is as long as the last session, 
and not quite as much ; and my idea is that we shall get a great 
deal better legislation, a great deal more satisfactory to the peo- 
ple. One of the principal reasons for having so large a House 
is that it is educational in its character. If that is a valid reason 
for having a large House, the same reason applies with equal force 
in favor of having annual sessions of the Legislature, for thereby 
members would become much better acquainted with the methods 
of legislating than they are now. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : If I am correct, the question which 
the gentleman who last addressed us discussed is not properly be- 
fore the Committee of the Whole. If I understood correctly 
what was done, the convention voted to refer the resolution 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 81 

introduced by the gentleman from Concord (Mr. Durgin) to the 
Committee of the Whole; it has not voted to go into Committee 
of the Whole upon that resolution, but upon an entirely different 
proposition. Now if, when the convention is in Committee of 
the Whole and takes up a certain proposition, some other matter 
that has been referred to Committee of the Whole can be brought 
forward and take possession of the committee and displace the 
pending question, it is different practice from what ought to pre- 
vail, as it seems to me. In order that we may understand 
whether that is the way our proceedings are to be, I will suggest 
that, if the chair thinks my view is correct, there be a motion 
made to rise, report progress, and let the convention return us into 
a Committee of the Whole upon the proposition of the gentle- 
man from Concord. It seems to me that we ought not to have 
any such practice as taking one question from before the commit- 
tee and proceeding upon another. 

The Chair : It appears by the record that this committee was 
formed to consider the pending propositions relating to the com- 
pensation of members of the Legislature. The chair is of the 
opinion that no other question is in order except such proposi- 
tions as relate to salaries and compensation. 

Mr. Hibbard : In order to give the committee an opportunity 
to act first upon the question of biennial or annual sessions, with- 
out having any choice myself as to whether the motion is adopted 
or rejected, I will now move that the committee rise, having in 
mind that the question of biennial or annual sessions may be 
referred by the convention to the committee in the place of the 
question of salaries, if the convention wants to do it. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : I suppose no discussion is proper 
in regard to this matter. 

The Chair : A motion to rise is debatable. 

Mr. Davis : I simply want to make a statement in regard to 
the motion whereby this question was brought before the conven- 
tion when it was voted to go into Committee of the Whole. I 
made the motion that this matter of the gentleman from Concord 



82 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

(Mr. Durgin) be brought before the Committee of the Whole in 
order that it might be taken up and considered before the matter 
of compensation was entered upon, and it was so voted. 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : Why not discuss now the question of 
compensation, and having fixed that, let the Legislature determine 
for themselves whether they will sit once in two years or once 
every year, or once in six months, or the whole of the time if 
they please, only they can have just such compensation ? It seems 
to me that we had better settle the compensation first, and then 
I think the other will settle itself when the Legislature meets. 

On motion of Mr. Hibbard of Laconia, ordered that the com- 
mittee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Bartlett, chairman, for the Committee of the Whole, re- 
ported that the committee had had under consideration the sev- 
eral resolutions relating to the salary of members of the Legis- 
lature without concluding the same, and asked leave to sit again. 

On motion of Mr. Durgin of Concord, the convention re- 
solved itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the reso- 
lution offered by him in relation to annual sessions of the Legis- 
lature. 

Ifcr COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Bartlett of Manchester in the chair.) 

The resolution offered by Mr. Durgin of Concord, providing 
for annual sessions of the Legislature, was considered. 

My Lyman of Exeter : I feel but little interest in this mat- 
ter. If there is any necessity, the Legislature can be called 
together by the governor at any time. My impression is that if 
they meet once in two years the people will seldom want them to 
meet the next year. They can do so, provided they adjourn in 
season, upon the call of the governor. I think we may safely 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 83 

leave it in the governor's hands to call a session if in his opinion 
it is necessary. I do not understand that there is anything in 
the Constitution to prevent their sitting every year. 

Mr. Beckford of Laconia : I have been to the treasurer's office 
and have got from the books the difference in the cost of annual 
sessions and biennial sessions. The figures include all expenses. 
For the four biennial sessions of the Legislature the average to 
each session is $97,866.56. The four annual sessions previous to 
the biennial sessions cost on an average $72,993, or the four 
biennial sessions have cost the State $391,466.24, while the four 
annual sessions cost $291,972. It seems to me, in the face of 
these figures, that we should not go back to annual sessions. 

Mr. Durgin : The gentleman (Mr. Beckford) has produced a 
formidable array of figures against this motion, but the conven- 
tion will bear in mind that they are very soon to take up the 
subject of fixing the salaries of the members. There can be no 
difference in the expense, except the cost of travel to and from 
the homes of the members. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I would ask if it is in order to consider 
the question of salaries. 

The Chair : Not in this committee. The subject cannot come 
before the committee except by action of the convention. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the resolution providing for annual sessions of the Legis- 
lature be adopted ? 

It was decided in the negative, and the resolution was rejected. 

On motion of Mr. Hibbard of Laconia, ordered that the com- 
mittee arise and report progress. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Bartlett, chairman, reported that the Committee of the 
Whole had had under consideration the proposed amendment 



84 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

providing for annual sessions of the Legislature, and had rejected 
the same. 

The report was accepted. 

Mr. Gate of Henniker moved that the convention resolve 
itself into a Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
the resolution offered by him fixing the salaries of members of the 
Legislature, and all other matters relating thereto. 

The motion prevailed. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Bartlett of Manchester in the chair.) 

. The chair stated the pending question to be upon the proposi- 
tion of Mr. Cate of Henniker to fix the salary of members of the 
Legislature at $300. 

The question being stated, 

(Discussion ensued.) 

Mr. Cate of Henniker : I propose to occupy the valuable 
time of this committee but a very few moments. I wish simply 
to express a few thoughts that occur to me, and leave the dis- 
cussion of this resolution to more experienced and abler gen- 
tlemen. The question involved in this resolution probably has 
received more consideration, perhaps with the exception of the 
question of changing the time of the sitting of the Legislature 
from June to January, than any other question that will be pre- 
sented before this body. The same argument, that the people 
desire and expect that the convention will submit an amendment 
for their ratification, that applied in that case applies in this. 
The people expect some action on the part of this convention 
fixing the compensation of members of the Legislature. I be- 
lieve that it is an admitted fact that a large proportion of the 
legal voters of the State of New Hampshire are in favor of such 
a change, substituting for the per diem compensation a fixed 
salary. If that is a fact, the whole question will hinge upon the 
inquiry, What shall the amount of that salary be ? In the resolu- 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 85 

tion the amount is fixed at $300, believing that it is only a fair 
compensation for the services rendered by that body. In look- 
ing this matter over you will find that in the last six years the 
average length of the sessions of the Legislature have been one 
hundred and sixteen days, giving to each member of the Legis- 
lature an average pay of $348. It will be seen at once that if 
the salary had been fixed at $300, the State of New Hampshire 
would have saved about $45,000 during that period. It will also 
be seen that at the last annual session, which was held in 1878, 
our law-makers performed the business for which they were called 
together at an expense of $73,000. Let us go on a little further 
and consider the compensation allowed to representatives and 
senators in the different States of New England. In Maine, rep- 
resentatives and senators have a fixed salary of $150 per session, 
with a mileage of twenty cents per mile one way. In Vermont, 
they receive the sum of $3 per diem, with the same mileage. In 
Massachusetts, where there are annual sessions, they receive a 
salary of $500, with twenty cents mileage one way. In Connec- 
ticut, the salary for the annual session is $300, and a mileage of 
twenty-five cents per mile one way. In Rhode Island, the Con- 
stitution fixes the pay at $i per diem, with a mileage of eight 
cents per mile each way. If the salary is fixed by the Constitu- 
tion, it will undoubtedly remain for a good many years at least. 
It is well to make the salary of a sufficient sum so that the legis- 
lators can afford to come here for it. It is argued that $300 will 
give a hundred days' session. Not necessarily. I submit that 
$3 per diem, the sum which has been paid the legislators for 
years and years, is not sufficient at the present time. It is said 
that there is no complaint. Perhaps not ; but I will submit to 
every gentleman of this committee that $3 per diem, reckoning 
the time the member spends here, considering what it would cost 
him to put some one else in his place while he is absent from his 
business, reckoning his expenses while here, will not permit him 
to clear fifty cents a day. I do not wish to be understood that 
I think the expenses of the State should be increased, but I do 
believe that the people of New Hampshire are liberal. As a 
matter of fact they send more representatives to the Legislature 
than any other State in the Union. I believe that we should 



86 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

consider this question in a spirit of fairness, and that we shall 
settle it in such a way that the present and future welfare and 
dignity of the old Granite State shall be maintained. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I presume, from what I have heard out- 
side, that the suggestions I feel constrained to make may not meet 
the approval of a majority of this convention. I find myself in 
a state of very considerable doubt whether it is wise, whether it 
is best, whether it accords with the history and the spirit of our 
Constitution and our frame of government, to fix the compensa- 
tion of members of the Legislature. The whole framework and 
theory of our government is that the representatives of the people 
should come here clothed with the supreme legislative power of 
the State. The power to make laws resides in the people. The 
Legislature acts for the people. Our government is a represent- 
ative government. It is a government by the people acting 
through their representatives. In the first place the trust is re- 
posed in the people. It was the opinion of the framers of our 
Constitution that the right of government originated with the 
people, that the right of self-government was inherent in the 
people, and the people are acting, as I have suggested, in their 
representative capacity, through their chosen representatives here. 
The very theory of our government is that the trust must repose 
somewhere. We select men to represent us here in whom we 
have confidence ; we clothe them with great power, with the 
supreme legislative power of the State. 

Now what is the proposition ? Is it to suggest to them that 
they need a monitor ? That they need supervision by a clause 
inserted in the Constitution that they shall do their duty in a 
patriotic way, that they shall serve the State instead of serving 
their own selfish interests or serving the interests of any parties 
who may appear here for the promotion of any unworthy scheme ? 
We cannot carry on our government in that way, as it seems to 
me. Trust must be reposed somewhere, and by the very scheme 
of government it must be reposed in our representatives who 
assemble here for the purpose of making laws to govern our con- 
duct. Now, if they cannot be trusted with this matter of fixing 
the compensation of members of the General Court, what can 
they be trusted with ? If we must look after their conduct in 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 87 

that respect, what becomes of our theory of government ? What 
becomes of self-government itself if the representatives chosen 
in this way are not to be trusted. For a hundred years they have 
been trusted in this matter of fixing their own compensation and 
the compensation of future legislators. What has happened that 
should impel us to withdraw our confidence or to signify that 
the people of the State have withdrawn their confidence from 
their representatives in this respect ? What great mischief has 
happened to the commonwealth because hitherto for a hundred 
years that matter has been determined by the representatives 
themselves, accountable only to their constituents and public 
opinion for any misconduct or any misuse of the trust ? 

Now I believe that the salary of no public officer of New 
Hampshire is fixed by the Constitution ; it is a matter of legis- 
lative enactment. If the Legislature fix the compensation of 
other officers of the State, why should they not be trusted to fix 
the compensation of legislators ? 

It is suggested that by making a stated compensation short 
sessions will be encouraged. That is an imputation upon the in- 
tegrity of our chosen representatives. Is our action to be a dec- 
laration that we fear, or that we have reason to fear, that our rep- 
resentatives will come here for the purpose of getting the paltry 
sum of three dollars a day and will protract the sessions unreason- 
ably to serve their own avarice instead of serving the State ? Is 
it to be assumed that all the patriotic sentiments which were sup- 
posed to exist in the people of New Hampshire at the time the 
Constitution was framed, and which make the bed-rock of our 
scheme of government, have changed and that the Legislature 
has got to be looked after ? Must we station a guard over them 
to see that they do not abuse the high trust we have voluntarily 
given them ? Is not that the imputation of the proposed amend- 
ment ? 

What is the exigency that requires the proposed action now 
any more than heretofore ? It is very true that some of the late 
sessions have been long, perhaps many of us think unreasona- 
bly long. There may be bad things in the Legislature ; there 
may be projects pushed with zeal and energy which occupy an 
unreasonable length of time ; things may happen before the Leg- 



88 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

islature which we do not approve of. Does an occasion of that 
kind go to the foundation of our scheme of government and 
warrant such distrust of the integrity of the people or the integ- 
rity of their representatives as to call for a change in the Consti- 
tution ? Is it to be assumed it will happen hereafter ? 

It is said, and with a considerable degree of force, that this 
measure has been adopted in other States. Of course no broad- 
minded man would exclude the experience of other States and 
other governments when he is considering a proposition for the 
amendment or formation of his own scheme of government. He 
looks to history for examples. But have those experiments in 
other States been tried long enough so that we can say that they 
have passed beyond the region of experiment ? I think that is a 
question to be considered. Is there sufficient reason why we 
should incorporate into the Constitution of this State a provision 
fixing the compensation of a single officer, making him conspic- 
uous in that way, while it is left with the Legislature to establish 
and fix the compensation of all other officers of the State ? 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : I have listened with much pleasure 
to the words of my friend from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd). He ad- 
duces some reasons many reasons for retaining the present 
system, and yet I differ with him. He talks, as we are all apt to 
talk, about the people. Who are the people ? You are the peo- 
ple ; my friend here is one of the people, and you, and you. 
We are the people here to-day. We talk about the "dear 
people." We are sent here by the " dear people " to represent 
them and to do what we think is honest and fair and just for 
their present and their future welfare. This question comes be- 
fore us. My friend says that it is inconsistent with the dignity 
of the House that may be elected ; that we do not trust the peo- 
ple if we fix the salary. I think if we look into history, as he 
says, we find in a majority of the States that they either fix the 
salary or they prescribe the number of days that the Legislature 
shall sit. Is it not fair and proper that we should do the same 
thing ? 

Let us consider why this matter comes up. We may just as 
well look at the facts and take them just as they are. What are 
the facts in regard to the last sessions of 1887, 1885, and 1883? 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 89 

How did the representatives act ? How did you and I act ? 
We have been here, many of us, in years past. What is the 
history and what is the fact ? The Legislature would come to- 
gether on the prescribed day in June and two or three weeks 
would pass before they would do anything. That is the way the 
servants of the people have acted in the past. They have come 
here, as I say, and spent one, two, or three weeks, perhaps, to 
elect a senator, and then they would begin to work. They would 
adjourn to Monday evening ; Monday evening they would have 
a nominal session ; along Tuesday afternoon there would be a 
quorum, perhaps; they would be present Tuesday afternoon, 
Wednesday, and Thursday. In former times they used to stay 
over until Saturday, but now the majority are absent on Friday. 
If we look at the facts we find that these men, these servants of 
the people employed to do the people's work, actually worked 
but two days in the week and received pay for seven days' work. 
Is it not time for the people to look into this ? If a farmer or 
mechanic employs a man to work for him, would he expect to 
pay him for seven days' work when he works only two days ? 
We should pay men for their work and not for their play, not 
for disregarding their work and staying at home. 

I think the people demand that this matter should receive a 
fair consideration and that a fair and honorable salary should be 
fixed. It is not derogatory to future representatives to fix the 
salary. You will not find any difficulty in Concord or Henni- 
ker or any other town in obtaining men to represent you in the 
Legislature. Is there any lack of candidates ? Why, in my own 
city, as I heard the story, I do not know anything about it, 
they report that there are thirty or forty candidates for every 
place. I think you will find that in the country towns and in 
the cities throughout the State there is no lack of material for 
servants of the " dear people." They are willing to come here, 
the honor itself is sufficient without any compensation. I 
would fix the compensation at one hundred and fifty dollars, as 
they do in some States. Why cannot a New Hampshire man 
serve the State honorably for one hundred and fifty dollars as well 
as a man in the State of Maine ? They pay higher prices in 
Massachusetts. The city of Boston pays higher prices for ser- 



90 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

vices in every department. In Boston they pay the mayor ten 
thousand dollars, while in our cities they pay five hundred or 
three hundred dollars. I submit that there will be no difficulty 
in finding honorable men to serve the people for this fair com- 
pensation. I submit that there is no reason why we should not 
fix a salary, and a fair salary. If you give one hundred and fifty 
dollars, that will be fair compensation for fifty days' service. Why 
should they be paid for Sunday ? Why should they be paid for 
Saturday if they are not here ? If you -fix the compensation at 
one hundred and fifty dollars they would come here on Monday 
and work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and 
Saturday ; and they would be here three, four, or six weeks, and 
do the business better than it has been done heretofore, and the 
people would be better satisfied ; and fifty thousand or one hun- 
dred thousand dollars a year would be saved. That is the way 
I would serve the people. (Applause.) 

Mr. French of Nashua : It sometimes happens, or it may hap- 
pen, that the governor will have to call a special session of the 
Legislature. I am informed that it has not happened within 
the history of our State, excepting in the year 1813 ; but it may 
occur, and it ought to be provided for, and I apprehend the amend- 
ment which I suggest will not waken any discussion. I there- 
fore move to amend by adding as follows : "Provided, however, 
when the General Court shall be called together by the governor 
the members shall receive as compensation for their attendance at 
such special session the sum of three dollars per day for a period 
of not more than fifteen days." I am just informed that we did 
have a special session in August, 1864. Of course this amend- 
ment does not affect an adjourned session. 

Mr. Walker of Concord : I would sooner cut off my right 
hand than show any disrespect to the body called the New 
Hampshire Legislature by fixing a compensation if it indicated 
any distrust on our part of their conduct or their honesty. I do 
not think anybody wants to do that, or has any such intention ; 
but if I read the signs of the times aright, if I feel the pulse of 
the people aright, they are saying to us outside, " Fix a stated 
compensation for the members of the Legislature." Now is 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 91 

there any objection to doing that? Do we cast any imputation 
upon the Legislature by so doing ? If it is said that we cast im- 
putation upon them by fixing their salary, we are casting impu- 
tations upon the governor, who does not fix his own salary, 
we are casting imputations upon the judges of the supreme court, 
for they do not fix their own salaries. The salary of every officer 
in the State of New Hampshire is fixed by some one other than 
himself, except members of the Legislature. Now, if I were a 
member of the Legislature, I should have a little delicacy in fix- 
ing my own pay, particularly if there was a little distrust outside 
and dissatisfaction with the length of the session. This amend- 
ment would prevent the embarrassment that the Legislature might 
feel in fixing their compensation. If we fix it here by the Con- 
stitution, they can accept it or reject it. They are not obliged to 
come here ; no one need accept the position of member of the 
Legislature nnless he sees fit. 

Mr. Gate of Henniker : It has been suggested by the gentle- 
man from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd) that it would be casting an 
imputation upon the members of the Legislature should we fix 
their salaries. I do not think when they fixed the salary of this 
honorable body that they had any such thing in their minds. 
They had no hesitation in limiting the sum that should be 
expended for this convention. It has been suggested by the 
gentlemen from Manchester that there is no dearth of candidates 
in Concord or Henniker, and I would suggest that there is 
no dearth of candidates in Manchester. I am not here to impute 
to any man a wish to pay the members beyond what they really 
earn, nor do I think this body will vote to pay them a smaller 
compensation than rightfully belongs to them. I believe that 
the people not only require and demand that a salary shall be 
fixed, but I believe the people require and demand that a salary 
shall be fixed at such sum as shall be satisfactory. I believe that 
if it is fixed at $150 it will be not only unsatisfactory to the 
people, but I do not think they would vote for the amendment. 
I believe we should consider the question liberally. The salary 
should be fixed so that every man who comes here as representa- 
tive will know what he is to receive, and will use his time care- 
fully and do his work expeditiously ; and the salary should be 



92 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

large enough so that he can afford to do the business thoroughly 
and well, receiving a fair and honest compensation for his 
services. 

Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry : If I understand correctly, we 
are now considering the resolution providing for a salary of $300. 
If I understood the chair, the other resolutions are to be consid- 
ered as amendments to this ; and for the purpose of bringing one 
of those resolutions before the committee, I would move that the 
resolution which provides for a salary of $200 be substituted for 
the original resolution. 

The Chair : There are four several propositions pending be- 
fore the committee : One, to fix the salary at $300 ; a second, 
to fix it at $250 ; a third, to fix it at $200 ; and a fourth, to fix 
it at $175. Under parliamentary practice the resolution propos- 
ing the largest salary must be considered first. The question is, 
therefore, upon the resolution fixing the salary at $300. If that 
resolution should not pass, the proposed amendment fixing it at 
$250 will be next in order. 

Mr. Smith of Mont Vernon : I do not think the views of the 
gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd) ought to obtain the assent 
of the convention. There is one point in the position taken by 
the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Cross) that has my hearty 
approval. I believe the sum of $300 proposed by the gentleman 
from Henniker (Mr. Gate) is excessive. I think two thirds of 
that sum is an ample remuneration for the service rendered. As 
the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Cross) has stated, there 
will be no lack of candidates. There are a great many men who 
desire a seat in the Legislature for good and sufficient reasons. 
For myself I would like to return to the old method of annual ses- 
sions and annual elections. I remember quite well, when I sat in 
the constitutional convention of 1876, that General Marston said 
he would like to see the boys here every year. He was entirely 
opposed, as was Judge Daniel Clark (the president of the con- 
vention), to biennial sessions. But I know from the temper and 
spirit of this convention that it is not ready to return to annual 
sessions and annual elections. I am opposed to the reduction of 
the number of members of the Legislature. It was once re- 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 93 

marked, I believe, by the presiding officer of this convention 
that the State of New Hampshire had become noted all over this 
country for the readiness with which the men went out from the 
State to build up other commonwealths and to shape legislation, 
and he attributed it to the large numbers of men who came up 
here annually to Concord to be educated. The educational 
force of the large body of men who came here and legislated 
thirty days at two dollars a day has been wonderful. We should 
take pride in the noble men who have emigrated from this State, 
and have occupied prominent positions in other communities, 
laid the foundations of other governments, and shaped the civil 
polity of other States. In this respect New Hampshire is 
approached by no State in this republic. Two hundred dollars 
would give a session of sixty-six days at $3 a day, and that ought 
to suffice for framing the laws of this commonwealth. The gen- 
tleman from Henniker (Mr. Gate) stated, I think, that the pub- 
lic sentiment required that the salary be fixed at $300. I have 
considerable acquaintance with the rank and file of the citizens 
of this State, and I have never heard more than two thirds that 
sum named. I hope this proposition will not prevail. 

Mr. Barton of Newport : In twenty-one States of this Union 
the time for holding sessions of the several Legislatures is lim- 
ited, and the average of that limitation is sixty-one days. Now, 
I wish to offer just this simple proposition or suggestion : Mem- 
bers of the Legislature are now paid at the rate of $3 per diem ; 
give them a salary of $200, in addition to their mileage, and 
that would allow them, at the rate of $3 a day, a session of sixty- 
six days. Sixty days would ordinarily be sufficient for a session. 
I think that is the sum that should be settled upon. We do not 
wish to act niggardly, nor do we wish to be profligate in this 
matter. The old saying is, " The safest course is in the middle 
of the stream." 

Mr. Foster of Lisbon : When I first came into this convention 
I had not in mind to take one moment of its time. I saw be- 
fore me so many abler than I to discuss these questions that I 
intended to keep still and give them the floor. When I was 
elected a delegate to this convention by my constituents last 



94 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

November, it was then apparent that this subject of salary was 
one uppermost in the minds of the people. I do not wish to 
cast undue reflection upon any House of Representatives of this 
State that has existed in the past ; but with the experience of 
the Legislature of 1887 ever memorable I fear, when it began its 
work on the first Wednesday of June and continued into the month 
of November, making a session of five months, a feeling almost 
of sadness, and surely a feeling of dissatisfaction, spread out all 
over this State. Did it not cause the people to think and reflect ? 
Did they not say silently in their own minds, and more in 
a tone of sadness than of anger, We do not want the like to 
occur again? 

Now the question before us is, What is a fair compensation ? 
When I drew the amendment which is there on the table and 
which will soon be before you, it was my utmost desire to draft 
something that should be perfectly satisfactory to the convention 
and to the people of the State. I think the sum of two hundred 
dollars is fair and just. We ought not to view this matter from 
a mercenary standpoint, and we do not want the office of repre- 
sentative to be sought for a mercenary purpose. I am reminded 
as I stand here of a most glorious example, and as I gaze at yon- 
der picture of Washington, I am reminded that he once occu- 
pied the chief military position of this nation in a time of war, 
and afterward in time of peace held the highest position in the 
gift of the people ; and the question was asked him by a grateful 
country, what should be his compensation for his immeasurable 
services. If I remember rightly he replied in substance, "I care 
not for anything for my individual services." But his expenses 
were paid and something more. He left at the close of his ca- 
reer a legacy of thought and acts and a character for noble patri- 
otism which will remain to future generations as enduring and 
bright as the ever-shining star in the heavens. 

Two hundred dollars seems to be a fair compensation and one 
that the people will be willing to give, and one that the repre- 
sentatives, in connection with the honor and dignity of the of- 
fice, will gladly receive. Two hundred dollars is a round sum for 
a forty days' session ; two hundred dollars is a reasonable sum 
for a sixty days' session and is equal in amount to the pay at 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 95 

present provided for a session commencing on the first Wednes- 
day of January and closing by the time of the town elections in 
the March following. Is not that time long enough for the Legis- 
lature to come here and make all the laws that are necessary to 
the progress and welfare of the people ? This people is not a 
wealthy people like some of our neighboring States. The hardy 
yeomanry over these rocky hills, up and down the valleys, have 
to be economical and energetic to make both ends meet. 

I think when this matter receives the candid attention of this 
committee that my proposition will be indorsed by a large ma- 
jority. These changes, substituting January for June as the time 
of holding the sessions of the Legislature, and the proposition now 
under consideration, would be grand companions and should go 
along hand in hand and go to the people together ; for I believe 
at the proper time they will be indorsed by a good two thirds 
vote, and thus become a part of the Constitution of this State. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the salary of members of the Legislature be fixed at three 
hundred dollars per annum ? 

The proposition was rejected. 

The chair stated the question to be upon the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Concord (Mr. Durgin) to fix the 
salary at two hundred and fifty dollars. 

Mr. Colby of Claremont : This question is one of some inter- 
est, and I think it ought to be considered a little more before a 
final vote is taken. At least I wish to consider it myself. I 
would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, 
and ask leave to sit again. 

Mr. Bell of Exeter : I would simply inquire what the conven- 
tion proposes to do the remainder of the afternoon. I am afraid 
that the business which is left that we can attend to will be small. 
My idea is that we ought to be a working convention and work 
good long hours. If I could see that we might easily find occu- 
pation for the remainder of the afternoon, I should not say a 
word against this proposition ; but under the circumstances I 
doubt its expediency. 



96 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Colby : There is nothing else apparently ready for our 
consideration except the question now before us. If a vote is 
taken immediately upon that question, of course we should have 
the rest of the afternoon at our command then. If it can now 
be discussed at greater length I should myself be pleased, and in 
view of that desire, perhaps, on the part of some, I will withdraw 
my motion. 

The Chair : The motion that the committee rise is withdrawn, 
and the question is upon the adoption of the amendment pro- 
posed by Mr. Durgin of Concord, making the compensation two 
hundred and fifty dollars. 

Mr. Durgin of Concord : I made this proposition because I 
felt that three hundred dollars was too mnch. I have no partic- 
ular feeling in regard to the matter, whether it is fixed at two hun- 
dred or two hundred and fifty dollars. I felt that if three hundred 
dollars was adopted and presented to the people, that not only 
that proposition would be voted down, but that the proposition 
to change the holding of the session from June to January would 
also go with it. I felt that these two propositions ought to go 
together, and I desire most earnestly that they should both be 
adopted. I think we should come to some conclusion that will 
meet the approbation of the people, but which would do no in- 
justice to the members of the Legislature. I say again that I 
introduced this amendment reducing the figures from three hun- 
dred dollars to two hundred and fifty dollars thinking that the 
change might be acceptable if the proposition with reference to 
three hundred dollars failed ; but I shall not feel badly if it is 
fixed at two hundred dollars. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I am in favor of fixing the compensa- 
tion of the members of the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives at a definite sum for a legislative term, but I am not in favor 
of fixing the sum so high as two hundred and fifty dollars. It is 
my judgment that the resolution presented by the gentleman from 
Lisbon (Mr. Foster), fixing the sum at two hundred dollars, is as 
near right as this convention will ever get. 

The controversy that has been forced upon this convention and 
upon the people of this State arises from the reprehensible prac- 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 97 

tice of members of the Legislature in Deserting the capital and 
being at their homes about one half of the time. It is not ne- 
cessary to characterize such a practice more than to state it. 
Probably there are a good many who are listening to me now 
that have practiced it considerably themselves ; but it is a prac- 
tice that should in some manner be discountenanced. Now 
it is my judgment that a period of sixty-seven days, which 
would be until Saturday of the tenth week of the session, is long 
enough for a session of the New Hampshire Legislature except 
in a few extreme cases. The session of 1887 was doubtless an 
extreme case, and 1883 was somewhat of that nature. I have 
looked at the journals and have ascertained that the average ses- 
sions of the Legislature for twenty years, commencing with 1860 
and ending with 1879, were J ust about thirty-eight days. I in- 
clude the session of 1878, when the laws were revised, which was 
a long one, and I also include the session of 1879, which was a 
biennial session, but it came within one year of the preceding 
session. It is my opinion that the general business in those 
twenty years, from 1860 to 1879 inclusive, was about the same 
as may be anticipated for the next twenty years or more. For 
obvious reasons a biennial session must require less time than two 
annual sessions. In my opinion sixty-seven days nine weeks 
and four days is ample time for all ordinary sessions of the 
Legislature. Once in awhile they may be longer ; but those who 
accept the office of senator or representative will accept it with 
the understanding that they may be called upon to serve a little 
longer than the average session. At three dollars per day, the 
rate fixed by the existing law, the compensation would amount 
to two hundred and one dollars for a session of sixty-seven days, 
only one dollar more than the salary proposed by the gentleman 
from Lisbon. Now if such an amendment as this does not com- 
pel the members of the Senate and of the House to be in Con- 
cord Monday night at least, so that they can give the whole of 
Tuesday to legislative work, and to stay at least through Friday, 
so as to make four complete legislative days in a week, I shall be 
a little surprised. I think it will have that effect ; but if it does 
not have that effect, let them go away Friday morning and come 
back Tuesday afternoon, and let them do it at their own expense 
and not at the expense of the people of the State. 

7 



98 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I hope I may be pardoned a single 
word further, although I am rather inclined to think that the 
views I have undertaken to present are not particularly popular 
with this convention. I do not know what may be the expecta- 
tion of the gentleman from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard) and of some 
other gentlemen here, but I do not expect that we shall be able, 
even with all the power of the people, in constitutional conven- 
tion assembled here, to legislate virtue, morality, patriotism, the 
civic virtues, into future Legislatures of New Hampshire. The 
gentleman from Laconia says that Legislatures heretofore have 
been guilty of reprehensible conduct. I do not know that I 
should take issue on that. I suppose men will be men, and they 
will have the faults of men until the millennium comes at least, 
and I do not believe we shall be able to pass an amendment to 
the Constitution which will bring on the millennium ; men will 
continue to be men. The gentleman from Laconia says he 
thinks that if we fix the salary, the result will be that they will 
come here and work a sufficient number of days to earn their 
money. That argument seems to be put upon the ground that 
we are hiring men to work for us ; that is, we as masters are 
hiring men to work for us as servants in whom the Constitution 
vests the supreme law-making power of New Hampshire, and we 
are now engaged in devising a scheme to get good days' works 
out of them. I do not like to look at the subject in just that 
way. You cannot legislate morality and patriotism into men. 
You cannot effect your purpose in that way. Improve your 
methods of political education. Support your churches and 
Sunday schools, and promote morality and the civic virtues ac- 
cording to the behests and admonitions of this magnificent Con- 
stitution which we already have. 

Now I should be glad to have this question answered, because 
it troubles me a little. If we, the people, elect a set of men 
whom we must follow with a constitutional convention all the 
time to see that they are not recreant, I should like to know what 
security we have for one good quality in them any more than 
another ? If we have not security in their responsibility to the 
people, their sense of honor and their sense of duty and patriot- 
ism, to insure the performance of their public duties here, I should 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 99 

like to know what security you will have that they will not come 
here, and, instead of working six days in the week, work just as 
few days as they can, and stay just as short a time as they can, 
and go home just as quick as they can get away, and leave the 
public business unperformed, and leave legislation to suffer and 
the body politic to decay in consequence of their neglect and 
recreancy to their duty ? I cannot see it in any other light than 
that this is an imputation upon our legislators. What assurance, 
what guaranty have we that putting a stated and fixed compensa- 
tion upon their services will secure faithful and efficient conduct 
on their part, and that they come here Monday morning and 
work until Saturday to earn their money, any more than we have 
that they will perform the duty which is placed upon them by the 
Constitution without any such mercenary consideration as that ? 
Is that all the motive that we can present or hold over the legis- 
lators of this State, a sordid, mercenary consideration ? If 
they are so recreant to their trust as to omit one duty, will they 
not omit another ? How are we going to know that a fixed sal- 
ary will secure that they do the number of days' work suggested 
by the gentleman from Laconia ? Why is it not just as probable 
that they will come here and stay as short a time as they can, if 
they are the kind of men supposed, and so get as many dollars 
for as few days' work as possible if we make a stated salary, as 
that they will come and stay a long time for the purpose of get- 
ting three dollars a day, provided that we allow that munificent 
sum to stand as their compensation hereafter as it has been here- 
tofore ? 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : The gentleman from Lancaster 
(Mr. Ladd) is a logician, and his arguments are always well 
put. He talks about the virtue of the people ; he talks about 
the high character of the representatives in the future Legisla- 
tures ; he talks as though we were putting some disgrace upon 
them by paying them a salary ; he says men are not perfect, the 
millennium has not come, and how do we know that if we pay 
them a salary they will come here Wednesday and adjourn the 
next Monday without doing anything. And so he offers a bribe 
to these patriotic men by saying, We will pay you so much a day 
and then you will work for us ; you have not honor enough to 



100 JOURNAL OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

work for a salary ; but we will pay you by the day and then your 
virtue will triumph, and you will stay here two months, three 
months, four months, five months, or six months at three dollars a 
day. My friend's logic is not consistent. 

We pay our judges a salary. The gentleman was once upon the 
bench ; I wonder if he would have worked any better if he had had 
fifteen or twenty dollars a day ? If we had only known what his 
idea was, we would have paid him by the day. But there is no 
use of talking of that, for he could not have done any more than 
he did when he was on the bench ; he worked all the time, and 
his distinguished ability and labor deserved much more pay than 
he ever received. This idea that a man will not work unless he 
is paid by the day is absurd. 

I was here in 1848, 1849, an d 1856. We used to think along 
back in those days that we should not stay longer than until 
about the 4th of July, because we were afraid the other party 
would make a fuss if we made too much expense, and so we 
would work like beavers until we got through. But now other 
interests have come in and prolong the sessions of the Legisla- 
ture ; I do not think it is so much the fault of the representa- 
tives. I understand ; I have heard ; I think I knew something 
about it in 1883 and in 1887 ; I think there was then something of 
a railroad contest here. Perhaps the gentleman from Portsmouth 
(Mr. Jones) knows better about it than I, I think there was some- 
thing of a railroad contest. But I presume that these railroad 
contests which keep the members here one, two, or three months 
have passed, and the railroads will settle their own matters and 
we shall go back to old times when railroads did not interfere 
with us, when we could do all the business of legislation in six 
weeks. The legitimate business of legislation can be done in 
from four to six weeks just as well as it can in six months. If 
the railroads wish to come here and wish to take longer time, 
perhaps they will come ; but I think the railroad contests are 
substantially settled. At any rate, a salary of two hundred dol- 
lars or one hundred and fifty dollars is honorable to the men and 
is fair to the State. We shall get men enough to take the place. 
Our constituents will thank us that we have done a square and 
honorable thing. 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 101 

The question being stated, 

Shall the amendment offered by the gentleman from Concord 
(Mr. Durgin), fixing the salary of members of the Legislature at 
two hundred and fifty dollars, be adopted ? 

It was decided in the negative. 

The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lisbon (Mr. 
Foster), fixing the salary at two hundred dollars, was considered. 

The question being stated, the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. Foster of Lisbon moved to amend the resolution fixing 
the salary of the speaker of the House and president of the Sen- 
ate at two hundred and fifty dollars each. 

Mr. Baker of Lebanon : Was there not a resolution presented 
to the convention this morning providing for the salary of the 
speaker of the House and president of the Senate, which was re- 
ferred to the Committee of the Whole to be considered at the 
time of the consideration of the resolutions now before the com- 
mittee ? 

The Chair : No such resolution has been presented to the 
chair. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : My recollection is that such a proposi- 
tion was made, but that nobody voted in favor of it and nothing 
was done with it. I may be wrong, but that is my impression. 

Mr. Dudley of Brentwood : I introduced an amendment to 
the resolution, which provided that the salary of the president 
of the Senate and speaker of the House should be fixed at double 
that of a member. 

The Chair : The amendment of the gentleman from Brent- 
wood, containing the larger sum, will be considered before the 
other amendment. 

The question being stated, the amendment was rejected. 

The amendment offered by Mr. Foster of Lisbon, fixing the 
salaries of president of the Senate and speaker of the House at 
two hundred and fifty dollars each, was considered. 



102 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

The question being stated, the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. French of Nashua moved to amend the resolution as 
follows : 

Add after the word " mileage," at the close of the resolution, 
the following ; " Provided, however, that when the General Court 
shall be called together by the governor, the members shall re- 
ceive as compensation for their attendance at such special session 
the sum of three dollars per day for a period of not more than 
fifteen days, and the usual mileage. ' ' 

Mr. Wallace of Milford moved to amend the amendment by 
striking out the words "for a period of not more than fifteen 
days." 

Mr. French of Nashua : This amendment was suggested to me 
by an older member looking carefully to a provision that would 
cover all cases. We all know that the exigency probably will 
seldom occur when the governor will have to call a special session 
of the Legislature. But it may happen, it has happened, and in 
justice to those who may be called at that time there should be 
some provision. It seems to me there can be no reasonable ob- 
jection to providing for all such cases. The time is limited in 
the original resolution to fifteen days, so the expense cannot ex- 
ceed forty-five dollars and mileage. It would not seem just that 
members of the Legislature should come here and should fare 
worse than their predecessors, and they must come if called here 
by the governor upon a special occasion. Two hundred dollars 
covers only such a session as will ordinarily be held. Now if 
there be a call by the governor, there will be extra work and 
extra time required of the Legislature, and why should they not 
be compensated for it ? The occasion will seldom occur, but 
when it does occur it is just that the representatives should be 
paid for their time, not exceeding fifteen days. 

Mr. Wallace of Milford : I agree with the gentleman who last 
spoke (Mr. French). The occasion rarely occurs that a special 
session of the Legislature is called ; but it would seem to be 
right and just that if such an emergency should occur the 
members of the Legislature who are called here at that time to 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 103 

perform their duties should be properly recompensed for the time 
and services they render. Of course, no such exception as this 
was necessary under the law as it has heretofore existed, because 
they would have received and did receive three dollars a day 
whether it was at a special or regular session of the Legislature. 
Having adopted an amendment to the Constitution which fixes 
the salary of members of the Legislature, and having fixed it at 
a sum which we believe would properly recompense them for a 
regular session, it seems right that we should make some provis- 
ion for their recompense when they are called together at special 
sessions. Now I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the 
gentleman from Nashua, except that I do not believe it is possi- 
ble for us to limit the number of days for which they should be 
recompensed. It is seldom that a special session will be called. 
It is only to be called upon some exigency ; and I believe it is 
right and best to allow three dollars a day for the whole time, 
whether the session shall be fifteen days or thirty days in length, 
and let the exigency which arises settle the question of the length 
of the session at the time. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : I wish merely to make one sug- 
gestion in regard to extra sessions without any limit. In case 
it should happen that the Legislature should meet here and stay 
sufficient time to get their two hundred dollars, and then go 
home, what is to hinder the governor calling an extra session of 
the Legislature and the members coming back and staying as 
long as they please ? In such a case are we gaining anything by 
fixing the salary at two hundred dollars ? 

The question being stated, 

Shall the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Milford 
(Mr. Wallace) be adopted ? 

It was decided in the negative. 

The question being stated, the amendment proposed by Mr. 
French of Nashua was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Knapp of Somersworth, ordered that the 
committee arise and report progress. 



104 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

IN CONVENTION. 
(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Bartlett, chairman, reported that the Committee of the 
Whole had had under consideration the resolution introduced by 
the gentleman from Henniker (Mr. Gate), fixing the salary of 
members of the Legislature, together with sundry amendments 
thereto, had concluded the same, and reported the resolution, as 
amended, to the convention. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : The resolution says that $200 shall be 
paid for "every session." If there was an extra session, the 
salary of each member would amount to $400. I simply call the 
attention of the convention to this. If it is referred to a com- 
mittee, they will undoubtedly put it in proper form. 

On motion of Mr. Colby of Claremont, the resolution was 
referred to the Committee on Legislative Department. 

The president laid before the convention petitions presented 
by Mr. Durgin of Concord, representing fifty-three towns and 
bearing the names of 4,313 citizens of the State, asking for the 
submission to the people of an amendment to the Constitution 
prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks. 

On motion of Mr. Cross of Manchester, the several petitions 
were laid on the table, to be referred to a special committee to 
consist of one member from each county. 

Mr. Hayes of Milton presented a memorial of the Union Law 
and Order League, of Wakefield, Brookfield, Milton, and Mid- 
dleton, praying for the adoption of an amendment to the Con- 
stitution prohibiting the manufacture or sale of all malt or 
distilled liquors. 

The memorial was laid on the table pending the appointment 
of the special committee to consider petitions on the same sub- 
ject. 

Mr. Damon of Campton presented the petition of Gardner S. 
Bartlett and sixty-one others, citizens of Campton, asking for 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 105 

an amendment to the Constitution enlarging the jurisdiction of 
justices of the peace. 

The petition was referred to the Committee on Judicial 
Department. 

Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam moved that the report of the Com- 
mittee of the Whole on the resolution changing the time of the 
meeting of the Legislature from June to January be taken from 
the table. 

The motion prevailed. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the report of the Committee of the Whole be accepted ? 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I am not going to oppose this propo- 
sition. It appears to me, however, that it would be difficult and 
inconvenient to get all the members to attend the first of Janu- 
ary. So far as trade is concerned, I suppose our merchants 
sell more goods from the 2oth of December to the 1 2th of Jan- 
uary than during any other time in the year. The banks and, I 
think, all other corporations generally hold their annual meetings 
at that time. It is a time of active business operations, especially 
with corporations and merchants. If it would be convenient 
for the Legislature to meet the first part of November, it appears 
to me it would be a delightful season for it. 

A member : Election comes then. 

Mr. Lyman : Yes, election comes then. I was thinking that 
was in October. A certain minister said that he wrote his after- 
noon sermons during the noon, so that if they were not as good 
as they might be they would at least be warm. I do not know 
when the best time is. I only call your attention to the matter. 
I believe it is universally considered in Massachusetts that it is 
impossible to do any business in the Legislature during the first 
two weeks in January because the members are so much engaged 
otherwise. I have no proposition to make ; I simply wish to in- 
vite the attention of the Legislature to the matter. 



106 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Woolson of Lisbon : I move that the report be referred to 
the appropriate committee. 

The President : The question is upon the adoption of the 
report. I think it will be found that in every instance where 
a report was made it was adopted before it was sent to a commit- 
tee. Such a course puts the seal of approval upon the action of 
the Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : My impression is that we have 
adopted a different rule on that subject. Under the method of 
procedure adopted in 1876 everything went to a Committee of 
the Whole as a matter of course, and the provision was that 
nothing should go to standing committees except what had been 
adopted by the convention. 

The President : Will the gentleman refer to the rule and to 
the change ? 

Mr. Ladd : On page 26 is the resolution which was adopted 
by that convention, and which is materially different from the 
resolution under which we are working. That resolution is as 
follows : 

' ' Resolved, That this convention will proceed to revise the 
present Constitution of the State by considering it as in Commit- 
tee of the Whole till gone through with under consecutive and 
separate heads, and by sending to special and appropriate com- 
mittees, from time to time, such amendments as may be adopted 
by the convention." 

The President: The present rule is in these words: "All 
amendments proposed shall be offered in writing, and shall be 
read by the secretary for the information of the convention, 
when, unless rejected or otherwise disposed of, the same shall be 
referred to an appropriate committee, who shall examine and 
report the amendments referred to the convention, with such 
recommendation as they may deem advisable." I do not see 
anything in the phraseology that necessarily implies an intention 
to change the form of proceeding. 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1889. 107 

Mr. Hatch of Greenland : I think this rule was substituted for 
and intended to take the place entirely of the old form of pro- 
ceeding in 1876. The rule with reference to the forming of the 
Committee of the Whole and then referring matters to a commit- 
tee to be put into precise language was dropped, and this new 
form adopted. What is the report of the Committee of the 
Whole ? It is that the amendment be adopted by the convention. 
Now if the report is adopted, then the proposition is adopted by 
the convention, and it is too late then for any committee to put 
it into precise language. It seems to me that ought to be done 
before the amendment is adopted by the convention. 

The President : I take it that the object of sending this to the 
Committee of the Whole is to get at the views of the members, 
but not to put it into the form in which it is to be embodied in 
the Constitution. The purpose of the committee twelve years 
ago was to take such propositions in their informal shape and to 
put them into proper form and adapt them to the language of 
the Constitution. My idea was that the same process was to be 
adopted to-day, that where a proposition had gone through the 
Committee of the Whole and received their approval, it was then 
to be sent to a committee for the purpose of being put into 
shape. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I think the change which it was 
understood the committee recommended is not in the rules at all. 
I think it is not printed with the alphabetical list. 

The President : Was there anything in that which related to 
this matter, as to whether the resolution adopted by the Com- 
mittee of the Whole should be afterwards adopted by the con- 
vention before it was sent to a special committee ? 

Mr. Hibbard : It was understood that a change was made so 
as to present things the other end foremost, if I might so express 
it. I think it was understood in the committee that the practice 
of 1876 was changed, and that matters would be referred to a 
committee before they were adopted by the convention. 

The President: I think their method might be well enough 
pursued so far as the language of the rules is concerned, and 



108 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

without having my attention called to this I followed the prac- 
tice of 1876; but if it was the intention of the committee that 
that practice should be changed at this time, I have no objection. 

Mr. Hibbard : The understanding of the committee was that 
in 1876 the standing committees did not act upon the merits of 
questions referred to them, but only put them in form and 
adapted them to the Constitution, but that the plan adopted at 
this convention was different, and required a reference in the 
first place ; but I do not distinctly remember the phraseology of 
the resolution. 

The President : If that was the understanding, it is very evi- 
dent that the practice ought to be modified accordingly, and my 
idea would certainly be, that there is no occasion for the conven- 
tion to formally adopt the action which has been taken by the 
Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. Ladd : I see by the last convention that everything was 
finally and formally adopted by the convention after the several 
propositions had been to the committees and put in form. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : You will find where they adopted 
the amendments on page 253 of the journal of the convention. 

The President : My ruling would be, that it is not necessary to 
adopt the action of the Committee of the Whole before sending 
the resolution to an appropriate committee. It is moved by 
the gentleman from Lisbon (Mr. Woolson) that the resolution 
reported by the Committee of the Whole on the subject of 
changing the time of the assembling of the General Court from 
June to January be referred to the Committee on Legislative 
Department. 

The motion prevailed. 

On motion of Mr. Hatch of Greenland, the convention 
adjourned. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 109 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 

The reading of the journal of the preceding day was begun, 
when, on motion of Mr. Davis of Warner, the further reading 
was dispensed with. 

The president announced the following special committees : 

ON FINANCE. 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Baker of Lebanon, McCrillis of Center Harbor, 

Sanborn of Portsmouth, Mathes of Wolfeborough, 

Farrington of Rochester, Brigham of Winchester, 

Gilmore of Manchester, Bond of Charlestown, 

Woodman of Concord, Day of Stratford. 

ON PROHIBITORY AMENDMENT. 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Cross of Manchester, Wilkins of Moultonborough, 

Todd of Atkinson, Fletcher of Marlow, 

Thurston of Dover, Duncan of Plainfield, 

Durgin of Concord, Noyes of Bethlehem, 

Webster of Meredith, Smith of Dalton. 

The president laid before the convention the following com- 
munication from the officers of the New Hampshire Woman 
Suffrage Association : 

To the Officers and Members of the Constitutional Convention of 

the State of New Hampshire : 

The undersigned, officers of "The New Hampshire Woman 
Suffrage Association," and in behalf of their associates, respect- 
fully petition for an amendment striking out the word " male " 
from articles 9 and 28 of the State Constitution, said amend- 



110 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

ment to be submitted to the people, with such other amendments 
as may be proposed by your honorable body. We would call 
attention to the fact that nearly three thousand names were pre- 
sented to the Legislature of 1887, asking for the extension of 
the right of suffrage to women, and also that like petitions, with 
more or less names signed to them, have been presented to the 
Legislatures for the last eighteen or twenty years ; also, that a ma- 
jority of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union are asking 
for political rights. Believing that "all men [and all women are 
included] are born equally free and independent, therefore, all 
government of right originates from the people, is founded in 
consent, and instituted for the general good." We earnestly 
pray that our organic laws may be made to conform to this dec- 
laration of the Bill of Rights, by removing from them a provision 
that disfranchises one half the people of the State. Believing that 
"taxation without representation is tyranny," we submit that 
law-abiding, tax-paying women ought to have the right to a just 
and direct representation in the government. The existing con- 
dition of things is not " founded in consent " of all the governed, 
neither does it exemplify the idea that "all men [which neces- 
sarily includes all women] are born equally free and independ- 
ent ; " and we earnestly pray for equal political rights to be 
given to all citizens of the State irrespective of sex. 

ELIZA J. C. GILBERT, 

President. 

MARY H. ELA, 

Secretary. 

ARMENIA W. HOBBS, 

Treasurer. 

ARMENIA S. WHITE, 
Chairman Executive Committee. 

The president also laid before the convention the memorial of 
Lucy Stone and others, asking for an amendment granting an 
extension of the right of suffrage to women. 

Mr. Davis of Warner moved that the communication and 
memorial lie upon the table. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. Ill 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : It does not seem to me that such 
disposition should be made. I hope that the motion will not 
prevail and that we give them a hearing to-morrow evening. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : The question is not debatable, but I 
see no objection to giving them a hearing to-morrow evening at 
half-past seven. 

Mr. Davis of Warner : It was not my purpose in moving to 
lay the matter on the table to obstruct, but rather to make some 
disposition of it for the present. I did not know but some 
arrangement could be made after adjournment this morning by 
which we could accommodate them. I will withdraw the 
motion if it is thought desirable to give them a hearing to-mor- 
row evening. 

Mr. Lyman : I move that they have an opportunity to present 
their cause at half-past seven to-morrow evening in this hall. 

The motion prevailed. 

Mr. Davis of Warner offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, not 
including cider, and the sale and keeping for sale of intoxicating 
liquors, are and shall be forever prohibited ; except, however, 
that the sale and keeping for sale of such liquors for medicinal 
and mechanical purposes and the arts, and the sale and keeping 
for sale of cider may be permitted, under such regulations as the 
Legislature may provide. The Legislature shall enact laws, with 
suitable penalties, for the suppression of the manufacture, sale, 
and keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors, with the exceptions 
herein specified. 

The resolution was referred to the Special Committee on Pro- 
hibitory Amendment. 

Mr. Coburn of Littleton presented the petition of Frederick 
George Chutter and forty-two others, citizens of Littleton, pray- 
ing for the submission to the people of a prohibitory amendment. 

The petition was referred to the Special Committee on Prohib- 
itory Amendment. 



112 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Smith of Plymouth presented the petition of T. S. Simp- 
son and forty-five others, citizens of Plymouth, asking for an 
extension of the powers of justices of the peace. 

The petition was referred to the Committee on Judicial De- 
partment. 

Mr. Amidon of Hinsdale offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That part second of the Constitution, articles 9, 10, 
and n, be so amended as to provide that each town entitled to 
town privileges and each ward in every city shall be entitled to 
elect, biennially, one representative in the Legislature, unorgan- 
ized towns and places to be classed by the General Court on an 
equitable basis for the purpose of choosing a representative ; and 
the General Court shall not authorize any town, ward, or place 
to elect and send such representative except as herein provided. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legislative 
Department. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. Fernald, for the Committee on Future Mode of Amend- 
ing the Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments, to whom 
was referred the proposed amendment to the Constitution offered 
by the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Cross), relating to the 
right of persons convicted of crime to vote, reported the follow- 
ing resolution : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution 
as proposed. 

The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 

Mr. Lang of Orford, for the same committee, to whom was re- 
ferred the resolution introduced by Mr. Thompson of Belmont, 
relating to amending article 99, part second, of the Constitu- 
tion, as to choice of delegates to the constitutional convention, 
reported the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as 
proposed. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 113 

The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 

Mr. Colby, from the same committee, to which was referred 
the resolution relating to removals by address, reported that it is 
inexpedient to adopt the amendment proposed. 

The report was accepted and adopted. 

Mr. Hatch, from the same committee, to which was referred 
the proposed amendment to the Constitution offered by the gen- 
tleman from Rochester (Mr. Whittier), providing for the division 
of certain towns into voting precincts, reported the same with 
the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as 
proposed. 

Mr. Felker of Rochester : I move that the report be recom- 
mitted. It seems to me that the people of Rochester are in a 
bad fix with reference to their town meetings. They have a list 
of some twenty-four hundred voters, and it is practically impos- 
sible to vote at one polling place. They wish the Constitution 
amended so they can have more than one polling place. Mr. 
Whittier is not present, and as we have had no hearing before 
the committee it seems to me that we ought to have an opportu- 
nity to be heard. 

The motion prevailed and the report was recommitted. 

Mr. Hibbard, for the Committee on Judicial Department, to 
which were referred sundry petitions for an amendment to the 
Constitution giving justices of the peace exclusive original juris- 
diction in civil causes when the damages demanded do not exceed 
one hundred dollars and the title of real estate is not concerned, 
reported the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the petitioners have leave to withdraw. 
The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 

Mr. Smith, for the Committee on Bill of Rights and the Exec- 
utive Department, to which was referred the proposed amend- 
ment creating the office of lieutenant-governor, reported that 



114 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

they had considered the same and deemed it inexpedient to 
adopt said amendment. .The committee further report as a sub- 
stitute for said amendment the following amendment to article 
49 of the Constitution ; to wit, at the end of article 49 add the 
following : "Whenever the chair, both of the governor and presi- 
dent of the Senate, shall become vacant by reason of their death, 
absence from the State, or otherwise, the speaker of the House 
shall during such vacancies have and exercise all the powers and 
authorities which by this Constitution the governor is vested 
with when personally present. But when the speaker of the 
House shall exercise the office of governor, he shall not hold 
his office in the House." 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : The convention will at once perceive 
my object in offering the resolution that I did. After an adjourn- 
ment of the Legislature, if the governor and president of the 
Senate should die, there is no means whatever provided by which 
the government could be continued, because there would be no- 
body authorized to convene the Senate to choose a president of 
that body. In many States they have a lieutenant-governor, 
making him president of the Senate, with a casting vote. Oc- 
casionally in the organization of the Senate the case might occur 
where the Senate was equally divided, and the presiding officer 
to be elected might possibly fill the office of governor, and no 
member of either party would feel like voting for a person of a 
different political party to fill so important a place. I intended 
to go before the committee, but had no notice. 

The amendment so promptly proposed by the committee at its 
first brief session, without notice or hearing, to take the place of 
that presented by me obviates only the chief difficulty I had in 
view, and that by making the speaker of the House acting gov- 
ernor if the vacancy named should occur. If the convention 
thinks this preferable to having a lieutenant-governor elected by 
the people for that purpose and also to preside over the Senate, I 
shall offer no objections, although it seems to me more in accord- 
ance with the genius of our government, more democratic, more 
republican, to leave the election to the people instead of making 
the smart young partisan politician and attorney, usually elected 
speaker, governor in case such a vacancy should occur. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 115 

The people would undoubtedly elect well-informed, substantial 
citizens from among their numbers, who are excellent presiding 
officers and whose presence would add to instead of detract from 
the dignity of the Senate, and who would, if called upon to fill 
the vacancy caused by the death, resignation, or inability of the 
governor, make a chief magistrate who would command the re- 
spect of the people, not only because he would discharge the 
duties of his office well, but also because they had themselves 
selected and elected him for that very purpose. This support of 
the governor would be far preferable to the support which might 
be given to a chief magistrate by the interests which may com- 
bine to elect a speaker with an eye to the making up of certain 
committees. The true way is to keep the government near the 
people and in their hands as much as possible. Then the diffi- 
culty which is liable to occur in organizing the Senate is left un- 
provided for by the committee's substitute. I think the election 
of a lieutenant-governor for the purpose of presiding over the 
Senate of some importance. If my memory serves me correctly, 
in 1855 tne Senate could not and did not organize and meet the 
the House in convention, as required by the Constitution, till, neg- 
lecting the requirements of the fundamental law of the State, what 
few senators were elected went into the House, but not as a Sen- 
ate, and the vacancies in the Senate were filled. In 1875 one 
party believed only five Republicans and five Democrats were 
elected to the Senate, and that the president of the Senate was 
elected by the votes of two men who had not been elected sena- 
tors. An acting governor owing his election to two such votes 
would not be in an enviable position. All perceive that since 
we elect a governor only once in two years there is double the 
liability of a vacancy, and that some provision should be made 
to fill it in addition to that now in the Constitution. 

The question being stated, the report of the committee was 
accepted and the proposed amendment adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Hadley of Concord, the convention went 
into a Committee of the Whole to consider the resolutions 
relating to the methods of making future amendments to the 
Constitution. 



116 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Woolson of Lisbon in the chair.) 

The chair stated that the convention was in Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of proposed amendments relating to 
future methods of amending the Constitution, and that the reso- 
lution introduced by Mr. Hadley of Concord was before the 
committee for consideration. 

Mr. Hadley of Concord : I offered a resolution relating to 
the matter under consideration, and I wish the convention to 
decide at an early day whether to approve of it or not. It is suf- 
ficiently simple in its statements, and, I presume, is thoroughly 
understood by all who have heard it. I am as much opposed to 
tinkering and meddling with the Constitution as any gentleman 
in this convention, and I have only proposed this measure from 
certain suggestions that have been made to me, and which I have 
heard from members, and from other sources for two years past, 
that it is desirable to have a more simple method of amend- 
ing the Constitution. I had supposed that this proposition was 
sufficiently guarded to prevent any undue meddling with that 
instrument. Of course, the proposition, in the wisdom of the 
convention, may require some modification. According to the 
resolution which I have introduced, an amendment to the Con- 
stitution must be adopted by a majority of the members elected 
to the Senate and House of Representatives, the yeas and nays 
must be recorded, the amendment must be published with the 
laws of the State, and the people will have two years to consider 
the question. At the succeeding Legislature the proposition is 
to be taken up again, and, if passed, is to be passed by a majority 
of the members elected to both branches, not a majority merely 
of those who happen to be present and voting. When thus 
passed, the Legislature will lay it before, the people, and the 
people, in meetings duly warned, must vote to adopt it by a two 
thirds vote, or it is rejected. It seems to me that there will be 
as much safety in this method as in leaving a question of amend- 
ment to be settled by a convention which will feel itself more or 
less limited in time. The question will be before the people two 
or three or four years. No bad measure, it seems to me, no 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 117 

crude measure, can pass such an ordeal. There will be no temp- 
tation to undue meddling by the Legislature with the Constitution 
under those circumstances. It could hardly be the case that a 
bad measure would pass. It seems to me that there can be no 
objection to this method, on its merits. 

Again, irrespective of the merits, I feel confident that the 
people would like to pass upon the proposition, and shall not we, 
as delegates of the people, leave it for them to decide ? If they 
wish to retain the present system, sanctioned by the fathers (for 
whom I have the utmost respect), let them do it ; but let us put 
the question to them to decide. I do not think it will incumber 
the other amendments. I do not desire that many amendments 
should be presented to the people, lest they reject them all ; but 
it does not seem to me that there is any danger that this propo- 
sition would interfere with the adoption of others. I leave the 
matter for the consideration of the convention, but I think it 
should be disposed of at an early day, because we all desire to 
close the convention as soon as possible. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I understand that there is another 
proposition with reference to the same matter, and I would like 
to have it read in order that we may compare the two side by 
side. 

The resolution introduced by Mr. Davis of Warner was read. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I am opposed to the measure intro- 
duced by the gentleman from Concord (Mr. Hadley). It has 
several objectionable features. I understand, if I heard it read 
correctly, that it repeals three articles of the Constitution and 
substitutes another in their place. It repeals so much of the 
Constitution as provides for taking the sense of the voters once 
in seven years upon the subject of calling a convention to revise 
the Constitution. This feature of the Constitution ought not, in 
my judgment, to be repealed. It was wisely put there by the 
framers of the Constitution in order that the people, at least 
once in seven years, might have an opportunity to express them- 
selves as to whether they desired to amend their organic law. 
The resolution introduced by the gentleman from Concord (Mr. 



118 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Hadley) proposes to abolish that entirely, if I heard it read cor- 
rectly. If I am mistaken, I should be glad to be set right. 

Mr. Hadley : It does so. I wish to make the matter clear. 

Mr. Smith : I like the resolution introduced by the gentleman 
from Warner (Mr. Davis). It provides an additional mode of 
amending the Constitution without the expense and the tedious 
delay of obtaining in the first place the sense of the people and 
then calling a convention. The substance of it is this : The 
Legislature may propose specific amendments to the Constitution 
whenever such amendments are agreed to by two thirds of each 
branch of the Legislature. In this respect it differs from the 
proposition of the gentleman from Concord which requires a 
majority of each branch for two successive Legislatures. 
According to the proposition of the gentleman from Warner, the 
yeas and nays are to be taken and entered upon the journal, 
together with the amendments, and the amendments are to be 
printed with the laws, as is also provided in the resolution intro- 
duced by the gentleman from Concord. Then, at the next 
biennial election, when there is a full vote of the people, the 
amendments are to be submitted to the people, and if approved 
by two thirds of the people voting, they become part of 
the organic law of the State. Do not these provisions suffi- 
ciently guard against improper amendments ? No measure can 
be submitted to the people unless it secures the affirmative voice 
of two thirds of each branch, which is a sufficient guaranty that 
no improper measure will be submitted, then it requires a two 
thirds vote of the people. The proposition of the gentleman 
from Warner (Mr. Davis) provides a sufficient guaranty against 
the hasty adoption of amendments, and there is no unnecessary 
delay. The principal argument against the present method is 
that it is tedious and expensive. During the convention of 1850 
and since, it became quite manifest that the people desired some 
simpler and less expensive mode. 

We are following in the footsteps of other States. In nearly 
every other State in the Union some mode like this is devised for 
submitting amendments to the people. The only question can 
be, Are sufficient protections thrown around the measure to guard 



WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 9, 1889. 119 

against the introduction and adoption of amendments without 
due consideration ? The two thirds vote required in each 
branch of the Legislature and by the people is a sufficient guar- 
anty. I should be sorry to see the Constitution amended so that 
the people could not, if they chose, hereafter call another conven- 
tion whenever they might desire to do so. I think we should 
present the anomalous condition of being the only State in the 
Union which could not call a convention to revise its organic 
law. That right should be preserved. 

Mr. Hadley of Concord : It is objected that this proposition 
repeals article 99 of the Constitution, which provides for the 
calling of a convention every seven years. I supposed that was 
the very thing that everybody who wished for a change in this 
respect wanted repealed ; I supposed that the intention was to 
leave the matter hereafter to one or two Legislatures. The prop- 
osition of the gentleman from Warner (Mr. Davis) is to leave it 
to one Legislature to decide by a two thirds vote of members, as 
I understand, present and voting. I did not think that propo- 
sition would be likely to meet the requirements exactly, and 
therefore I proposed that amendments should be considered by 
two successive Legislatures as is provided in most of the States, 
and that a majority of the members elected to the two branches 
should decide, not two thirds of those who happen to be present 
and voting. I have no objection to putting a provision for 
a two thirds vote into this proposition, if that would be 
more desirable ; and if the convention wish to risk it with one 
Legislature upon a two thirds vote, I have no objection to that, 
for I really believe that there would be considerable security in 
that method. But there certainly would not be so much security 
nor so much opportunity for a careful discussion before the people 
while a measure was passing the ordeal, as there would be in the 
method which I have proposed. 

Mr. Davis of Warner: What is the parliamentary position 
now? 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I understand that both propositions 
are before the committee. 



120 JOUKNAL OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Davis of Warner : I move to substitute my proposed 
amendment for that of the gentleman from Concord (Mr. 
Hadley). 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I would inquire if it is understood 
that this is a motion to amend so as to make the proposition of 
the gentleman from Warner (Mr. Davis) an amendment adopted 
by the committee, or simply to lay aside the proposition of^ the 
gentleman from Concord (Mr. Hadley) for the present and take 
up the proposition of the gentleman from Manchester. 

The Chair : Simply to substitute the consideration of one 
proposition for the other, for the time being. 

The question being stated, the motion of Mr. Davis of War- 
ner prevailed. 

The Chair : The question before the committee is upon the 
proposition of the gentleman from Warner (Mr. Davis) : 

Resolved, That the Constitution be amended as follows : 
Amendments to the Constitution may be submitted to the people 
by the General Court, or any specific and particular amendment 
or amendments to the Constitution be proposed in the General 
Court and agreed to by two thirds of the members of each house 
present and voting thereon. Such proposed amendment or 
amendments shall be entered on the journals of the two houses, 
with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and shall be published with 
the laws passed at the same session ; and it shall be the duty of 
the General Court to submit such proposed amendment or amend- 
ments to the people at the next succeeding biennial election, and 
if they shall be approved and ratified by two thirds of the quali- 
fied voters voting thereon, they shall become part of the Consti- 
tution of this State. 

Mr. Davis of Warner : It is not my purpose to take up the 
time of this convention now. There are reasons why I prefer the 
proposition offered by myself. The gentleman from Manchester 
(Mr. Smith) has given, it seems to me, sufficient reasons why 
this method is preferable to the other. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 121 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : I should like to have the proposi- 
tion read. There seems to be some question whether the vote of 
two thirds of those present and voting or two thirds of the mem- 
bers of the Legislature are required. 

The resolution was read. 

Mr. Colby of Claremont : I desire to inquire of the mover of 
this resolution whether it is intended that this shall be with or 
without a previous vote of the people showing a desire to have 
the Constitution amended. Perhaps the gentleman from Man- 
chester (Mr. Smith), who has discussed the matter, can explain 
this. From what he said I understood he desired to retain that 
feature, a determination by the people once in seven years 
whether the Constitution shall be amended. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester: I move to amend the resolution 
now before the committee by striking out the words " present and 
voting thereon," and substituting in their place the words " of 
all members elected to each house." This obviates one of the 
objections raised by the gentleman from Concord (Mr. Hadley). 
In answer to the question of the gentleman from Claremont (Mr. 
Colby) I would say that, according to the resolution under con- 
sideration, the Legislature of its own motion can propose amend- 
ments to the people. Any member in one branch or the other 
of the Legislature may introduce an amendment to the Consti- 
tution ; if it receives a two thirds vote of all the members elected 
to that house, it then goes to the other ; if it receives a two 
thirds vote of all the members elected to that house, it goes 
to the people, after being recorded with the yeas and nays in the 
journals and published with the laws, to be voted upon, not at 
a special election when perhaps but few voters are present, but at 
the next biennial election when the largest number of voters at- 
tending an election is present. It does not require in the first 
place the assent of the people that a proposition shall be sub- 
mitted in the Legislature, but amendments may originate in the 
Legislature. I think this is an answer to the question of the 
gentleman from Claremont, as I understand it. 

Mr. Colby of Claremont : The question that I asked is not 
exactly met. I understood the gentleman (Mr. Smith) to say 



122 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

that he wished to retain that feature of the Constitution which 

requires a vote once in seven years to ascertain the will of the 

people as to whether the Constitution shall be amended. Now 

in this proposed scheme does not that provision become a nul- 
lity ? Is there any place where that operates at all ? 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : It does not become a nullity. 
This proposes an additional mode of amending the Constitution. 
It leaves the old method unaffected, and whether the Legislature 
does or does not propose amendments to the people for their rat- 
ification, the people will once in seven years have the opportu- 
nity to vote whether they will call a convention for the purpose 
of revising the Constitution. The two provisions will stand side 
by side ; there will be two modes of amending the Constitution, 
one by amendments originating in the Legislature and sub- 
mitted to the people, the other by amendments orginating in a 
convention whenever the people shall vote to call one. The ad- 
vantage of giving the Legislature power to present amendments 
to the people is, that if the people get such amendments to the 
Constitution as they desire, they will not vote to call a conven- 
tion, and the expense of a convention will be saved. I move 
the amendment which I have suggested. 

Mr. Hersey of Keene : It seems to me there is a serious ob- 
jection to the proposed amendment. According to the present 
method of amending the Constitution it has a brief rest, to say 
the least ; it is meddled with but once in seven years. The 
indications are that most of us members of this convention would 
like to tinker with the Constitution, in some way or other we 
desire it to be changed. Should the proposition under consid- 
eration become a part of the organic law, every Legislature that 
sits will be deluged with propositions for changing the Constitu- 
tion, and every biennial election will raise a discussion upon 
questions which bear upon the organic law of the State. It 
seems to me that the people should not be required to watch the 
Constitution all the time ; once in seven years is certainly a short 
enough time for the Constitution to be disturbed. I think this 
scheme would constantly keep the question of amending the 
Constitution before the people and continually make trouble for 
them. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 123 

Mr. Wallace of Milford : I am opposed to any change in the 
method of amending the Constitution. In the first place, the 
method which we now have has worked with entire satisfaction 
during the hundred years or so in which it has been in operation, 
and it is always safe to let well enough alone. In the second 
place, if I understand this proposition, it would devolve upon 
the Legislature to formulate amendments to be submitted to the 
people. Now I think it is a great deal more desirable that a 
body such as this body, a non-partisan body, should have charge 
of that duty the formulating of amendments to be submitted 
to the people rather than a body like a Legislature, which is 
often influenced by partisan considerations. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I agree with the gentleman (Mr. Wal- 
lace) who spoke last in regard to this matter. I remember reading 
of a celebrated painter in some ancient city, I think, who produced 
a magnificent picture, a great work of art ; and it was so fine, and 
he was so well satisfied with it himself, that he invited the criti- 
cism of all his brother artists in the city. For that purpose he 
exposed it in a public place, and laid brushes and paint near by, 
and invited all the painters to make such alterations and changes 
as they thought would improve it. The result was that in a very 
short time nothing was left of the picture but a meaningless daub 
of paint ; the original. design had entirely disappeared. 

I have not yet heard a reason which seems to me sufficient for 
changing the mode of amending the Constitution. The only 
argument that has been offered of any weight in favor of the 
proposition of leaving it to the Legislature to make suggestions 
for amendments to be proposed to the people is that the expense 
of holding a convention might be saved. Now it seems to me 
that the Constitution, being the work of the people drawn up in 
convention and agreed to by the people in their primary capa- 
city, not in their representative capacity, not acting as a Legisla- 
ture, ought to be changed or amended only in the same way. 
The idea is, and the fact is, that the Constitution comes from 
the people directly, and, as has been well suggested, it seems to 
me if it should be left for the Legislature to propose amend- 
ments, there would be, judging from our experience, many mem- 
bers in the successive Legislatures who would have projects of 



124 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

their own for improving and changing the fundamental law of 
the State, which would be crude and erratic, impracticable and 
unwise, and the result would be that the people would very often 
be called upon to pass upon propositions to amend the Constitu- 
tion. There is a disposition to avoid responsibility by handing 
questions over to the people to be acted on by them which ought 
to be disposed of by the Legislature. Proposed constitutional 
amendments are not apt to attract so much notice as they ought, 
and the votes upon them are not generally very full. It seems 
to me that there is a serious objection to opening the doors of 
the Legislature to all manner of projects for changing the 
organic law of the State. I fear there would be great danger of 
the original work being destroyed or greatly impaired in its sym- 
metry and beauty, and that we should too soon find ourselves 
contemplating an unsightly daub in place of what we now so 
justly admire and venerate. 

It is said that a method similar to that proposed has been 
adopted in many States. I repeat the remark which I made here 
yesterday, that while we should look to history for examples for 
guidance, yet I think those schemes for amending the Constitu- 
tions of the several States through the action of the Legislatures 
have not been long enough tried anywhere so that they have 
passed beyond the region of experiment ; and, so far as I have 
looked into the matter, they have not been entirely satisfactory 
in their operation. Several of the States where such schemes 
have been adopted, where I have looked into the Constitutions, 
have their organic laws, even now, lumbered up with enactments 
which ought to be on the statute books and nowhere else. 
Take, for example, the Constitution of the great commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania, which has a method of amendment identical, 
I think, witk the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
Concord (Mr. Hadley). It .is true the method looks quite safe, 
as has been suggested. Doubtless it presents considerable bar- 
riers against the adoption of crude or ill-considered amendments ; 
but whether as a result of that or some other cause, it is true that 
the Constitution of that great commonwealth is, as I have just 
remarked, lumbered up with a great variety of provisions which 
are nothing more nor less than statutes, provisions with respect 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 125 

to railroads, telegraph companies, and other corporations, and 
with a great variety of provisions concerning the detail of the 
management of the affairs of municipal corporations, cities, and 
towns, so that, in order to find out what you would ordinarily 
regard as statute law in Pennsylvania, you must examine the 
Constitution as well as the statutes of the State. It seems to me 
that the two things ought to be kept separate, that we are safer 
resting upon the original idea of the fathers (for whom I confess I 
entertain not only respect but veneration), that the amendment of 
the Constitution should not be a thing to be lightly undertaken. 
Every line of our Constitution shows that it was framed by men 
of great learning, of great research, and of profound thought 
upon the principles of government, and their idea was that the 
two things the framing of the Constitution and the framing 
of statutes should be kept separate. We have a most admi- 
rable declaration of the great fundamental rights of the citizen, 
which had from time to time been threatened and invaded in the 
mother country, from whence, to a considerable extent, our 
scheme of government was derived. The fact that those rights 
had been imperiled more than once was fresh in the minds of 
the fathers, and their first object was to guard them ; so we have a 
most admirable declaration, in particular and general terms, of 
the rights of the citizen. Then comes the Constitution, which 
simply provides a scheme of government in general terms for 
the administration of the affairs of the State; and there it 
leaves it, and there I would leave it. With my present im- 
pressions I should vote against incorporating any matter into 
the Constitution which is properly a matter for legislative cog- 
nizance and which properly comes within the range of the Legis- 
lature in passing statutes, that is, establishing rules to govern the 
people of the State in their dealings with each other, and in 
conducting the affairs of life as an enlightened and Christian 
community. Public opinions change and the times change, 
and therefore the main body of the law ought to be left so that 
it can be changed by the representatives of the people according 
to the circumstances and situation of things at the time the 
changes are made. If a law is not sustained by public sentiment 
it is no law at all, in any proper sense of the word. A provision 



126 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

put into the Constitution which is not substantially sustained by 
the sentiment of the people, is a dead letter. We have an illus- 
tration of that in our Constitution in the religious test, which has 
been kept there year after year for a century almost, but is a dead 
letter as everybody knows. Many illustrations of this principle 
could be adduced from the statute laws of the State. As a great 
writer, Mr. Emerson, says, I do not quote the words exactly, 
/'A law, or what has the form of law, a legislative enact- 
ment, that is not sustained by public sentiment, by the will of 
those who are to be governed by it and act under it, is a rope of 
sand which falls to pieces in the twisting of it." 

I think the Constitution as left by the fathers goes far enough 
when it distinguishes the power of the people to amend the Con- 
stitution from the power of the Legislature, which has its own 
range and scope. I would leave this great instrument, unsur- 
passed on this Continent, in my judgment, for wisdom and far- 
sightedness, secure from the profane hands of political charlatans 
and demagogues and cranks, and secure from the sudden, but 
oftentimes dangerous, squalls of popular excitement and clamor, 
which will always find ready exponents in the Legislature. I 
would leave it to be amended, as it is now, by the people, acting 
first in a convention called for that purpose, and then in their 
primary capacity by a two thirds vote, and I would exclude the 
Legislature, as they are now excluded, from any part or lot in 
the matter forever. 

Mr. Armington of Whitefield : I suppose it is the intention of 
most of the delegates here to make changes which are absolute- 
ly needed in the Constitution for the interests of the people of 
of the State. In case of doubt as to any amendment that 
should be introduced, I think that a majority of the mem- 
bers will cast their vote against it and give the Constitution the 
benefit of the doubt. I think that no matter who originates a 
proposition in this convention, if it is not clearly, almost beyond 
discussion, for the benefit of the State, it should not be adopted. 
Now what change has happened in this State since the adoption 
of the Constitution which requires an amendment of this kind? 
If nothing has happened that requires it, why is the Constitution 
not right as it is ? The Constitution of our forefathers sh ould 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 127 

be held sacred by us. Now what change is demanded ? I find 
none. It is suggested that it will save a little expense. I think, 
gentlemen, " the proof of the pudding is in the eating." We have 
had our present method of amending the Constitution since its 
adoption, and we have had no occasion to find fault with it. A 
convention elected under the present method comes directly from 
the people and is uninfluenced by the partisan questions which 
often affect Legislatures. The delegates of the convention come 
here with a single purpose in mind, the real benefit of the 
people. Changes in the Constitution should be kept clear of 
political entanglements and free from those influences that ordi- 
narily affect a Legislature. It seems to me, that for the purpose 
of saving a few dollars this doubtful experiment should not be 
made. 

Mr. Bartlett of Manchester offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the committee that it is in- 
expedient to amend the Constitution in relation to the mode of 
making future amendments to the same. 

The question being stated, the resolution was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Leighton of 'Manchester, ordered that the 
committee rise and report progress. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Woolson, chairman, from the Committee of the Whole, 
reported that the committee had had under consideration the 
several resolutions proposing to change the method of amending 
the Constitution and had adopted the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the committee that it is inex- 
pedient to amend the Constitution in relation to the mode of 
making future amendments to the same. 

The question being stated, the report was accepted and resolu- 
tion adopted. 



128 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Walker of Concord moved that the convention resolve 
itself into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the 
resolution relating to the amendment of article 24, part second of 
the Constitution, relating to the method of demanding the yeas 
and nays of members of the House and Senate, introduced by 
him. 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester : I suppose the motion of the gen- 
tleman from Concord (Mr. Walker) is not debatable, but I want 
to say that this question is before us and we have got to meet it. 
We have no time to waste, and I hope the motion will prevail. 

The question being stated, the motion was adopted. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Colby of Claremont in the chair.) 

The proposed amendment introduced by Mr. Walker of Con- 
cord, relating to the method of demanding the yeas and nays in 
the Legislature, was before the committee for consideration. 

Mr. Walker : It is hard to prove a self-evident proposition. 
As the Constitution now stands, upon motion made by any one 
member the yeas and nays of any question shall be entered on the 
journal. The resolution before the committee is simply to change 
that provision so that the yeas and nays can be called by four 
members of the Senate instead of one, and by thirty members of 
the House instead of one. I do not know as it is necessary to 
argue this matter, but it may be well enough to call attention to 
a few facts in regard to it. This provision is not only in the 
Constitution now, but it was in the Constitution of 1792 and it 
was in the Constitution of 1781. I think it was not in the first 
Constitution ever adopted by the State, the temporary Consti- 
tution of 1776. It has certainly been in the Constitution for a 
hundred years or more. Now when this provision of the Con- 
stitution was first enacted, there were in the House of Represent- 
atives of this State only ninety members or less, and the provis- 
ion then gave to any one man of the ninety the privilege of 
calling the yeas and nays. We have grown, and our Legislature 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 129 

now has about three hundred and twenty members ; and as the 
provision stands to-day, any one man out of the three hundred 
and twenty can compel three hundred and nineteen men to 
answer to the yeas and nays, and as often as he sees fit so to do. 
In other words, three hundred and nineteen men are held at 
bay by a single man who chooses at any time, for the purpose of 
obstructing legislation or for any other purpose, to demand that 
that time be consumed in calling the yeas and nays. 

In other States they have outgrown this idea of giving to any 
single member this right to annoy his associates and obstruct 
legislation. In this body the yeas and nays can be ordered, ac- 
cording to our rules, by any ten members of the convention. 
Vermont, as I understand, still allows any one member of the 
Legislature to call for the yeas and nays. By the rules of the 
Legislature of Massachusetts it requires thirty members of a 
House composed of two hundred and forty members to call the 
yeas and nays. In Maine it requires one fifth of the whole body 
of the House or Senate ; the same rule prevails in Rhode Island 
and also in Connecticut. According to the Constitution of the 
United States, the yeas and nays can be demanded only by one- 
fifth of the members present. 

It seems to me that this question needs but very little argu- 
ment. I have inserted in the resolution which is before you the 
number " four " for the Senate, which is one sixth of that whole 
body ; and for a call of the House of Representatives the num- 
ber "thirty," instead of a fractional number, from the fact that 
it is easier for the speaker to count out thirty than it would be to 
determine any fractional part of the whole body present. I am 
not tenacious as to the number, but I think we have got to a 
point where we ought to have some change. It would be a very 
slight change of two or three words in the Constitution ; it would 
not " lumber up ' ' the Constitution at all. I think it is one of those 
changes which must commend itself to all persons who have had 
experience in legislation. 

Mr. Hatch of Greenland : The gentleman from Concord (Mr. 
Walker) has detailed the objection to the present provision, but 
he has failed to state the object of the framers of the Constitu- 



130 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

tion in adopting that method. I understand the purpose to have 
been simply this : that the members of the Legislature when they 
come here shall be made accountable and responsible to their 
constituents. Their constituents have a right to understand how- 
each member votes on any question. All I have got to say is, 
that to my mind the reason in favor of the present method out- 
weighs every objection that can be submitted, and I hope the 
resolution will not be adopted. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the resolution relating to the method of demanding the 
yeas and nays in the General Court be adopted? 

It was decided in the negative. 

On motion of Mr. Woodman of Concord, ordered that the 
committee rise and report progress. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Colby, chairman, reported that the Committee of the 
Whole had considered the proposed amendment to the Constitu- 
tion in relation to a record of the yeas and nays of members of 
the House and Senate and had rejected the same. 

The question being stated, the report was accepted and 
adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, the convention ad- 
journed. 

AFTERNOON. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Mr. Weeks of Canaan offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That article 78 of the Constitution, relating to the 
tenure of service of judicial and other officers, be amended by 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 131 

adding at the end thereof the words, " unless thereafterwards 
appointed for a definite period of time." 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Judicial 
Department. 

Mr. Hayes, from the Committee on Bill of Rights and Exec- 
utive Department, to which was referred the proposed amend- 
ment limiting the term of office of justices of police courts to 
a period of five years, reported the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to adopt such amendment. 
The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
Mr. Kelley of Weare offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That article 9, part second of the Constitution, be 
amended by striking out the word "eighteen" in the eighth 
line, as it is printed for the use of the convention, and inserting 
in place thereof the words " twenty-four ; " also, by striking out 
the word "twelve" in the tenth line, and inserting in place 
thereof the word "eighteen." 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legislative 
Department. 

Mr. Woolson of Lisbon moved to amend the rules of the 
convention as follows : 

Amend rule 10 by striking out the words " and the rule relat- 
ing to calls for the yeas and nays," and by adding at the close of 
said rule the words " and rule 9." 

Mr. Hatch of Greenland : I fail to see how that will change 
the order of procedure in this convention. 

Mr. Woolson : I understand that the call for the yeas and nays 
in Committee of the Whole is not in accord with any authority 
on parliamentary law. It was inserted in the rules of 1876 
because the work was done in Committee of the Whole, and the 
other committees were simply to put in form what was done in 
the convention. The method of proceeding is entirely different 
in this convention. There is no necessity for the rule allowing 



132 JOURNAL OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

the yeas and nays to be called in Committee of the Whole, and 
the reason given in Robinson's work on parliamentary law is that 
nothing is concluded there, and it would subject the members to 
two calls on the same question. 

Mr. Hatch : I agree with the gentleman (Mr. Woolson) fully, 
but I fail to see how striking out those words will attain his end, 
because the rule with reference to the call of yeas and nays (rule 
9) is a part of the rules of the convention, and if you amend as 
proposed, rule 9 is still one of the rules of the convention. You 
have got to amend by adding " except rule 9." 

Mr. Woolson : I accept the amendment. I did not read 
rule 9. 

The President : The motion of Mr. Woolson as amended is 
in this form : 

Strike out the following words of the last line on page 44 of 
the rules, "and the rule relating to calls for the yeas and nays," 
and at the end of the rule add the words "and rule 9," so 
that if adopted the latter part of rule 10 will read as follows: 
" and the rules of proceeding in convention shall be observed in 
Committee of the Whole, except the rule limiting the times of 
speaking, and rule 9." 

Mr. Davis of Warner : I suppose the purpose of the amend- 
ment is to do away with calling the yeas and nays when the con- 
vention is in Committee of the Whole. In that case, if I am 
right in my understanding, the yeas and nays cannot be called 
on questions that come before the convention, other than such as 
the Committee of the Whole has reported. 

The President : The language of the rule is that " every ques- 
tion shall be decided by yeas and nays, whenever a demand for 
the same shall be made and sustained by at least ten members." 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester : It is not the practice to have a 
roll-call in the committee of the whole house. That practice 
might have been adopted in 1876, because the method of proced- 
ure was somewhat different from ours. The object of the gen- 
tleman from Lisbon is simply to do away with the roll-call in 
Committee of the Whole. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 133 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : It has not bothered us any yet. 

Mr. Briggs: It has not bothered us any, but it may. The 
amendment will not deprive anybody of voting yea or nay upon 
any proposition which comes before the convention in any form. 
By changing the rule you lose none of your rights ; you can make 
all the record you need to. I hope the amendment will prevail. 

The question being stated, the amendment was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. French of Nashua, the convention went 
into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the pro- 
posed amendment relating to the election of civil officers by a 
plurality vote. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Hibbard of Laconia in the chair.) 
The question being stated, 

Shall the proposed amendment to the Constitution introduced 
by the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith) be adopted ? 

Mr. Pillsbury of Derry offered the following resolution as an 
amendment to the pending question : 

Resolved, That the amendment proposed by Mr. Smith of 
Manchester be so amended as to make the plurality rule apply to 
the election of all officers elected under the laws of the State. 

The Chair: The question before the committee is, Shall the 
resolution introduced by the gentleman from Derry (Mr. Pills- 
bury), which is a substitute for the original resolution introduced 
by the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith) with reference 
to the election of civil officers by plurality vote, be adopted ? 

Mr. Durgin of Concord : We have just adopted an amend- 
ment to our rules, taking away the right of calling the yeas and 
nays in committee of the whole. Now, if the resolution before 
the committee should be decided in the negative here, will we 
have an opportunity of acting upon it before the convention ? 



134 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

The Chair : The impression of the chair is that the amend- 
ment acted upon by the committee, if it originated in the com- 
mittee, might be moved in the convention. According to par- 
liamentary law, the body that constitutes itself a Committee of 
the Whole is not supposed to have any knowledge of any trans- 
actions in the Committee of the Whole except what is reported 
by the chairman. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : There is no question that the chair is 
right. If this amendment is voted down here, it can be moved 
again in the convention ; the report of the committee may be 
accepted, rejected, or amended by the convention. 

Mr. Pillsbury of Derry : I hope that the resolution will be 
adopted by the convention. I feel the more impelled to ask it 
because I know that throughout the State, and especially in some 
of the country towns, there is a strong feeling that a plurality 
should elect our town officers. Although I am in favor of the 
proposition of the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith), that 
a plurality should elect our state officers, I feel that it is not of 
so great consequence as that a plurality should elect in our 
town elections, because the time of a great many of our busy 
people is uselessly occupied, especially in large towns. In the 
town I live in there is a great dread of having election come 
round ; there are many men who dislike to attend at the town- 
house and spend one, two, or possibly three days in electing 
town officers. ' Even before the close of the first day many of 
the best men become weary and return home. They do not like 
to wait there in the tobacco smoke so long a time. I feel there 
is a strong demand among the inhabitants of those towns that a 
plurality should elect as in other States, where a very few min- 
utes only are required to enable them to perform their duties and 
return home. In these larger towns many of the best men, who 
have homes to which they desire to return and who have prop- 
erty which requires their care, are the ones who go home first, 
while those who have nothing at stake and a few earnest politi- 
cians remain, conduct the business of the town, and control its 
elections. For this reason I desire to have the committee adopt 
this resolution. 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 135 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : There is nothing in the Constitution 
to prevent the Legislature passing an act providing that a plural- 
ity shall elect all town officers and representatives. 

Mr. Pillsbury : As we cannot get such an act through the 
Legislature, I think this is a good time, when we are amending 
the Constitution, to adopt the plurality rule, if it should be 
thought by the convention that it is the true rule, and let it apply 
to all cases. 

The Chair : Will the gentleman from Derry state what con- 
struction he puts upon his amendment, whether it applies to all 
officers elected under the Constitution or the laws, or only to 
the election of town officers? 

Mr. Pillsbury : I intended it to apply to the election of all 
officers under the law. 

The Chair : Then the chair will state the practical effect of 
the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Derry, as con- 
strued by him. It is to strike out the words from the original 
resolution, "whose election is provided for by the Constitution," 
so that the original resolution as amended, if so amended, will 
read, "In all elections of civil officers by the people of this 
State, the person having the highest number of votes shall be 
deemed and declared elected." 

Mr. Melcher of Laconia : It seems to me it would be better to 
leave the resolution as it was originally, and allow the Legislature 
to make laws relative to the election of town officers. In the 
last constitutional convention the matter of minority, or cumu- 
lative, representation was discussed, I believe, in the election of 
representatives and supervisors in towns, so that the minority 
might have a representative, that in case three or more officers 
were to be voted for on one ticket, of the same grade, voters 
might concentrate their votes, that is, they might put in three 
ballots for one man, or two ballots for one man and one for an- 
other, if there should be three officers to be chosen. In that 
way there would be a minority representation on the board of 
selectmen or board of supervisors, which it seems to me is very 



136 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

desirable. For that reason I hope the matter will be left as it is, 
hoping that the Legislature may see the wisdom of providing for 
minority representation. 

Mr. French of Nashua : How would this resolution as to 
method stand in the Constitution if there was a tie ? The Con- 
stitution used to provide for such things. This proposition does 
not provide for that. 

Mr. Lyman : Of coure there would simply be no election, and 
you would have to try over again. 

Mr. Durgin of Concord : It seems to me that the provision 
would apply to every corporation that is chartered by the Legis- 
lature, because corporations take their authority from the laws of 
the State, so that every corporation, bank, railroad, and every- 
thing chartered by the State would have to come under the plu- 
rality rule. 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester: If I understand this question, it is 
substantially this : There are certain officers which the Constitu- 
tion of the State requires to be elected by a majority vote, 
governor, members of the Senate and members of the council ; 
I think those are all. Municipal officers and members of the 
House of Representatives, upon the passage of a law by the 
Legislature, can be elected by a plurality vote as the Constitution 
now stands. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Manchester (Mr. Smith) was to make provision for the election 
of those officers which the Constitution now requires to receive 
a majority so that they may be elected by a plurality. The 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Derry (Mr. Pills- 
bury), if adopted, will make all officers elected by a plurality. 

My first impression when this matter was introduced was 
rather favorable to the plurality system, but the more I have 
thought upon the subject the more I am satisfied we had better 
leave the matter as it is. It has not worked any very serious 
mischief in the last hundred years of our history; I do not sup- 
pose it will in the hundred years that are to come. There is no 
universal desire among the people of the State that we should 
change this old charter of our liberties in this way ; there is no 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1889. 137 

public demand anywhere that we should make the change. At 
times it would be convenient; there have been times when it 
would have been very satisfactory to my own feelings if we could 
have elected by a plurality, and times when it would not have 
been. I prefer the present system; it has its advantages and 
objections. In the last election there were four senatorial dis- 
tricts in which there was no choice. Had this provision been 
in the Constitution, we should have elected in two of them and 
the Democrats would have elected in two. No great harm done 
either way. 

A Delegate: Who is "we"? 

Mr. Briggs : The Republican party. There is no doubt 
where I stand ; when I said " we " I meant it. And so it has 
been in the past history of the State. 

Now there is another thing to be considered. The theory of 
our state governments is that they are governments by a major- 
ity. Our Constitution provides for the election of certain offi- 
cers according to this theory. You change that provision and 
our government may become the government of a minority, 
because we might have a man elected as governor of this State 
who was a minority candidate ; there might be a large majority 
against him. If you have three candidates, and two of them 
receive one vote less than the third, the third candidate would 
be elected, but he would not be the choice of a majority of the 
people. As it is now, in case there is no election by the people 
the selection is made from the two highest candidates. I do not 
just like that method ; but, as I said in the beginning, I am of 
the opinion that we had better let the whole matter rest just 
where it is until we see such evil results from its operation that 
the people come up and demand that the change be made. 
There are two or three changes which the people expect to be 
made, if I understand the public sentiment. The first is that we 
shall change the time of the meeting of the Legislature ; the sec- 
ond is that we shall fix a salary. How effective these changes may 
be I do not know, but I think the public generally expect these 
amendments will be made, and if we go much beyond that we 
shall find when the votes are counted that we have not a two 



138 JOURNAL OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

thirds vote to ratify the proceedings of this convention, and our 
time will have been thrown away. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the amendment offered by the gentleman from Derry be 
adopted ? 

A division was called for with the following result : 

Seventy-six members having voted in the affirmative and one 
hundred and twenty-seven in the negative, the amendment was 
rejected. 

The question recurred upon the adoption of the resolution 
offered by Mr. Smith of Manchester. 

The question being stated, a division was called for with the 
following result : 

One hundred and three members voted in the affirmative and 
one hundred and fifteen in the negative, and the resolution was 
rejected. 

On motion of Mr. Briggs of Manchester, ordered that the 
committee rise and report progress. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Hibbard, chairman, from the Committee of the Whole, 
reported that the committee had had under consideration the 
proposed amendment to the Constitution, introduced by Mr. 
Smith of Manchester, providing for the election of civil officers 
by a plurality vote, together with the several amendments thereto, 
and had rejected the same. 

The report was accepted and adopted. 

Mr. Harvey of Surry introduced the following resolution : 

Resolved, That article 10 of the Constitution be stricken out, 
and article n be amended so as to read as follows : " Whenever 
any town, place, or city ward shall have less than six hundred 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 139 

such inhabitants, the General Court shall authorize such town, 
place, or ward to elect and send to the General Court a represent- 
ative such proportional part of the time as the number of its in- 
habitants shall bear to six hundred. But the General Court shall 
not authorize any town, place, or ward to elect and send such 
representative except as herein provided." 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : That matter, with reference to classed 
towns, is under consideration by another committee, and gentle- 
men have been before the committee and made known their 
views on the subject to a considerable extent. A further opportu- 
nity will be given to gentlemen interested in the matter to ap- 
pear before the committee upon the adjournment of the conven- 
tion. Possibly it may be thought best to consider this resolution 
in connection with the proposition relating to the same subject 
which is now before the committee. 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Future Amend- 
ments. 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester : There is considerable work before 
the committees of the convention that ought to be attended to. 
I do not know of anything to come before the convention at this 
time, and for the purpose of giving the committees an oppor- 
tunity to work I move that the convention do now adjourn. 

The motion prevailed. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 

The reading of the journal of the preceding day was begun, 
when, on motion of Mr. Bartlett of Manchester, the further 
reading was dispensed with. 



140 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. Walker, from the Committee on Legislative Department, 
to which was referred the resolution providing that article 26 of 
the Constitution be amended by striking out the words " by the 
proportion of direct taxes paid by the said districts," and insert- 
ing instead thereof the words " by the legal voters in said dis- 
tricts," reported that the committee are of the opinion that it 
is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as proposed in said 
resolution. 

The report was accepted and the proposed amendment was 
rejected. 

Mr. Woolson, from the same committee, to which was referred 
the resolution introduced by Mr. Todd of Atkinson, proposing to 
amend the Constitution in relation to filling vacancies in the 
Senate, reported the same with the following resolution: 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution in 
the manner proposed. 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : I am very sorry that the committee 
have made this report, because I think the amendment proposed 
is one that should pass. As it is now, in case of a vacancy by 
death we have only two courses : we must choose the candidate 
who had the next highest number of votes, and in that case he 
would be of the opposite political party, and the district would 
be misrepresented } or, we must select an individual who had 
one, two, three, or four votes cast for him, perhaps in joke, and 
who would represent nobody. There have been two instances 
to which I wish to refer. In 1871 there was an election where 
Alvah Smith had four votes, Albina Hall 2,567 votes, and Sam- 
uel P. Thrasher 2,595 votes. Samuel P. Thrasher died, and the 
Legislature had to fill the vacancy from one of the two other 
men. . Albina Hall had the next highest number of votes, but 
he was a Republican, of the opposite party. They did not se- 
lect him, and if they had he would not have represented the dis- 
trict; but they selected Alvah Smith, in accordance with a 
bargain, as was generally believed. One gentleman told me that 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 141 

by so doing it was the salvation of the party. Perhaps it was, 
but the next time it may be a curse to the party. I do not think 
the result showed that a single man who voted for that Alvah 
Smith but felt ashamed of his action, as I understood the gentle- 
man from Dover to state the other day. He represented nobody, 
and nobody was proud of him. 

There was another case in the Legislature of 1883. Daniel S. 
Dinsmore had 2,338 votes, Jonathan Taylor had 1,549 votes, 
David Shaw had four votes. Daniel S. Dinsmore died, and a 
selection had to be made, either of Mr. Taylor, who did not rep- 
resent the district politically, as he had almost a thousand less 
votes than the one who was chosen, or of David Shaw, of a 
tainted name, as the Manchester "Mirror" said, a man who 
should not sit in this hall ; and although David Shaw was said 
to be a tainted man, I know nothing about it except what the 
Manchester " Mirror " said, and nobody denied it, he had a 
large vote, and if party exigency had required his election he 
would have been elected. But every man who voted for him 
would have felt as the gentleman from Dover did in regard to 
that other man, Mr. Smith. They chose Mr. Taylor, a highly 
respectable man, but he did not represent his district politically. 

Now the only fair way is to send the election back to the peo- 
ple and let them vote again, and let a majority rule, as it ought 
to. I am very sorry that the committee has made this report, 
and I hope that the good sense of the convention will overrule 
the action of the committee. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I am afraid the convention does not 
understand the report of the committee. The proposition is 
that when there is a death of a senator-elect there shall be a new 
election in that senatorial district, instead of having the vacancy 
filled as now provided. The committee has reported against 
that proposition and in favor of having it remain as it is. Now 
all who vote in favor of sustaining the report of that committee 
vote in favor of letting the election of senator in case of death, 
and also in case of non-election, remain as it is. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : I understand there were two prop- 
ositions for amendment of a similar nature before the commit- 



142 JOURNAL OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

tee, and, if it is proper, I would like to inquire if both proposi- 
tions were taken under consideration and if both are covered by 
the report. The other method proposed was different from this. 
This proposition is for an election by proclamation by the gover- 
nor, and the other was for an election by the vote of the senators 
elected. 

The President : The report of the committee on the other 
proposition has been handed me, and will be acted upon in its 
turn. 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : I would state that the only difference 
between the proposition of the gentleman from Hopkinton and 
my own is this : In his you could not have a new election except 
on the order of the Senate ; in the proposition which I intro- 
duced, the election may be had on the requisition of the gov- 
ernor. The objection to his proposition is that perhaps two or 
three weeks might elapse before the vacancy could be filled ; by 
my proposition, of course the governor could send out his requi- 
sition as soon as the death occurred, and the senator could be 
here at the opening of the session. 

Mr. Parsons of Franklin : The proposition which is before the 
convention at this time, and on which the committee has reported 
that it is inexpedient to legislate, is that in case of a vacancy 
in the Senate arising from failure to elect, death, removal out of 
the State, or otherwise, it shall be filled by a new election by the 
people. The proposition introduced by Mr. Davis of Hopkin- 
ton is to fill vacancies arising from failure to elect in the manner 
now provided by the Constitution, but to fill all vacancies arising 
otherwise than from failure to elect by a new election by the 
people. In Mr. Davis' s proposition the election to fill the 
vacancy is to be had upon the order of a majority of the senators 
elected ; in the other proposition the election is to be held upon 
the requisition of the governor ; but that is not the main and 
substantial difference between the two propositions. The sub- 
stantial difference is that the proposition now under considera- 
tion applies to all vacancies, and the one offered by Mr. Davis 
applies only to vacancies resulting other than from a failure to 
elect. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 143 

This convention has already decided in favor of the majority 
rule in the election of senators. Now, if there has been one 
election by the people and it has failed because no candidate has 
received a majority, usually because no one political party 
has a majority in the district, is it not folly to send the same 
question back to the same people to try it over again ? It is 
attempting what, from the political division of the district, can- 
not be done. In such a case the provision that the election shall 
be by the Legislature seems reasonable and just ; but in the other 
case, where a candidate has received a majority and then died, 
resigned, or removed from the State, a majority of the people in 
the district are shown to be of one political faith, and it seems 
unreasonable that the Legislature should elect some candidate 
who has received a small number of votes, and usually not of the 
party in majority in the district. The Constitution, as it stands 
now, provides in the first place for an election in case of failure 
to elect, and then it says that in like manner other vacancies 
shall be filled. I do not think that the ordinary mind would 
understand from the Constitution that it intended that the Legis- 
lature must elect one of the two other persons receiving the 
highest number of votes in case of a vacancy by death or resig- 
nation ; but the legal interpretation has been that they must do 
so. As the proposition under consideration stands, the question 
goes to the people for a new election, although the parties in that 
district may be so divided that no candidate can get a majority ; 
that is simply trying to do something that cannot be done. 

I urge that we now adopt the report of the committee ; then, 
if it is the judgment of the convention that in the cases Mr. 
Todd has referred to, vacancies by death, such vacancies 
should be filled in the manner he proposes, then the way will be 
open to adopt a resolution to that effect, leaving the vacancy 
caused by failure to elect to be filled as is now provided. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : The gentleman from Franklin 
(Mr. Parsons) has explained my bill as it is and as I was intend- 
ing to explain it. Perhaps there is one method of ordering the 
new election better than the one I suggest. I am inclined to 
think that the method of the gentleman from Atkinson (Mr. 



144 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Todd), by proclamation from the governor, is perhaps better than 
ordering the new election by the Senate. 

The question being stated upon the amendment proposed by 
Mr. Parsons, 

Mr. Todd : I will accept the amendment. My only object 
was not to have an Alvah Smith or David Shaw here. 

Mr. Pitman of Conway : I rise to a point of order. I believe 
the question before the convention is upon the adoption of the 
report of the committee. Until that report is either accepted or 
rejected is this resolution subject to amendment ? 

The President : I think it cannot be done at this stage. If 
the proposition had been to amend the report of the committee, 
that would have presented a different question. 

Mr. Parsons : I think that the motion to amend the resolution 
is out of order, but it would be in order to amend the report of 
the committee. The suggestion is made to me that to bring the 
latter properly before the convention the motion might be made 
to strike out the word " not " in the report, which would then 
be that it is expedient to legislate upon the subject, and then the 
question would be before the convention. 

The President : It seems to me that it is not necessary to make 
any motion to amend. If the convention vote against the 
acceptance of the report, then, as I understand, the resolution 
will be before the house. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the report of the committee be adopted ? 

The report was rejected. 

The question recurred upon the adoption of the resolution. 

Mr. Parsons of Franklin moved to amend the resolution as 
follows : 

Strike out the words "failure to elect," after the word 
"from," and insert after the word "otherwise" the words 
" except from failure to elect." 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 145 

The question being stated, the amendment was adopted. 
The question being stated, the resolution was adopted. 

Mr. Amidon, from the Committee on Legislative Department, 
to which was referred the proposed amendment to article 34 of 
the Constitution, introduced by Mr. Davis of Hopkinton, re- 
ported the same with the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to adopt the proposed 
amendment. 

The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 

Mr. Blodgett, from the same committee, to which was referred 
divers resolutions relative to reducing the membership of the 
House of Representatives, reported the same with the following 
resolution : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient at this time to act upon the 
subject. 

The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 

The same gentleman, from the same committee, to which was 
referred the resolution fixing the salary of the members of the 
Senate and House of Representatives, reported the same with 
the following substitute : 

Amend part second of the Constitution by striking out article 
15, and inserting and substituting in place thereof the following: 

" ARTICLE 15. The presiding officers of both houses of the 
Legislature shall severally receive out of the state treasury, as 
compensation in full for their services for the term elected, the sum 
of two hundred and fifty dollars, and all other members thereof, 
seasonably attending and not departing without license, the sum 
of two hundred dollars, exclusive of mileage ; provided, how- 
ever, that when a special session shall be called by the governor, 
such officers and members shall receive for attendance an addi- 
tional compensation of three dollars per day, for a period not 
exceeding fifteen days, and the usual mileage." 

The report was accepted and the proposed substitute adopted. 
10 



146 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
(Mr. Bartlett of Manchester in the chair.) 

Mr. Briggs, from the same committee, to which was referred 
the proposed amendment introduced by Mr. Blake of Fitzwil- 
liam, changing the time of holding sessions of the Legislature 
from June to January, reported the same with the following 
amendments : 

Amend articles 3, 25, 32, 33, 42, 43, 60, and 66 of part sec- 
ond of the Constitution by striking out the word "June" 
wherever it appears in said articles, and inserting the word " Jan- 
uary " therefor; and by striking out the word " first " before the 
word " Wednesday " in the fourth line of article 3, part second, 
and inserting the word "second " therefor. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the report of the committee be adopted ? 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia moved to amend by striking out the 
word " second " before the word "'Wednesday," and inserting 
the word " first " in place thereof. 

Mr. Hibbard : I do not believe that this amendment recom- 
mended by the committee should be adopted. I think that the 
time designated in the Committee of the Whole, the first Wednes- 
day in January, is preferable. I know r of no good reason for not 
commencing the proceedings of the Legislature as early in Jan- 
wary as it may be assembled. According to the judgment of 
most of the delegates in this convention, so far as can be gath- 
ered from their action upon the salary question, a legislative 
session of two months or a little more will be sufficient, and the 
Legislature probably in most cases will transact the business 
within that period of time. Now, the annual election, according 
to the present law, occurs on the second Tuesday of March, and 
it does not seem to me that it is desirable to change that time ; 
if the Legislature meets the first week in January, it can ordina- 
rily adjourn as early as the Saturday before the annual election, 
and for my part I hardly know what the reasons are why the 
Legislature may not meet on the first Wednesday in January, 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 147 

even if it happens to be the first day of January. I do not think 
there are very many who have been accustomed to come to the 
Legislature, or who are likely hereafter to be elected, that would 
have any objection to being absent from home on the first day 
of the new year, and my opinion is that we had better adhere to 
the vote which was adopted so unanimously in the Committee of 
the Whole. 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester : The Committee on the Legisla- 
tive Department, when they had this matter under consideration, 
had a full hearing and a full investigation upon the question as 
to the time. As was stated upon the floor of the House, nearly 
all of the banking corporations have their meetings during the 
first week of the year, which require the attendance usually of 
the officers and stockholders in those corporations. After a care- 
ful examination of the question, and after hearing all that was 
said, we believed it would accommodate a larger number of people 
better to change the time from the first to the second Wednesday 
of January. We did not conceive, and I do not conceive, that 
it makes any great difference to the people of the State whether 
Legislature begins the first or the second Wednesday of January. 
We thought upon the whole that it was better to make that 
change, and our committee were unanimous, I believe, in recom- 
mending that change to be made. It is a matter upon which I 
have no particular feeling one way or another, but we thought it 
would be just as well for the State to accommodate all these great 
interests and make the change, and we have so reported, and I 
hope the report of the committee will be accepted. 

Mr. Hibbard : I did not hear all that the gentleman (Mr. 
Briggs) said, but I understand he made a suggestion in relation 
to meetings of corporations. If the Committee on the Legisla- 
tive Department have in mind to accommodate meetings of the 
national banks, the amendment they have proposed will fail at 
one session in every seven to reach the purpose they had in view, 
because by the law of the United States national banks are re- 
quired to hold their annual meetings on the second Tuesday of 
January which, even if the proposed amendment shall be adopted, 
will occur during the session of the Legislature whenever the 



148 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

first day of January shall be Wednesday. It does not seem to 
me, however, that any question relating to the meetings of na- 
tional banks or the few other corporations, if there are any, that 
meet early in January, is of enough importance to govern this 
convention in recommending a change in the time of holding 
the sessions of the Legislature. There are other things besides 
corporation meetings occurring constantly in the State. I will 
suggest some that would discommode more people to have the 
Legislature sit while they are going on than in the case of cor- 
poration meetings. The courts begin their winter sessions in 
January, and they sit in February, March, and April. It is my 
opinion that the earliest day we can fix upon after Christmas will 
be the safest and the best for all concerned. I do not favor fix- 
ing upon any day in December, but I am in favor of fixing on 
the first Wednesday in January. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I do not propose to discuss this ques- 
tion at any length. These matters were all talked over pro and 
con in the committee. In many of the States the first day of 
January is a holiday. I believe it is not in this State, but it is a 
day when almost everybody wishes to be at home, and one Leg- 
islature in seven would convene the first day of January. We 
thought upon the whole, as Mr. Briggs has said, that it would 
accommodate better to have the Legislature meet the second 
Wednesday of January. I have no personal feeling in this mat- 
ter whatever ; and I do not wish this change laid to the national 
banks, because I consider them only a small fraction of the busi- 
ness interests which are to be attended to on the first day of Jan- 
uary. I think we have nearly seventy savings banks which have 
their annual meetings at or very near that time, with all the div- 
idends to be made up. Our manufacturing corporations gener- 
ally have their meetings that day. The directors are apt to take 
an inventory of stock at that time. It is a very busy time, ex- 
ceedingly busy. Now all I wish is that you think of these vari- 
ous matters and let us try to adopt that day which upon the 
whole seems the best. 

The question being stated, the report of the committee was 
rejected. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 149 

Mr. Colby of Claremont moved that the report be recommit- 
ted to the Committee on Legislative Department, with instruc- 
tions to report the first Wednesday of January instead of the 
second Wednesday of January. 

The question being stated, the motion prevailed. 

JMr. Smith of Manchester : I call for a division for the purpose 
of asking the object of sending this back to the committee. 
This subject has been considered in Committee of the Whole, 
and that committee decided in favor of the amendment. The 
matter was then referred to the Committee on Legislative Depart- 
ment, and their report has not been concurred in. I ask what is 
to be gained by sending it back to that committee ? 

Mr. Colby : The report of the committee has been rejected ; 
I do not understand there is anything before the convention. I 
may be wrong about it. 

Mr. Smith : I understand that the committee reported the res- 
olution favorably, with an amendment. Now we have rejected 
the amendment which they recommended, which leaves the res- 
olution before the convention, as I understand. 

Mr. Colby : I do not understand it that way. The committee 
did not report anything except that the second Wednesday of 
January be fixed as the time of the meeting of the Legislature. 
That has been rejected, and there is nothing before the conven- 
tion. 

Mr. Smith : I call for the reading of the report. 

Mr. Briggs : We simply reported that the changes be made 
making the time the second Wednesday in January instead of the 
first. We did not report any amendments specifically. I sup- 
posed that we were voting on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard). 

Mr. Manahan of Hillsborough : The position seems to be this : 
We have rejected the report of the committee and their proposed 
amendment, and the original proposition is now before this con- 
vention, and the question is, Shall the Constitution be so 



150 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

amended as to change the meeting of the General Court from 
the first Wednesday of June to the first Wednesday of January? 
It needs no recommitment to the committee ; we can act upon 
this proposition here and now. 

Mr. Bell of Exeter : I think there is no particular dilemma. 
This amendment which was proposed by the committee, to 
change the time which the convention had agreed upon, the 
first Wednesday of January to the second Wednesday of Janu- 
ary, has been rejected by the convention. Of course that 
would ordinarily leave the original proposition open to be acted 
upon by the convention. They can act upon it now if they will, 
or they can recommit it. Upon examining the original proposi- 
tion, I find that it is hardly in shape to be finally disposed of. 
It does not mention the various articles of the Constitution 
which need to be amended to conform to this change. The 
report of the committee specified the different articles which it 
was necessary to amend. Perhaps it would be advisable that the 
resolution be recommitted, with instructions to make the requi- 
site change, that is, from the second Wednesday of January to 
the first Wednesday of January, as originally contemplated by 
the convention ; and then, I think, it would be in shape so that 
it could be inserted in the Constitution. 

Mr. Colby : The explanation given by the gentleman from 
Exeter (Mr. Bell) is just the one I had in mind. Of course this 
resolution must go back to the committee sometime to be put into 
proper form. The report which the committee made has been 
rejected, and the matter stands in such a way that we cannot act 
finally upon it now. My motion was that the subject-matter be 
referred back to the committee, with instructions to report the 
first Wednesday of January instead of the second Wednesday. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I do not see the necessity for that. 
The resolution now reads "the first Wednesday of January." 
Why send it back to the committee to report " the first Wednes- 
day of January? " 

Mr. Colby : Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question ? 
Mr. Smith : Certainly. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 151 

Mr. Colby : Suppose we pass that vote here, will the matter 
then be in proper shape to be submitted to the people ? 

Mr. Smith : When the Committee of the Whole reported this 
matter to the convention on Tuesday last, the question was 
raised whether it would adopt this amendment or send it to a 
committee to be put in shape. After some remarks by some of 
the members as to what was intended by the rules, the chair 
ruled that it was not necessary for the convention to vote upon 
the adoption of the amendment, but that it should go to this com- 
mittee, who would then look into the Constitution and see what 
articles of the Constitution would be affected by the proposed 
amendment, and report back to us. I have taken the trouble 
myself to look into the Constitution to see what articles are 
affected by it, and I find that they are articles 3, 25, 32, 33, 42 r 
43, 60, and 66. Now either this committee or some other com- 
mittee have got to attend to that duty. When this was referred 
to the committee last Tuesday I supposed all the committee had 
to do was to examine the Constitution and fit this proposed 
amendment into it, and not to report back amendments that 
materially changed the amendments which had been adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole. The motion of the gentleman 
from Claremont (Mr. Colby) should be this, I think, that the 
resolution be recommitted to this committee or sent to some 
other committee who shall examine the Constitution and report 
from what articles it is necessary to strike out June and insert 
January. 

Mr. Colby : If the gentlemen are desirous of acting upon the 
matter here and now, it can be done by reconsidering the vote 
which has just been passed, rejecting the report of the committee. 
That will bring the report back before the convention, and then 
the report can be amended by substituting the first Wednesday 
of January in the place of the second Wednesday of January. 
The report is otherwise in form. 

Mr. Armington of Whitefield : In the back part of the hall it 
is very difficult for us to get an idea of many resolutions, and 
many of us are ignorant of what we are voting on ; and for that 
reason I think very many in this part of the house desire that 



152 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

the report be recommitted to the committee, so that when we do 
vote we will know what we are voting upon. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I move a reconsideration of the 
vote rejecting the report of the committee. If the vote to 
reconsider prevails, I will then move to strike out the word 
" second," and insert the word "first" in the resolution 
reported by the committee. 

Mr. Colby : In order to bring that motion properly before the 
convention, I withdraw the motion which I made. 

Mr. Smith : I call for the reading of the report. There seems 
to be some misunderstanding as to what it is. 

Mr. Parsons : I call for the reading of the original resolution. 
I think it covers the whole question. 

The original resolution was read. 

The Chair : The chair would suggest that the latter part of 
this article can hardly be adapted to the Constitution in Com- 
mittee of the Whole. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I assure the gentlemen of this con- 
vention that if they will follow the lead in this instance of the 
gentleman from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard), they will unsnarl this 
thing in less than two minutes, and have it just as they want it. 
Simply reconsider the vote that was passed, and then the whole 
matter is before you and you can amend the report at once. 

The Chair : Will the gentleman from Laconia state his motion 
again ? 

Mr. Hibbard : My motion is that the vote whereby the resolu- 
tion reported from the committee was rejected be reconsidered. 
If that motion prevails, I will then move to strike out the word 
"second" in the latter part of the resolution, and insert the 
word "first." 

The question being stated, the motion prevailed. 

Mr. Hibbard : I now move to amend the resolution reported 
by the committee by striking out the word "second " before the 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 153 

word "Wednesday" and inserting the word " first" in place 
thereof. 

Mr. Briggs : There must have been some misunderstanding in 
relation to Mr. Hibbard's motion. I know that some gentlemen 
who are in favor of the second Wednesday in January voted 
against the resolution. Now I think if it is the wish of this 
convention that the first Wednesday be adopted, and if they will 
return the report to the committee, we can dispose of it and not 
take up the time of the convention. 

A member in the back part of the hall : We would like to 
know what the gentleman from Manchester was just talking 
about. We could not hear him. 

The Chair : The question is upon the motion to amend the 
report of the committee by striking out the word "second " be- 
fore the word "Wednesday" and inserting the word "first." 
If amended as proposed, the other parts of the Constitution re- 
ferred to in the report will be amended so as to correspond with 
the amendment. 

Mr. Mellows of Newmarket: I do not know as I am suffi- 
ciently versed in parliamentary law to understand in just what 
position this report and proposed amendment are at the present 
time ; but as it has been objected here that the first Wednes- 
day of January might fall upon the first day of the month, 
New Year's day, when we all wish to be at home to give 
expression to our joy, I would suggest as an amendment to this 
amendment that the resolution be made to read " the Wednesday 
following the first Tuesday of January." 

Mr. Briggs : I suppose at the present stage of the proceedings 
it is perfectly in order to move to recommit. Now I move that 
the report of the committee be recommitted to the Committee 
on Legislative Department, with instructions to report the first 
Wednesday of January instead of the second, and we can make 
the change in a very short time and save the time of the 
convention. 

The question being stated, the motion prevailed and the report 
was recommitted. 



154 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Page, from the Committee on Judicial Department, to 
which was referred the resolution that article 78, relating to the 
terms of service of judicial and other officers, be amended by 
adding at the end thereof the words, " unless thereafterwards 
appointed for a definite period of time," reported the same with 
the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution in 
this regard. 

The question being stated, the report was accepted and the 
resolution adopted. 

Mr. Hatch, from the Committee on Future Mode of Amend- 
ing the Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments, to which 
was recommitted the resolution introduced by the gentleman 
from Rochester (Mr. Whittier) in reference to the establishment 
of voting precincts in certain towns, reported the same with the 
following resolution : 

Resolved, That the committee adhere to their former resolu- 
tion that it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as proposed. 

The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 

Mr. Knapp, from the Committee on Judicial Department, to 
which was referred the petition of T. S. Simpson and others, 
legal voters of the town of Plymouth, asking that the Constitu- 
tion be so amended as to give to justices of the peace enlarged 
jurisdiction, reported the same with the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the petitioners have leave to withdraw. 
The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 

Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, from the Committee on Future 
Mode of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed 
Amendments, to which was referred the proposed amendment 
to article 28 of the Constitution presented by Mr. Davis of 
Hopkinton, reported that it is inexpedient to amend the Con- 
stitution as proposed by said amendment. 

The question being stated, the report was accepted and 
adopted. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 155 

(The president in the chair.) 
Mr. Hibbard of Laconia offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to consider 
the expediency of publishing a report of the debates and pro- 
ceedings of the convention verbatim, or in an abbreviated form, 
and if deemed expedient, to recommend a plan for the publica- 
tion and distribution of such reports. 

The resolution was adopted. 

Mr. Cross, from the special committee to which was referred 
the resolution entitled "An amendment forever prohibiting the 
sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors," and petitions for 
the same object, having considered the same, reported the same 
with the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the accompanying resolution, being the same 
in substance as the one presented, be adopted. 

Resolved, That the sale, or keeping for sale, or manufacture of 
alcoholic or intoxicating liquor, except cider, or of any com- 
pound of which such liquor is a part, to be used as a beverage, 
is a misdemeanor, and is hereby prohibited. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the report of the special committee be adopted ? 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : The committee have reported the 
resolution read in your hearing. I do not propose at this 
time to discuss its merits, I do not propose now to go into 
the question of prohibition or license, and I do not propose at 
any time during this convention to go into those questions un- 
less discussion shall arise so that it shall become necessary. In 
my opinion, and in the opinion of the committee who reported 
this amendment, the members of this convention have all made 
up their minds and are as ready to vote at one time as another. 
You do not wish to listen to discussions upon the evils of intem- 
perance ; you do not wish to listen to the merits or demerits of 
prohibition or of license. These things have been discussed at 
your homes, in the newspapers, in the churches, and in the vari- 



156 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

ous societies of this State. You have heard them discussed for 
many years, and I presume you are now ready to act. However, 
if you desire to go into a full discussion and take the time of this 
convention, the committee are ready to meet whatever question 
may arise as well as they can. We hope, however, in order that 
the convention may adjourn at an early day, that a vote will be 
taken upon the question and that discussion will not be extended. 

The resolution is not in such form as it should be to be in- 
grafted into the Constitution, but it brings the question squarely 
before you. I think I ought to say that, from what I have heard 
from the committee and from others, I believe that this conven- 
tion was called together by the votes of men who wanted this 
principle ingrafted into the Constitution. The temperance men 
of this State, the men who have this question at heart, banded 
together and cast their votes for this convention, and by their 
votes a majority was obtained so that it was called. It was called 
more with reference to this question than with reference to any 
others and all others. It is nearer to the hearts of this people 
than any other. But I do not propose to discuss it pro or con. 
If it is ingrafted into the Constitution, I presume it should prop- 
erly come under part second, following either article 4 or 5, or 
in some other part of part second. 

If there are gentlemen who desire to discuss the question at 
this time or at some future time, we are ready to listen. I am in 
favor of submitting it without discussion, but I am ready to dis- 
cuss it if it should be deemed necessary. 

Mr. Nash of Conway : I am entirely willing that the question 
should be submitted to the convention without discussion. I do 
not believe that any gentleman here cares to hear any argument 
in regard to the evils of intemperance. That intemperance is a 
great evil all of us readily admit ; but that fact has nothing to 
do with the question which this convention has to deal with. 
The question confronting us is, How shall we meet it, what is 
the better course to pursue to promote the cause of temperance ? 
Now I believe that the convention, every member of this con- 
vention, has at heart the promotion of the cause of temperance, 
and the simple question for us to meet is, How can we best 
promote it ? Now so far as I am concerned, and I believe that 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 157 

the majority of the convention will agree with me, that a discus- 
sion here in regard to the evils of intemperance will not be 
profitable, for we are all one way of thinking on that matter ; 
but the question as to how it is best to meet it, is a question 
upon which we may honestly differ. I am willing that this ques- 
tion should go to the convention upon its merits, without dis- 
cussion, provided we can nail every member to the point and 
put him upon record without having any dodging or shuffling 
about it. 

Mr. Mellows of Newmarket : It may be, perhaps, my want of 
perception, but I certainly cannot understand why any one 
wishes to load the Constitution with an article of this kind. 
Since 1855 statutes have been enacted from time to time increas- 
ing the penalties for traffic in intoxicating liquors. There is no 
law upon the statute book that is so difficult to evade as the so- 
called liquor law, none so easy to enforce. The statute provides 
that any process can be amended clear up to final judgment, and 
no court has held that statute unconstitutional. Why put this 
resolution into the Constitution ? There is a statute law in New 
Hampshire to-day which no man is worth enough money to vio- 
late for three months, if he is prosecuted. You have got the 
tools to work with ; why don't you go to work and follow the 
matter up ? Because popular opinion does not sustain you. 
Either the advocates of this measure are dishonest or they have 
not the courage of their convictions, else they would enforce the 
law they now have. 

Mr. Beckford of Laconia : It seems to me that other people 
would like to have something to say upon this subject, therefore 
I move that this matter be made the special order at 2 o'clock 
this afternoon. 

The question being stated, the motion prevailed. 

On motion of Mr. Gate of Henniker, the convention ad- 
journed. 



158 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
AFTERNOON. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 
(The president in the chair.) 

The special order, being the resolution reported by the special 
committee on the proposed prohibitory amendment, was consid- 
ered. 

The question being stated, 
Shall the resolution be adopted ? 

Mr. Mellows of Newmarket : I was saying when I was shut off 
this forenoon that we had a statutory provision that would stop 
any man from selling liquor if it was enforced. I remember 
more than thirty years ago the Prohibitionists told us if we would 
give them what they called the " Maine law " they would stop the 
sale and consumption of liquor. They have had the law more 
than thirty years, and every time the Legislature has meddled 
with it they have made it more stringent and made the penalties 
more severe ; and I ask this convention whether there is any less 
intoxication or any less drinking of liquor under that law than 
there was before its enactment. 

Why do you wish to put this provision into the Constitution 
and load these amendments down with matter which will make 
the people reject them ? When they come to the polls they will 
certainly spew it out of their mouths ; therefore, I say, kill it 
here. It is useless to put it before the people, for they will reject 
it ; there is no question about it, not the slightest. 

I do not intend to make any extended remarks, but merely call 
your attention to the fact that we have a law now so stringent 
that no man can live under it, if enforced. There is no man in 
New Hampshire who can sell liquor, if the law is enforced ; but 
nobody will enforce it. I have seen enough of proceedings in courts 
to know how the law works, and I say it is a farce to attempt to put 
it into the Constitution. I want to ask you the serious question, 
whether you think it is really in the interest of temperance to 
put it in there. You have all the tools now that you require to 
stop the sale of liquor. The Constitution will not enforce itself 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 159 

any more than the statute law will. Someone must make com- 
plaints or the provision will be a dead letter, even if it is in the 
Constitution, just as it has been upon the statute book. 

Mr. Hatch of Greenland : I should like to inquire of the gen- 
tleman from Manchester (Mr. Cross) who, apparently, is the 
father, or at least has charge, of this measure, why it is that the 
word "cider" is excepted from the amendment? The resolu- 
tion admits that cider is an intoxicating liquor. Now if cider is 
excepted from the amendment for any real or fancied party pur- 
pose I can understand why it is done ; if it is done in the cause 
of temperance, certainly the movers of this measure have made 
a mistake, for you all know that in the smaller towns it is cider, 
and cider alone, that causes drunkenness. I do not wish to make 
any speech at this time, but I desire to present an amendment, 
not for the purpose of preventing debate at all, but I present 
it at this time so that it may be debated. My amendment is to 
strike out from the resolution the words " except cider," and at 
the proper time I wish it to be acted upon. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the amendment be adopted ? 

Mr. Cross of Manchester: The gentleman from Greenland 
(Mr. Hatch) asks the chairman of this committee for an explana- 
tion. Upon examining the Constitution of the State of Maine, 
we find that cider is excepted ; following that example, and fol- 
lowing the opinion of good men, we concluded that if cider was 
inserted it would injure the chances of the adoption of the 
amendment. If this provision is incorporated into the Consti- 
tution, it does not prevent the Legislature from regulating the 
sale of cider. The Legislature has regulated the sale of cider, 
and it would still have that power if this amendment is adopted. 

The gentleman from Greenland, if he comes here feeling in 
his heart that he wishes to do what he can in the interest of tem- 
perance, as I presume he does, if he will say that as he votes here 
for including cider he will go to the polls and vote for the whole 
amendment, including cider, then I shall believe that he is sin- 
cere in presenting the amendment. Of course I cannot say that 



160 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

he is not sincere, but I say that the friends of temperance have 
considered this long and well, and they have done what they 
thought right and fair, and what the people have demanded. 
The people have demanded a chance to vote upon this question, 
and this committee, acting in concert and carrying out the views 
of the men and women of this State, the mothers and sisters of 
this State, have framed this resolution as they believed right and 
just ; and they ask that the people may have a right to vote upon 
it in the form it has been presented. 

Mr. Randall of Grafton : If the gentleman from Manchester 
(Mr. Cross) is sincere, why does he not assent to an amendment 
prohibiting the sale of cider? 

Mr. Mellows of Newmarket : If the sale of cider can be pro- 
hibited without the prohibition being in the Constitution, can- 
not the sale of other liquors be prohibited likewise ? 

Mr. Cross : There is no doubt about it. 

Mr. Curtis of Concord : I desire to say just one word upon 
this question. The gentleman (Mr. Mellows) inquires, Why in- 
cumber the Constitution with this amendment ? He tells us that 
for the last thirty years or more we have had this law upon our 
statute books ; that we have all the machinery necessary for the 
prohibition of the traffic in alcoholic drinks. We all of us know 
that fact. I recollect when I was a mere lad there was circulated 
a petition through this State for the enactment of the Maine law. 
I recollect when that petition came into our family, mother, 
brothers, and sisters signed it. I recollect when that petition, 
rolled upon a staff, was borne into this hall upon the shoulders 
of men. Those incidents made a profound impression upon my 
mind. I have seen the workings of the prohibitory law. You 
will all recollect when the nuisance act became a law, I think 
it was the first of July or thereabouts, that there was a grand 
movement throughout the State, and in the city of Concord, by 
the aid of that law, every dram-shop was closed. In the city of 
Manchester many dram-shops, if not all, were closed. But what 
do we see now ? We see a man of this State going up and down 
getting men to pledge themselves not to vote for a candidate for 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 161 

an important office who was in favor of the prohibitory law. 
During the campaign last fall this question of prohibition was 
ignored almost entirely. Why? Because it might hurt some- 
body. Now it is my desire to see this question put beyond the 
interests of this party or of that party. I desire to see it put 
where at every election in New Hampshire the rum interest, the 
interest in this hellish traffic, cannot say to this party or that 
party, " You indorse men who will favor high license or we will 
defeat you." I want to see prohibition incorporated into the 
Constitution of the State, where it will be beyond partisan 
attack. I, for one, am glad that I have this opportunity to-day 
to record my name in favor of this measure. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I was sorry to hear my friend from 
Manchester (Mr. Cross) insinuate that the gentleman from Green- 
land (Mr. Hatch) was not sincere in offering his amendment. I 
do not know what ground there is for such an insinuation. I do 
not know what reason the gentleman had for making the insinua- 
tion. The gentleman from Manchester who has assumed the man- 
agement of this matter before this convention was fairly called 
upon, as it seems to me, to give us a reason why cider was ex- 
cepted in this resolution. The reason that he gave, as I under- 
stood him, was that it was excepted in the similar provision in 
the Constitution of the State of Maine. I do not know but that 
may be a satisfactory reason to some, but I must say that a reason 
going to the merits of the question would have been vastly more 
satisfactory to me. A good, substantial reason might remove a 
suspicion, which may arise in the minds of some members 
of this convention, that there is a discrimination intended by 
that exception. Now I suppose it is a well-known and ascer- 
tained scientific fact that fermented cider, that is, hard cider, 
contains as large a percentage of alcohol, is as intoxicating, as 
the liquors against which this resolution is directed, such as ale, 
and much more than lager beer. Now what I think we are en- 
titled to know, and what I think the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Greenland was designed to ascertain if posssible, 
is whether we are asked to act here upon principle or upon some 
other motive. I appreciate fully and respect the sentiment en- 

11 



162 JOURNAL OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

tertained by those who honestly believe that the manufacture, 
sale, or use of any intoxicating liquor is a wrong in and of itself, 
a violation of moral law, malum in se. I can respect the opin- 
ions of gentlemen who entertain that view as a matter of princi- 
ple and are sincere in it ; but if this resolution is offered in the 
line of that principle, which we must all respect whether we be- 
lieve in one method or another method of dealing with the evil, 
if that is what inspires this resolution, why should one class of 
intoxicating liquor and the manufacture and sale of it be ex- 
cepted from the provision while another class containing no more 
of the intoxicating quality is put expressly within the terms of 
it? What is the answer to that in principle? Does it meet the 
minds of gentlemen who are here to think and consider, who are 
here as statesmen, and not as a convention assembled for the con- 
sideration of moral questions ? We are not here for that purpose, 
but we are here to consider amendments to the organic law of 
the State. Ought we not to have an answer to that question 
based upon something different from the simple assertion that 
cider is excepted in the Constitution of Maine ? May not Maine 
make a mistake ? May not the delegates in the Maine convention 
have bee'n moved or actuated by some motive which we would 
not entertain here for a moment ? I shall desire to say a word 
further, perhaps, upon the resolution itself. 

Mr. Page of Portsmouth moved to lay the whole matter on the 
table. 

The question being stated, the motion was rejected. 

The amendment proposed by Mr. Hatch of Greenland was, 
with the consent of the convention, withdrawn by that gentle- 
man. 

Mr. Thurston of Dover : The thing has come about just as I 
supposed it would. It is a remarkable circumstance that the 
men who would like to have cider put in are trying to keep it 
out, and the men who do not want cider put in, or anything 
else, are trying to get cider in. Now there is a funny side to 
everything, and I think this is the funny view of this matter. 
With no disguise about it, we are frank to say that we would be 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 163 

glad to include cider ; but if we cannot get the whole loaf we 
will take half a loaf. Is not that sound policy where there is no 
moral principle involved ? We are afraid that the farmers, who 
all make cider, some for vinegar, some for other purposes, would 
vote the measure down, and we do not want it voted down ; 
and my friends are afraid they will not vote it down if cider is 
not included, and so they propose to have it put in. That seems 
to be about the condition, without any disguises. 

I am not here to talk temperance or anything of the kind. 
We had a good committee, equally divided, I believe, between 
the two great parties. Every man, by word and by vote, agreed 
to this resolution, and said he thought it was the best thing we 
could do ; not all we would like to do, but at the present time 
we could not do any better. This thing has been brought in 
here, and we want an open, fair statement of the facts, and a 
fair, square, honest vote. I, for one, am so much of a Demo- 
crat that I am not afraid to trust the people with it. My father 
was a Democrat of the old school, and there is a good deal of 
the blood in me. If the people do not like it they can vote it 
down, as they have the right to. They have asked for this meas- 
ure by the thousands, and I propose to give them a chance to 
decide it for themselves. 

Mr. Randall of Grafton : In the town where I have resided 
and carried on business for nearly ten years, employing on an 
average thirty men as miners, my greatest difficulty in managing 
the men was caused by their excessive use of hard cider ; and in 
that town and those near by there were nearly four thousand 
barrels made some years, and of that number I have not learned 
of one barrel having been exported. 

Mr. Leighton of Manchester : This seems to be a curious way 
to approach a fundamental principle like the question of prohi- 
bition, allowing the manufacture of cider in the country dis- 
tricts for those people to drink, but cutting off the man who 
lives in the city and who has been in the habit of drinking beer. 
We should approach this business in a spirit of fairness. It is an 
admitted fact that beer is no more intoxicating than old cider, 
and will not keep a man intoxicated so long. In riding across 



164 JOUKNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

the country you see barns unshingled and fences down. What 
does that indicate ? Cider ; that is what it means. You see the 
walls all' down and the crops looking as though they had been 
struck by a drought, planted late in the season. What does 
that mean ? Cider. Now, gentlemen, why is it not just as fair to 
make this measure apply in the country towns where cider is 
made and drank as to people who live in the cities ? In the city 
is a rolling-mill and foundry. The workmen are under the ex- 
treme heat of 150 in the mill ten hours a day. Their physical 
systems are debilitated ; they cannot stand up under the strain ; 
they come out at night and have no appetite. The Constitution 
of the State says : "You cannot have any beer ; you cannot have 
anything to drink, while the man in the country can have his 
cider." Now it appears to me that that would not be just. Let 
us be manly, and fix the thing just alike for the whole State, and 
if we are going to have the principle of prohibition let us have 
it, with no half-way business, but make it one broad question. 

Mr. Page of Manchester : I suppose that cider was excepted 
because every farmer has an orchard, and he has waste apples, 
and he wishes to convert them into something, and he converts 
them into cider, and converts the cider into vinegar, for which 
there is a demand. I suppose that is one reason why the com- 
mittee thought best to except it. Another reason is that it 
makes it a personal matter with every farmer. If he is prevented 
from getting a revenue from his apples by converting them into 
vinegar, he will vote against the measure. 

Mr. Leighton : In regard to using refuse apples to make vine- 
gar, it is well known that sour beer is used to make vinegar ; so 
that argument falls to the ground. 

Mr. French of Nashua : If we were here to discuss pure prin- 
ciples and to decide matters as a finality, I apprehend that the 
friends of prohibition would have a great deal to say ; but, judg- 
ing from what has been said in this convention about other mat- 
ters, I think we are pretty well impressed that we are here simply 
to put before the people what we think the people will approve 
and what they have indicated some approval of in the past; 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 165 

therefore it is idle to talk about the question of cider, if we are 
convinced that the people have not indicated in the past that 
they would approve of the proposition, because, as friends of 
prohibition or of temperance, we want to submit something to 
the people that they will approve of. I am in favor of rejecting 
the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Greenland (Mr. 
Hatch), because I have failed to hear from the people in such a 
way as to induce me to believe that they want it, or that they 
will vote for the amendment to the Constitution if it is put in. 
I judge somewhat the feeling and voice of the people from the 
legislation of the State ; that is a pretty good thermometer of 
how the people's mind is moving. If you will look over the 
statutes of the State you will see that they have indicated that 
they do not wish to destroy the manufacture of cider in this 
State, and to a certain extent they want the privilege of dispos- 
ing of that cider in some shape or other. Now, judging from 
their feeling in this matter as indicated by their legislation, 
which cannot be paralleled with reference to other liquors, I shall 
vote to reject the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
Greenland (Mr. Hatch), although I wish it might be incorpo- 
rated and that I could see in these indications from the people 
that it would prevail. 

Mr. Hall of Manchester : If I understood Judge Cross cor- 
rectly when he was questioned as to the reason for inserting this 
clause about cider, he answered that the opinion of the commit- 
tee was that it would otherwise imperil the passage of the amend- 
ment, in other words, that the people would not vote for it, 
and that half a loaf was better than none, that it was better to 
have a provision prohibiting the sale and manufacture of all 
liquors except cider than to lose the whole. I understand that 
this committee has expressed the feeling of the temperance, 
people of this State. They have had a hearing, and have heard 
from those who represent the temperance interests of this State, 
and those people desire the amendment as the committee have 
reported it. We are to consider what the people who stand 
behind this amendment want, and not what our individual feel- 
ings prompt us to say here. Several gentlemen have undertaken 
to define what the real question before us is. One has said that 



166 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

we are not to discuss the temperance question ; another has said 
that we are to discuss the temperance question and discover the 
best way of opposing the evils of intemperance. I think neither 
of them is right. We are to find out and express in an amend- 
ment, if we can, what the temperance people of this State would 
like to have voted upon. We had here last week a committee of 
ladies to express their wishes and the wishes of their constitu- 
ents. I submit that no party has a better or grander constituency 
than that represented by the ladies who came here to address this 
convention. The real question, and the only question upon 
which we are to vote, is whether we shall honor the wishes of 
those ladies and of the people they represent by submitting this 
amendment. I presume that there are some men here who are a 
little afraid to express themselves by vote for fear it may be dis- 
covered whether they are prohibition men or license men. I 
presume there are a good many men here who will vote for this 
amendment in the convention, but at the polls will vote against 
it. The question here simply is whether we shall submit this 
amendment to the people. 

Mr. Hatch of Greenland : I am surprised at the position my 
reverend friend (Mr. Thurston) sitting near me has taken, with 
other gentlemen who have advocated the same views. I had 
thought that it was a great moral principle that they advocated, 
and I believed that they would never submit, that they would 
never give way in the least degree, that they would fight it to the 
end. But I had a suspicion when this resolution was presented 
before this convention, excepting from its operation one of the 
intoxicants that certainly does as much harm as any others that 
are manufactured in this State, that they were not working in the 
cause of temperance alone. I wish to be as honest before this con- 
vention as my friend from Dover said he hoped I would be. My 
purpose was to have the gentlemen define their position. I 
wanted to know whether they were voting on a great moral prin- 
ciple, or whether they thought cider was not intoxicating and so 
left it out, or whether they were descending to a subterfuge, to a 
scheme, and submitting to a great evil that a little good might 
come of it. 

Mr. President, I do not believe that any good can come of 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 167 

any amendment to the Constitution upon this subject ; but, if it 
is to be put into the Constitution, I wish it to extend to all 
intoxicating liquors. If it is to be tried, let it be tried fairly. 
I think that the gentlemen are mistaken when they say that 
because a number of people desire this amendment to be sub- 
mitted to them we should vote for it. You are not here, gentle- 
men, simply for the purpose of submitting amendments to the 
people. You are here with a responsibility upon yourselves. 
You are here to determine what amendments are needed to the 
Constitution, and, having done your duty in that regard, your 
action is to be criticised and ratified by the people. I think you 
are in the same position that a grand jury is in our courts. I 
have heard the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith) state to 
grand juries that they must never indict a person because they 
think that he is probably guilty, but if not will be acquitted, 
because they think if they make a mistake the petit jury and the 
court will take care of the matter and acquit the prisoner ; but 
they are told they must act as if they were themselves upon the 
trial jury, that they must vote as they would be willing to vote 
then, and unless the evidence before them is sufficient to convict 
the accused, he ought not to be presented. Now, gentlemen, 
that is our position. Unless we honestly believe ourselves that 
this amendment ought to be inserted in the Constitution, we 
have no right to vote for it here. You are doing more than pre- 
senting it to the people. You are saying to the people of New 
Hampshire that you believe in it. Now unless a man votes hon- 
estly upon such a subject, he is not worthy of a seat in this con- 
vention. He should vote according to the dictates of his own 
conscience, and not for any reasons of expediency or matter of 
party policy. 

The President : There has been laid on my desk, by Mr. Willis 
of Swanzey, a proposition to amend the amendment proposed by 
Mr. Hatch in such a way that sweet cider shall be excepted. 

The amendment to the amendment was withdrawn. 

Mr. Page of Portsmouth moved that the whole matter be laid 
upon the table. 

The question being stated, the motion was rejected. 



168 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Armington of Whitefield : I am not in the habit of posing 
before the public as a temperance advocate, and I have not come 
down here as such an advocate, but I have come feeling a 
responsibility upon me to serve the people faithfully. We have 
been called together in this convention for the purpose of per- 
forming certain duties, and those duties have been made mani- 
fest by the public sentiment throughout the State. The first 
amendment in the hearts of the people is the changing of the 
session of the Legislature from June to January ; another one is 
the fixing of the salary of representatives; another one is the 
reduction of the number of representatives. In New York, if 
the number of representatives should bear the same proportion to 
the population that it does in New Hampshire, she would have 
five thousand representatives. We have passed over that ques- 
tion. Another is the great temperance question, which has 
interested the people deeply throughout the whole State. 

I came here feeling the responsibility that rests upon us to give 
the question a fair consideration. I have no faith in the candor 
of the honorable gentlemen who have preceded me, and have 
urged tacking to the resolution an amendment to prohibit the 
manufacture of cider. It does not seem to me that it is in 
accordance with the prohibitory sentiment of the State. It 
seems to be the honest belief of many Prohibitionists that while 
they may be able to obtain a half-loaf they cannot obtain the 
whole loaf. If there are a portion here who think that the whole 
loaf can be obtained from the voters of New Hampshire, let them 
submit a separate amendment which shall provide for the prohibi- 
tion of the manufacture and sale of cider, but do not let them 
put in jeopardy this measure by tacking on the cider amend- 
ment. Why, Mr. President, I expect that the same class of 
people who advocate this amendment with reference to cider, 
would, should that amendment be defeated, offer an amendment 
prohibiting the sale of Jamaica ginger. 

Mr. Colby of Claremont : Mr. President and gentlemen of 
the convention : So far I have not taken much of your time, and 
perhaps what I now say will not be very useful to you. My 
views, in some respects, differ somewhat from those of other 
gentlemen who have addressed you. The discussion thus far has 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 169 

not been simply upon the question of embracing in the Consti- 
tution the principle of prohibition, but as to whether it was 
well to incorporate therein what belongs more appropriately to 
the department of statute law. It is urged on the part of those 
opposed to the amendment that its provisions should embrace all 
the particulars of a prohibitory statute, and then claimed by them 
that statute law should not be put into the Constitution. There 
are doubtless very valid objections, as indicated in the remarks of 
the gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd), against putting into 
the Constitution what belongs appropriately to the department 
of statute law, and did I regard this a case of that kind, I might 
be inclined to agree with him as to the proper disposition of this 
measure. I am only solicitous for enough in the resolution to 
involve the principle of prohibition and close the door against 
license. Had I the drawing of it myself, I am inclined to think 
I should not only adopt the provision as to cider, but also, upon 
like ground and for like reasons, leave out the word "manufac- 
ture." This may appear strange to you, but before this matter 
came up in convention, I talked with some gentlemen who are 
strongly in favor of a prohibitory amendment and found that 
they entertained similar views. I am not in favor of putting 
mere statute law into the Constitution, or submitting to the 
people an amendment which is nothing more than that. It is 
the principle here involved for which we are contending, a 
principle every way worthy of adoption into the Constitution. 
The question is, Shall it be submitted to the people whether 
the State shall in some form have in her Constitution, there to 
remain as a matter settled and permanent, the principle of pro- 
hibition ? If such an amendment is not adopted, then it will 
continue, as in the past, from year to year, in election after elec- 
tion, to be a constantly debated and disturbing question whether 
we shall have prohibition in some form or high license in its 
stead. I am utterly opposed to license in any form. I am 
therefore in favor of submitting an amendment to the people in 
the form most favorable to commanding every possible vote in 
its favor. It would satisfy me in the present state of the public 
mind were I assured there would be put into the Constitution, 
there to remain, a provision making it a misdemeanor to engage 



170 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

in the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Then and so long as that 
remains, there can be no high license law, and the debate upon 
that subject is removed from the political arena. I am satisfied 
if the resolution is only broad enough to include the principle. 
It is, perhaps, wiser not to attempt too much, or more than is 
necessary. It is a matter of uncertainty whether the people of 
New Hampshire are in favor of having even so much put into 
their Constitution. It is certain that a very large body of them 
are asking us for something, the submission to them of some 
amendment embodying the principle of prohibition. We can- 
not do less than to meet the demand. With the principle fixed 
in the Constitution, it would be the province of the Legislature 
to enact laws in furtherance thereof and in addition thereto, as 
the varying circumstances of the time might demand. I shall 
therefore vote to reject the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Greenland. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I do not know as the few words I 
desire to say may be at this time entirely germane to the ques- 
tion proposed by the amendment. But my friend, the gentle- 
man from Claremont (Mr. Colby), has alluded to some views 
which it may be supposed I entertain. I prefer to define my own 
position with reference to any views which I may have. I desire 
to say in the first place, what I think the people in my own sec- 
tion of the State will not question, that I am a temperance man, 
that I am on that side. I have practiced law for a period of 
thirty years, during the whole of which time a prohibitory stat- 
ute has been in force in this State ; and I state what is a fact, 
although it is somewhat personal in character, that the office 
which I have had under my control never yet closed its doors to 
any man or woman who desired aid in the enforcement of the 
statutes of New Hampshire with respect to intoxicating liquors, 
and while I have control they never will be closed. 

Now my friend from Claremont says he would have this prin- 
ciple ingrafted into this Constitution. That seems to be the 
main drift, as I understand it, of his argument. Why ? For 
thirty years and more New Hampshire has had a prohibitory law. 
As was said by my friend from Newmarket (Mr. Mellows) this 
morning, it has met with but indifferent success, we all know 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 171 

that, and as practical men, deliberating on the best mode of deal- 
ing with a great evil, we must recognize that fact. There is some- 
thing more than a question of sentiment involved ; we are dealing 
with a great practical evil, and it seems to me that with the pur- 
poses of practical men, engaged with practical questions, and 
not merely with theoretical questions (because there are other 
places where we may deal with those), we should direct our at- 
tention to the best methods of curtailing, of diminishing or 
suppressing the evil, wholly if we can, measurably if we cannot 
do it wholly. Now we have tried an experiment for thirty years 
or more ; we have had prohibition on the statute book. There 
has never been, to my knowledge, any attempt to change it which 
amounted to anything. It has not been changed, at any rate. 
I do not say that good has not resulted from it here and there, 
where good men and good women have taken hold of the matter 
in earnest and attempted honestly and judiciously to enforce the 
law. I think good has been effected in some instances ; but the 
moment the grasp is relaxed, the moment you take your hand 
off, the evil springs up again all about you. It is a monster evil ; 
it is a very difficult thing to deal with ; it requires all the saga- 
city and wisdom and prudence of the best men of New Hamp- 
shire to determine the best method of dealing with it. We have 
tried one experiment ; it has failed. I say failed, I mean 
failed practically. It has not stopped the sale of liquor ; it has 
not to any very great extent, as I am told, diminished the evil. 
There are places all over this State, in the country and in the 
cities, where it can be obtained now, even since the very efficient 
legislation of the last Legislature, declaring every place where it 
is kept or sold a nuisance. In a very large majority of the towns 
of New Hampshire it can be bought as freely as you can buy 
new milk. The law is practically a failure. 

Now that is the only way we have tried by law to diminish the 
evil. I am not going to make any argument in favor of high 
license ; I have not considered that question ; that question is 
not before the convention. It seems to me that the question is 
whether we shall tie ourselves down irrevocably and unchange- 
ably to this continuation of an experiment which has failed. 
Why will you tie the hands of the people so that no other 



172 JOURNAL OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

method can be tried, so that our best men and women cannot 
look about them and see if some other means may not be 
more effective, may not accomplish more good ? I must say, 
these considerations have a very controlling influence upon my 
mind. This matter should be regulated by statute ; it should 
be left so that the people may try one thing, and if it does not 
accomplish the desired object that they may not have their hands 
tied so that they cannot try another thing. It is a hydra-headed 
evil ; it is a complicated matter ; it is a difficult thing to deal 
with on account of the appetites of men in this latitude, as well 
as for other reasons, an exceedingly difficult thing to deal 
with. It is a monster with a hundred heads. Is it the part of 
wisdom to tie the hands of those whose duty and business it is to 
deal with that monster to one single method precluding all ex- 
periments to see if a better and more effective method cannot be 
found ? 

Now as to the views I entertain upon the other point involved 
in this resolution. I have already, in discussing some other ques- 
tions here, expressed my views as to the province of the Legis- 
lature, in which is vested the supreme law-making power of the 
State, and the province of this convention called together by the 
people. They are distinct. I believe it is necessary to the integ- 
rity and perpetuity of our free institutions and forms of govern- 
ment, according to the scheme established by the fathers, that 
the two should be kept distinct. I am unalterably opposed, upon 
principle, however vital the question may be, however much it 
may bear upon the welfare of the State, to meddling in this con- 
vention with a matter which is fairly within the purview of the 
Legislature. I should leave it to be dealt with by the Legislature. 
I would not put it into the fundamental law of the State, for the 
reason already suggested, that times change, interests change, 
business changes, the feelings of the people change. I would not 
incorporate into the Constitution anything, no matter how well 
I might think of it, that should rest upon any accidental state 
of feeling or public sentiment. I would not incorporate into the 
Constitution, any further than the principles of good government 
included them, matters involving mere moral considerations. I 
would not incorporate there matters of sentiment. The Consti- 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 173 

tution should fix the scheme of government, leaving the Legis- 
lature to make such regulations and pass such laws as they think 
for the time being are good and the welfare of the State demands, 
leaving the Legislature to experiment with one statute until its 
merits or demerits are practically ascertained in that way ; and if 
it appears to work badly, not to the satisfaction and welfare of 
the people, to change it for another, and so on till the best is 
found. We are to remember that the Legislature is always at hand 
to change and amend any enactment of its own or any previous 
Legislature, and if it turns out that it cannot be amended so as 
to accomplish in a satisfactory manner the end in view, it may 
repeal it entirely and substitute something which will work better 
and will accomplish that end. 

These are the two considerations, very inadequately presented, 
which I find control my mind in approaching this subject. I 
am not a politician. I am not on the side of free rum, although 
I am sorry to say that has been, perhaps not very malignantly, 
insinuated upon my views being made known. I am on the 
other side of the question, but I am opposed to doing anything 
under the pressure of an occasion like this that can be amply and 
fully provided for by the Legislature. Never before, I think, in 
a single instance has anything that was within the fair scope and 
range of legislative authority been incorporated into our Consti- 
tution. To do so I think would be a very great mistake ; at any 
rate, it strikes me with alarm. I am unable to entertain any 
other view but that it is revolutionary, to a certain extent, to 
incumber the organic law of this State with mere legislative pro- 
visions, making that unchangeable which ought to be left to the 
people and their representatives assembled in the General Court 
clothed by the Constitution with the supreme legislative power, 
to alter and amend and adapt to the changing sentiment, the 
changing wants, the changing conditions of the people of the 
State. 

If this law is not sustained by public sentiment and that is the 
reason it has not been enforced, which is to be regretted if it 
is true, if it has been spit upon and treated with contempt and 
indifference, and been disregarded and violated on every hand 
every day since it was passed, will you put it into the instrument 



174 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

which has been called the " Charter of our Liberties," to be 
spit upon there ? Does anybody contend that it would have any 
higher authority as law if put into the Constitution than it has 
when it is a statute ? Here are a large number of excellent law- 
yers, among them some of the foremost men at the bar in this 
State, men of vastly more learning than I pretend to claim ; if it 
is asserted by any gentleman of the legal profession, or by any- 
body else, that it has any higher authority, any higher sanction, 
when incorporated into the Constitution than it has as a statute 
of the State, I should like to hear from that gentleman. I should 
like to hear the reasons in support of such a legal proposition. 
There is no difference ; the statute has the same binding force 
upon the citizens of the State that a constitutional provision has, 
each is simply the law of the land. 

I will not trespass longer upon your patience at this time. I 
simply desire before I vote upon this question to state here pub- 
licly the reasons which honestly control my mind in giving the 
vote which I am constrained to give ; and I may say, there are 
those sustaining a more intimate relation to me than that of con- 
stituents to whom also I desire to present the reasons which con- 
trol my vote. 

Mr. Hatch : After the most admirable remarks which we have 
just listened to, it seems to me that a vote ought to be taken on 
the main question. I will withdraw my amendment. 

The President : The gentleman from Greenland withdraws the 
amendment he proposed, and the question recurs on the resolu- 
tion reported from the committee. 

Mr. Manahan of Hillsborough : I am sorry that the discussion 
has drifted so far as to make it seem necessary for me to say a sin- 
gle word on the proposition which we are considering ; but since 
the statement is made that a man is hardly fit to remain in this 
convention or have a seat here if he has doubts as to whether this 
amendment should be referred to the people or not at this time, 
and, although he might not vote for it, still would be in favor of 
submitting it to the people, I think I should rise and state, 
before my vote is given, some of the reasons that will impel me 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 175 

to vote in favor of the resolution that has been offered. In the 
remarks I shall make briefly I do not propose to enter into a 
microscopic demonstration or scientific examination of the effect 
of alcohol upon the human system ; nor do I desire to portray 
before you the evils, woe, and suffering which are the legitimate 
results of the use of alcoholic drinks as a beverage ; nor do I 
think it important to the consideration of this question to dis- 
cuss license or prohibition. These are still open questions, upon 
which there is a diversity of opinion. But whatever may be our 
opinions upon that question, or whatever are our relations to the 
temperance reform, there is one fact that we all admit, that the 
worst curse to humanity to-day is intemperance, and that it is the 
most fruitful source of evil, crime, and pauperism, of corruption 
in politics and degradation in society. And the great question 
that confronts us, as has been stated here, which like Banquo's 
ghost will not down, is, How can we best deal with it for the 
safety and protection of our people ? The lesson that was taught 
in the last election is suggestive, and the figures contained in the 
result seem to indicate that the trend of public sentiment in New 
Hampshire is the same as in the larger cities of other States, 
that there may be a better way to deal with this evil, the sale, 
use, and manufacture of intoxicating liquors, than by prohibition. 
Yet in our State there is a strong public sentiment, and a large 
and respectable number of people who believe that this traffic 
should not only be put under the severest penalties known to the 
law, but that the principle of prohibition should be dignified by 
being made a part of the fundamental law of our State, placing 
it at least for seven years beyond the repeal of any Legislature, 
and that constitutional prohibition, being the direct work of the 
people, will be more vigorously followed up and fully enforced. 
Now these people come before this convention, the only con- 
vention that can possibly give them what they desire, and by 
petition and otherwise they ask us to formulate an article forever 
prohibiting the sale and manufacture of alcoholic liquor in the 
State. While I seriously question whether it is wise to adopt 
such a measure at this time, I ask you how can we consistently 
deny these people the privilege of having this question submitted 
to them that they may have an opportunity to vote upon it ? 



176 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

I know full well that our people desire to vote upon a distinct 
proposition, and I am in favor of giving them the chance. I 
shall be glad to welcome the day myself when the question of 
temperance can be divorced from other questions of politics and 
settled outside of party lines. Experience teaches us that when- 
ever one party is arrayed in favor of temperance, the other party 
is just as thoroughly opposed to it, each party charging the other 
party with buying support and catering for votes. Now I want 
to see the day come when the question of temperance is divorced 
from politics, and men can act upon it unhampered by other 
considerations. I feel myself that the cause of temperance has 
received injury, not only in our own State but throughout the 
country, by being mixed with politics. These views are enter- 
tained by other people who have made the question a lifelong 
study, who have been in the service of the temperance cause for 
many years. Theodore L. Cuyler, writing to the "New York 
Evangelist," says: "After forty years' effort I am convinced 
that if all the time, money, and effort that have been expended 
upon political movements had been expended in direct moral 
efforts to check usages, educate the conscience and conduct, 
and teach the young lessons of abstinence and make public sen- 
timent against the diabolical drink traffic, then the great reform 
would be a hundred-fold stronger to-day. Underneath all the 
fluctuations of parties lies the solid bed-rock of truth, temper- 
ance, and righteousness. Let us build on the rock." 

These sentiments are gaining ground, and one reason why I 
would vote to submit this amendment to the people is to take it 
out of the arena of politics entirely and give the people a chance 
to vote upon it separately and decide the question for themselves. 
There can be no risk in doing that. Prohibitionists and tem- 
perance men have an interest in other questions which divide 
the great political parties. Temperance men have an interest in 
the tariff, because their bread and butter is at stake ; they have 
an interest in the common school question, because the education 
of our children is at stake, and the perpetuity of this government 
for and by the people hangs upon a free, an unsectarian educa- 
tion ; and so you might go through all other questions that enter 
into the politics of the day. That this question may be placed 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 177 

before the people unhampered by other considerations, and in 
answer to their demand, let us adopt the report of the committee 
and submit this amendment to the voters of our State, letting 
them vote it up or down, to ratify or reject, as in their wisdom 
they believe to be for the best interests of the State. 

Mr. Cross : I feel constrained to say a few words after the re- 
marks of the gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd), because I 
know he speaks from a sincere heart what he means, and he 
always has a good reason for whatever position he takes. I feel 
constrained, therefore, to give some of the reasons why I favor 
this resolution and its incorporation into the Constitution of the 
State of New Hampshire. 

We are all, every one of us, in favor of temperance. If I go 
to you, and you, and you, and to every man here in this house, 
and if I ask you the question, " Are you in favor of temper- 
ance ? " the reply will be, "Yes, I am in favor of temperance." 
" Would you send your boy to the dram-shop to deal out liquor, 
to sell it from day to day? " " No." " Would you encourage 
the rum traffic? " " No." You agree with me, and with every 
physician of eminence, with every judge upon the supreme 
bench, with every man who has considered this question, that 
the sale of intoxicating drinks is one of the greatest evils of this 
age. It is a great question. Sometimes I think we should have 
high license, and see if we cannot restrain this evil ; and then 
again I say, let us have prohibition, and see if we cannot restrain 
this evil. There are good men here, and good men all over this 
State and this country, who have looked at this great question 
with interest, and at times they have been discouraged. What 
shall we do ? Nine tenths almost of the crime and suffering in 
this State and this country come from the sale and use of intoxi- 
cating drinks. Our prisons are filled by it ; our almshouses are 
filled by it. 

I need not argue this question, however, and I do not propose 
to argue it. I know there are sincere men here who doubt 
whether this question should be submitted to the people in the 
proposed way. Some of you are in favor of license ; some of 
you think that is the best way to crush out the sale of intoxicat- 

12 



178 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

ing drinks, some of you honestly think so ; but, my friends, 
I ask you for a moment to examine this question. This State 
has tried high license. In 1778 the Legislature of New Hamp- 
shire passed a license law, and from that time down to 1847 there 
was a license law upon our statute books. In 1847 the Legisla- 
ture submitted the question to the people, " Shall a prohibitory 
law be enacted by the Legislature of New Hampshire?" and 
there were seventeen thousand votes cast, twelve thousand in 
favor of prohibition, and five thousand against it. The law was 
passed in 1849, ^ was repeated in 1855, and from that day to 
this the people of New Hampshire, by their statutes, by their 
voice as evinced in the Legislature, have declared in favor of 
prohibition. My friend from Lancaster says, " Leave it upon 
the statute book." We have left it upon the statute book. 

A Member : Do not tie our hands. 

Mr. Cross: "Do not tie our hands." Let us see how it is 
about tying our hands. We say that you should incorporate into 
this Constitution an article that should forever exclude this traffic. 
It produces evil ; you should not indorse it ; and its exclusion 
should be made a fundamental principle of our government. 
Why ? Because we have seen in the State of Kansas, because we 
have seen in the State of Iowa, because we have seen in the 
State of Maine, that it has been incorporated into the Constitu- 
tions of those States, and the voices of those States come to us, 
the voice of the newspapers, of their people, and of the judges of 
their courts. If you read an account of a meeting in Boston 
day before yesterday, you observed that a gentleman from Iowa 
rose in his place and said : " We have tried this question ; it has 
been incorporated into our Constitution, and the rum traffic 
has been driven from our borders substantially. We have fifty- 
five jails, now empty, which before this constitutional provision 
took effect were filled." I have met gentlemen from Kansas. I 
met a gentleman not long ago who used to live in Manchester, 
and he told me that when he went to Kansas he was in favor of 
license, but he says : " I have seen the constitutional provision 
as it is in Kansas. I have seen the law enforced there, and 
to-day I am heart and soul in favor of the provision in the Con- 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 179 



stitution and the enforcement of the law as it is in Kansas." It 
is enforced in Kansas, they have it in the Constitution. They 
have it in Iowa ; they have it in Maine. I repeat what perhaps 
I have said before, this is the great and absorbing question of 
this nation to-day. If there is one question that rises above 
another, if there is one question that demands the honest hearts 
and the honest votes of the men of New Hampshire to-day, it is 
this question of the destruction of this " hydra-headed monster," 
as the gentleman from Lancaster calls it. It is one of the ways 
to check this evil, and to stop its progress in our midst. What 
shall we do ? Men have thought, men have reasoned, men have 
tried experiments ; the good men and women of this State have 
come here and said : " We want this principle of prohibition in 
our fundamental law. We ask you to give us an opportunity to 
vote upon it." They are honest, they are sincere; they have 
no motive, I believe, except the good of the State, and the honor 
and prosperity of the State. 

I am heartily in sympathy with this measure. I shall vote for 
it here, and I shall vote for it at the polls if I have an opportu- 
nity. There are others who crave this high privilege. I ask 
you, men of New Hampshire, looking to the interest of the 
present, looking to the future of the State, I ask you to give 
these people an opportunity to vote into the Constitution this 
principle of prohibition. 

Mr. Woodman of Concord : It seems to me that we need not 
take up the time of the convention with a further discussion of 
the abstract principle of temperance. I take it that we are all of 
us, as suggested by the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Cross), 
temperance men. I am compelled to admit that if we were to 
vote at this time upon the question, Shall the resolution become 
a part of the Constitution ? we might hesitate ; but it does not 
strike me that such is our position. I do not agree with the 
gentleman from Greenland (Mr. Hatch) as to our duty here. A 
very respectable body of citizens comes before this convention, 
and says practically, " Give us an opportunity to vote upon 
this question." If we vote in favor of the resolution, that does 
not make it a part of the Constitution. We simply provide for 
placing the ballot in the hands of the voters of this State, and 



180 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

the question presented to them is, Are you in favor of so amend- 
ing the Constitution that the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be 
prohibited ? It seems to me to be a duty we owe to ourselves 
and to our constituents to give them an opportunity to vote on 
that question. I do not perhaps agree fully with some of the 
suggestions as to the probability of this proposition becoming a 
part of the Constitution. I assume that every man has the right 
to vote when he goes to the polls as his conscience tells him ; 
but at this time it seems to me that that question does not come 
before us. If we find there are enough voters in this State to 
carry the amendment to the Constitution as embodied in the 
resolution, then we shall know that we have done what the 
people wanted. 

Mr. Hatch of Greenland : After listening to the evils of 
intemperance portrayed by the gentleman from Manchester, I 
feel that I must insist upon the amendment which I offered 
before and afterwards withdrew. I therefore renew the motion 
to amend by striking out the words, "except cider," and on 
this motion I demand the yeas and nays. 

The demand was sustained. 
Pending the call of the roll, 

(Discussion ensued.) 

Mr. Kelley of Weare : I had not thought that I would take up 
the time of the convention, but I have noticed that the friends, 
or the pretended friends of prohibition, after the argument pre- 
sented by the gentleman from Lancaster, had the impression 
that the main question would fail, and then the gentleman from 
Greenland (Mr. Hatch) was willing to withdraw his amendment. 
But after we had heard the argument of the gentleman from Man- 
chester (Mr. Cross) he feared that we might indorse the report of 
the committee, and he again insists upon his amendment. Now 
I do not understand, and I do not think that any gentleman in 
the convention feels that our vote here is going to incorporate into 
the New Hampshire Constitution the report or the provisions of 
the report of that committee. We are simply to place in the 
hands of the people the ballot as a means of deciding whether 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 181 

they wish the Constitution to be so amended or not. I am in 
favor of the principle defended by the gentleman from Clare- 
mont (Mr. Colby), that the tone of the Constitution should be 
in favor of prohibition. I am not particular as to what provis- 
ions are made ; it matters very little to me personally whether it 
includes the word "manufacture" or not, whether it specifies 
cider, sweet or sour, or not. I am in favor of doing anything 
that may eliminate from New Hampshire the evils of the liquor 
traffic, and I judge that is the unanimous feeling of this conven- 
tion. Now, if those who are in favor of including cider are 
serious and honest, let them present an independent resolution 
to that effect and I will vote for it ; and then if they are in favor 
of prohibiting the manufacture and sale of malt and distilled 
liquors, they should vote for the proposition. Whether they do 
or not, I shall vote for it. If I were opposed to the principle of 
prohibition, I would vote fairly and squarely against the main 
question ; I would face the question honorably, instead of attempt- 
ing to kill the measure as they do by loading it down with con- 
ditions which they feel, and perhaps know, the people of New 
Hampshire will not indorse. We all recognize this to be a great 
evil, and those who have spoken have confessed it to be the 
greatest vice of the times. Such feeling has been manifested 
here that we must know that there exists among the people a de- 
sire to act upon this particular question. We have been con- 
fronted by a petition bearing the names of thousands of the 
people of New Hampshire asking that this measure be submitted 
to them. I do not believe we are called upon to decide the 
merits of prohibition or license here, but should leave it to the 
people to decide for themselves, and if the people of New Hamp- 
shire can see in this a way by which we shall eliminate from so- 
ciety this evil, let them vote for it. 

We have, as all know, done a great deal in the past for those 
who were held in slavery in the South, and their condition was 
not very much worse than the present condition of some in this 
State. I believe that from the homes and firesides of New Hamp- 
shire, from north to south, the unfortunate victims of the liquor 
traffic are to-day raising the voice of supplication to God that 
we may propose some measure for their relief. There is at the 



182 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

present time existing among the people a desire to vote upon this 
subject, and I feel that the prayers of our citizens go up to 
heaven that we may act favorably upon this proposition. As I 
said in the first place, if those in favor of an amendment pro- 
hibiting the manufacture and sale of cider will introduce it as an 
independent amendment, I will indorse it and I will vote for it. 
And if they are sincerely in favor of temperance, if they are as 
much in favor of prohibition as they pretend to be, I think they 
will not object to doing so. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I am going to say but a single 
word. It seems to me that the question we are discussing as- 
sumes a certain degree of slipperyness in the hands of these gen- 
tlemen. We heard an excellent temperance lecture from the 
gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Cross) ; it was edifying and 
good j I liked it ; but that is not what we are here for. 

I should like to know a little more fully the views of my friend 
from Claremont (Mr. Colby). He says he will take what he can 
get ; he will have ale and lager beer prohibited forever in the 
Constitution, but will let cider remain. Well, I suppose he 
would turn it around and say he would prohibit cider and let ale 
and lager beer remain, if he is going to be consistent. I should 
like to find out whether it is a principle of morals, or any other 
principle, which we are determining, or whether we are witness- 
ing and engaged in the performance of a farce ; whether what 
we see is an assemblage of sober, thoughtful men engaged in the 
transaction of important public affairs, or whether we are being 
diverted with the kaleidoscopic, shifting scenes of some spectac- 
ular entertainment. One moment we hear our friends talk about 
great principles to be maintained ; the next we hear them say, 
" Oh, yes, prohibit beer but tolerate cider." If they are sincere 
in the advocacy of a principle, will not that principle apply to 
all liquors that have an intoxicating effect. What would my 
friend say to an amendment, if I should move it, which I am 
not going to do, to put in cider and strike out ale and lager 
beer ? It has- been stated here that one intoxicates as much as 
the other, and it has not been contradicted. Some suggestions 
have been made here that the quantity of cider drank in this 
State, or that is manufactured here and drank out of this State, 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 183 

is very large and does a vast amount of mischief. Are we to 
establish a principle, or are we not ? I suppose this is a deliber- 
ative assembly, and I did not understand what my friend from 
Manchester (Mr, Cross) meant when he stated in introducing this 
resolution that he supposed the minds of the delegates to this con- 
vention were made up. What does that mean ? How does the 
gentleman know that ? It would he interesting to me at least to 
know what he means. I think it is most pre-eminently a matter 
to be carefully and candidly and seriously considered by us sitting 
here as statesmen, for that is what we ought to be. It is a new 
thing, entirely new, to introduce this species of legislation into 
the Constitution. Why are we not given some reason why it 
should be introduced? If there is a reason, why not give it 
instead of making temperance lectures ? 

Now I do not believe that my friend from Claremont (Mr. 
Colby), for whom I have the highest respect and regard in every 
way, I do not believe he would represent to this convention that 
it is desirable to incorporate a provision into this Constitution as 
an immutable thing, preventing my friend (Mr. Cross) from try- 
ing the experiment which he was at one time, as he says, almost 
constrained to think best because the other had failed. I do not 
believe he would tolerate for a moment the idea that an amend- 
ment should he framed in such a way and with such intent that 
you might by including one thing at one time array against it a 
class interested the other way in another thing, and then turn 
about and finally get the whole by piecemeal ; that you should 
make it for the interest of dealers in lager beer to vote for the 
prohibition of cider, and then turn around and array the cider 
people against the lager-beer people by excluding cider and in- 
cluding lager beer. I do not believe my friend from Claremont 
would approve any such wire-pulling as that. I doubt whether 
there are many members of this convention who would approve, 
such a course upon sober reflection. That would not be fair; 
that is not the way anybody whose approval is worth striving for 
wants us to proceed in amending the fundamental law of New 
Hampshire. Now, how would it be received here if I were to 
move to include cider and exclude from the effect of this pro- 
vision a liquor which is conceded to be no more deleterious, in 



184 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

fact not so deleterious, as cider ? I imagine from the temper of 
this convention it would be voted down very quickly. Now, if 
we are after principle here, which is what we are after if we 
are discharging our duties, why make this discrimination? 

There is another matter which I intended to say a word 
about when I had the floor before, the idea suggested by my 
friend, the ex-mayor of this city (Mr. Woodman). Of course 
every member of this convention must be the judge of his own 
duty, we are all to determine that matter for ourselves ; but since 
I have been here I have been told by a considerable number of 
members that they proposed to vote to submit this matter to the 
people, although they did not believe in it and should vote 
against it at the polls. I did not think at the time that the re- 
mark was intended to be serious, and I say here I cannot con- 
ceive how any gentleman, any member of this convention, can 
entertain any other idea than that he must consult his own judg- 
ment, his own convictions, his own conscience, in the matter of 
how he shall vote. It seems to me too clear for a moment's de- 
bate that we should vote here to submit to the people such 
amendments as we believe ought to be adopted, as we believe 
would promote the welfare of the State. I cannot conceive of 
any other sensible and consistent, and, I am constrained to say, 
honest view of our duty ; certainly no other consideration than 
that can control my vote. We are the representatives of the 
people ; we are the people ; we have been selected to come to- 
gether and deliberate as the people deliberate, and in delibera- 
tion we must consult our own convictions. What other guide 
have we ? Where else can we go to ascertain our duty ? 

The manifest purpose of having a convention to revise and 
propose amendments to the Constitution was to furnish a great 
safeguard against hasty and ill-considered changes in the organic 
law. It was that a body of men chosen by the people for their 
supposed fitness for the duty and trust conferred upon them 
might, at the outset, consider with due care and deliberation 
whether any, and if so what, changes had better be made. It 
manifestly was not the intention of the framers of the Constitu- 
tion that that instrument should be left liable to be changed and 
metamorphosed by every breath of popular excitement ; and so 






THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 185 

it was that they provided a method which requires an expression 
of the carefully formed and honest opinion of each member of a 
convention before any proposed amendment shall be sent to 
the people. To my mind we have no right to evade the duty 
and abdicate the function thus solemnly laid upon us. 

Mr. Colby : I am aware, Mr. President and gentlemen of the 
convention, that you are growing tired of this debate, and I shall 
not trespass long upon your patience. The gentleman who last 
addressed you (Mr. Ladd) seems to be in some doubt as to what 
I really intended. I thought my statement of my position plain 
enough. It is this : I am in favor of putting into the Constitu- 
tion the principle of prohibition ; and let every gentleman who 
hears me ask himself what would be his action, aside from all 
selfish or unworthy considerations, if the responsibility rested 
upon him to determine by his voice and his vote whether forever 
in the future the principle of prohibition should be established 
in the Constitution. I am sure, were such a thing within your 
power, whatever your party or creed, you would not hesitate to 
determine in favor of the welfare of the State and its people. 
The interests in favor of its adoption are very large and far- 
reaching and lie along the pathway of progress ; but in the 
attempt to accomplish the object in view, let us take counsel of 
our common sense and beware of extremes. I am not inclined 
to shut my eyes to the fact that there are many and varying 
opinions upon this as well as all other subjects, and that wisdom 
and the hope of success direct to measures and forms of expres- 
sion made as little offensive as possible without the abandonment 
of principle. It has been said by the gentleman from Lancaster 
(Mr. Ladd) that the principle of prohibition has been a failure. 
I deny it. The condition of the people of New Hampshire is 
to-day infinitely better than it would have been without that 
law. I know it from careful observation from year to year for 
many years past. The argument made by the gentleman can be 
made against anything. It can be made against the religion of 
Jesus Christ ; because, forsooth, all men at this hour do not bow 
down before His cross it is a failure, and let us cast it aside and 
the Holy Scriptures as well. There is nothing that cannot be 
attacked with this fallacious kind of reasoning. I am addressing 



186 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

men of New Hampshire, men who think for themselves and who 
are on the side of virtue and right. I believe, could the matter 
be properly canvassed in the State, that there would be no occa- 
sion for doubt as to the adoption of the amendment. I agree 
with the gentleman from Concord, that whether we believe in the 
principle ourselves or not, so respectable a body of the people as 
has come before us and asked the opportunity should be given 
the opportunity of voting upon the amendment. 

Mr. Knapp of Somersworth moved to amend the resolution by 
striking out the word " manufacturing." 

Mr. Knapp of Somersworth : The gentlemen who are not in 
favor of prohibition have discovered an inconsistency in the 
resolution and they have made the most of it. The gentleman 
from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd) is troubled much about the injustice 
of permitting a man to manufacture cider and prohibiting 
another man from manufacturing other intoxicating liquors. I 
am a Prohibitionist, and want to submit something to the people 
which will result in fixing the principle of prohibition in the 
Constitution. I am stating this fairly and squarely, so you can 
understand my position ; but I do not want to vote or ask the 
people to vote for anything which seems to be an inconsistency. 
I can conceive of this condition of things. I may have three 
neighbors ; one of them owns a distillery, another owns a brew- 
ery, and a third owns a cider mill. This resolution, as submitted 
here, is adopted, and I go home. I meet these three gentlemen, 
and say to them, '* We have voted in the convention that you 
who own the distillery must stop manufacturing, and you who 
own the brewery must stop manufacturing, but you who own the 
cider mill may proceed." No doubt two of them would readily 
observe the inconsistency. Now I can think of no better way to 
obviate it than by striking another word from this resolution, so 
as to put these three men upon an equality ; and if the proposed 
amendment prevails, I would move further to amend the resolu- 
tion by striking out the word " manufacture." If by the Con- 
stitution the sale and the keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors 
are prohibited, that will be enough. There can be no objection 
to the manufacture of cider, or ale, or rum, any more than to the 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 187 

manufacture of cotton cloth, if the manufacturer cannot offer it 
for sale, if nobody else gets it. I am willing to put all these 
men on a level, have the proposition consistent, and then I 
shall be glad to vote for it, and give the people of New Hamp- 
shire an opportunity to declare by their votes upon this amend- 
ment, that the sale, or the keeping for sale, of anything which 
can intoxicate, to be used as a beverage, is unconstitutional. 

The President : The gentleman from Somersworth (Mr. 
Knapp) proposes to strike out the word " manufacturing." 

Mr. Knapp : I will consider it an independent amendment, 
not to be considered until after the other is acted upon. 

The President : The question is upon the proposition of the 
gentleman from Greenland (Mr. Hatch) to amend the resolution 
by striking out the words " except cider," and upon this ques- 
tion the yeas and nays are demanded. 

And the roll being called, the following gentlemen answered in 
the affirmative : 

Amidon, Bales, Becker, Blake of Danville, Blodgett, Brown 
of Nashua, Brown of Rye, Butler, Cavanaugh, Chad wick, Chase, 
Child, Cilley, Clark of Deerfield, Clarkson, Clough, Collins of 
Manchester, Cone, Crowell, Cummings, Currier of Chester, 
Currier of Wentworth, Davis of Acworth, Davis of Bow, Davis 
of Ossipee, Day, DeMeritt, Dolloff, Drury, Duston, Eastman, El- 
dredge, Emery of Auburn, Felker, Fernald, Fisher, Flood, 
Fradd, Frazier, French of Portsmouth, Garland, George, Glidden, 
Gould, Graves, Green, Griffin, Hatch of Eaton, Hatch of Green- 
land, Hayes of Dover, Hay ward, Hibbard, Hobbs, Hopkins, 
Howard, Hubbard, Johnson of Enfield, Jones of Portsmouth, 
Jones of Stratham, Ladd, Leighton, Lane, Leahy, Little of 
Warren, Littlefield, Locke, Lovejoy, Mallon, Manning, Mason 
of Concord, McMahan, Miller, Morrill of Gilford, Morse of 
Bradford, Nash, Newton of Bennington, Noonan, Nutter, Page 
of Portsmouth, Parsons, Pillsbury of Londonderry, Pillsbury of 
Tilton, Pitcher, Pitman of Bartlett, Pitman of Conway, Poor, 
Preston, Randall of Chesterfield, Randall of Grafton, Roby, 
Rounsevel, Ryan, Sanborn of Ashland, Sanborn of East Kings- 



188 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

ton, Sanborn of Portsmouth, Sanborn of Sanbornton, Sanborn 
of Wakefield, Sawyer of Columbia, Schoppe, Scott, Sherman, 
Smith of Haverhill, Smith of Lancaster, Smith of Mont Vernon, 
Smith of Plymouth, Smith of Salisbury, Sullivan, Sulloway, 
Tilton, Trefethen, Watson, Weeks, Wheeler, Whitcher, Whitman, 
Whitney of Franconia, Whittier, Wilkins, Wilkinson, Williams, 
York. 

And the following gentlemen answered in the negative : 

Abbott, Andros, Annett, Armington, Batchelder, Baker, Bar- 
ker, Barnard of Hopkinton, Barnard of Thornton, Bartlett of 
Derry, Bartlett of Manchester, Bartlett of Raymond, Barton, 
Beckford, Bell, Bemis, Bennett of Alton, Bennett of Tufton- 
borough, Berry, Bickford, Bill, Binford, Blake of Fitzwilliam, 
Bond, Boynton, Briggs, Brigham, Brown of Exeter, Bunten, 
Burton, Buttrick of Alexandria, Buttrick of Troy, Buxton, Cass, 
Gate, Clark of Manchester, Clifford, Cochran of Antrim, Coch- 
ran of Pembroke, Cochran of Windham, Colby, Cole of Berlin, 
Cole of Dummer, Cole of Stark, Collins of Milan, Coleman, 
Conway, Craig, Cram, Crawford, Cross, Curtis, Damon, Dan- 
forth, Davis of Amherst, Davis of Hopkinton, Davis of Warner, 
Dolbeer, Dole, Dorr, Dowe, Drake, Dresser, Dudley, Dunbar, 
Duncan, Durgin, Edgerly, Ellis, Emerson, Emory of Rindge, 
Farnum of Francestown, Farnham of Stewartstown, Fessen- 
den, Fletcher, Foster, French of Nashua, Frost, Furbush, 
Gerrish, Gilmore, Gove, Gray, Hadley, Hall of Clare- 
mont, Hall of Manchester, Hanson of Ward 2 Dover, Hardy, 
Harvey, Hatch of Peterborough, Hayes of Manchester, Her- 
sey, Hill of Ellsworth, Hill of Strafford, Hoit, Holland, 
Holt, Hunkings, Huse, Johnson of Hampton, Jones of Monroe, 
Kelley, Knapp, Knowles, Lang, Lary, Libbey, Little of Pem- 
broke, Luce, Lyman, Manahan, Marshall of Nashua, Marshall 
of Pelham, Marshall of Unity, Mason of Harrisville, Mathes, 
McCrillis, McKellips, McLane, Melcher, Mellows, Merriam, 
Messenger, Miles, Morrill of Grantham, Mussey, Newell, 
Newton of Hill, Noyes, Page of Dover, Page of Manchester, 
Parker of Farmington. Paul, Perley, Philbrick, Pillsbury of 
Derry, Porter, Prescott, Prichard, Putney, Rawson, Richards, 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 189 

Richardson, Ruggles, Sanborn of Fremont, Sawyer of Newbury, 
Shepard, Sisson, Smith of Hudson, Smith of Manchester, Smith 
of New Hampton, Spalter, Spaulding, Story, Taggart, Thompson, 
Thurston, Todd, Towle, Walker, Wallace of Holderness, Wallace 
of Milford, Washburn, Waterhouse, Webster, Wells, Whitaker, 
Whitney of Keene, Wiggin of Bedford, Wiggin of Tamworth, 
Wilson, Winch, Wood, Woolson, Woodman, Young of Madbury, 
Young of Northfield. 

And one hundred and twenty-four gentlemen having answered 
in the affirmative and one hundred and seventy-five in the nega- 
tive, the negative prevailed and the amendment was rejected. 

The question being stated on the amendment proposing to 
strike out the word "manufacturing," 

- Mr. Knapp of Somersworth : With the result of the vote on 
the amendment introduced by the gentleman from Greenland, 
my amendment would not remove the inconsistency, and I 
therefore withdraw it. 

The question recurred upon the adoption of the resolution re- 
ported by the special committee. 

Mr. Beckford of Laconia : This is a late time to make any re- 
marks upon this subject, and I should be glad if in the discharge 
of what I deem to be my duty I could avoid doing so. But a 
few days ago as I was coming up the walk I overheard this re- 
mark : ' ' We will put them on record ; we will see who are the 
friends of temperance ! ' ' Therefore as I am to be forced to go 
on record against this resolution, I feel it my duty to my con- 
stituency at home, and also to you, that I give you some of the 
reasons why I shall vote against this resolution. 

I approach this subject with mingled feelings of fear and 
trembling, because I know I have not the great ability of the 
gentlemen who have preceded me, or the power of expression 
one ought to have to address such a distinguished assembly as 
this, and then on account of the sacredness of the question. I 
can almost seem to hear, as did one of old, the words, " Put off 
thy shoes from off thy feet, for the ground whereon thoustandest 
is holy ground." I think I understand the importance of this 



190 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

question. I take it there is not a person within the sound of my 
voice who does not know of the power of this great evil ; there- 
fore there is no need of going into the charnel-house of this 
demon drink and bringing out to hold up to view his thousands of 
sickening victims, or to portray to your minds the ruined lives 
or blasted homes that are to be found upon every battle-field 
where in his mighty power he has swept all before him. There 
is no occasion for this. I take it we are all agreed on this one 
question of the evil ; therefore, the only question here for us to 
consider is how best to cope with this mighty power. I have 
listened with great attention and much pleasure to the gentlemen 
who favor this amendment, in hopes to hear some valid reasons 
adduced why we should vote to submit this question to the 
people. I have felt the great importance of listening, but in the 
language of Whittier, 

" I trace your lines of argument, 

Your logic linked and strong ; 
I weigh as one who dreads dissent, 

And fears a doubt as wrong. 

" But still my human hands are weak 

To grasp your iron creeds ; 
Against the words ye hear me speak 

My heart within mejpleads." 

Before I proceed further let me say, I am well aware that when 
a man enters the field of this great moral reform, when he steps 
out away from party, away from precedent, he is liable, in a re- 
form of this kind, because he may differ from some other men, 
because he sees fit to follow his own conscience instead of theirs, 
to be tabooed and called a rummy. 

Gentlemen, I neither touch, handle, nor drink liquor, not 
even tea or coffee as a beverage. My health will not allow me 
to use either. Let me thus disarm you, gentlemen, of any per- 
sonal criticism to start with. Gentlemen, I believe this proposi- 
tion has no right to be ^ingrafted into the Constitution of New 
Hampshire. 

I entered this field as unbiased and as free and untrammeled 
as any gentleman within the sound of my voice. When I found 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 191 

this question was going to come up for action in this convention, 
I wrote to temperance men, newspapers, and city marshals in 
various States where they have constitutional prohibition, and 
they advised not to put a prohibition article into our Constitu- 
tion. I have some of those letters here, but I am not going to 
detain you long. It is too late to make extended remarks. I 
am well aware how this convention is going to vote ; neverthe- 
less, that does not relieve me from responsibility. We have 
heard much of the great benefits of constitutional prohibition in 
this debate in the State of Maine. I am aware that in this con- 
vention there are letters from Governor Dingley, Governor 
Robie, and gentlemen from that class in society. I had the 
pleasure of hearing Mr. Moore's argument in Boston. I went to 
Boston for the purpore of hearing it, and I was amply repaid, for 
it is always a treat to hear Mr. Moore upon any subject. I was 
searching at that time for ground on which I should put my feet 
to stand, and I found that he had various references, and they 
have all been placed before you I suppose ; but it occurred to 
me during his argument, as it will to you, to ask myself, What 
do Governor Robie and Governor Dingley, and those men 
really know of the great cities and towns of their State ? If you 
were to ask of the Governor of our State to-day how many places 
there are in Manchester, how many places there are in Laconia, 
or how many places there are in this city where liquor is sold, do 
you think he could tell ? I tell you nay. 

These men are above searching for such places ; they have no 
business that takes them there, and no desire to know the num- 
ber of rum-shops in a State ; they do not reach out into that 
stratum in society ; and even if a governor of a great State did 
know or mistrust something in regard to it, let me ask you what 
would you think if your governor, or any other representative 
man, should write to other States belittling our beloved State and 
her laws ? With this view in mind, it occurred to me that I 
would write to people who had occasion to go around and see 
these things; therefore I wrote to newspaper reporters. They 
are industrious ; they are men who serve up to the public infor- 
mation as to the events of every day, and I suppose they are as 
honest a class of men, as a whole, as walks God's earth. I will 



192 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

read one of my letters, with the answers, to show you what I 
wrote to different papers, to the city marshals of different cities, 
and others in the States that have constitutional prohibition. 

LACONIA, N. H., December 21, 1888. 
Editor Bangor Daily Commercial : 

DEAR SIR, Will you kindly give me what information you can upon the 
working of the constitutional prohibition amendment in Maine ? 

1. In your own city, have you any less places where liquor is sold now than 
before such amendment ? No difference. 

2. Is there less crime ? No. 

3. Can you give the number of places where liquor is sold now, and also 
the number before said amendment? About 150. 

4. Is there less drunkenness than formerly ? No particular change. 

5. Is the law working so satisfactorily that you would advise other States to 
adopt such amendments to their Constitution ? Decidedly not. 

6. Any other information that will assist one who is a delegate to a constitu- 
tional convention, and desires (being unpledged and unbiased) to do just what 
is for the best interest for his State. A judicious license law is the best method 
of dealing with the liquor traffic. 

If you will kindly give this an early reply, as our convention sits January 4, 
1889, I shall be pleased to pay you for any trouble or expense you are caused 
thereby, if you will forward your bill with reply. 

Very truly yours, 

F. M. BECKFORD. 
F. H. GETCHELL, Editor " Commercial." 

He adds : " The law and amendments are a dead letter in this 
State, no attention being paid to them whatever." 

I wrote letters similar to that, and sent them to different 
States. I sent one to E. C. Allen & Co., Augusta, Me., who, 
as you know, publish a pictorial paper, and they reply as follows : 

LACONIA, N. H., December 21, 1888. 
E. C. Allen & Co. : 

DEAR SIRS, Will you kindly give me what information you can upon the 
working of the constitutional prohibition amendment in Maine ? 

1. In your own city, have you any less places where liquor is sold now than 
before such amendment ? No. 

2. Is there less drunkenness than before ? No. 

3. Can you give the number of places where liquor is sold now, and also 
the number before said amendment ? Thirty-six now, and before it ran from 
twenty-two to thirty . 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 193 

4. Is there less crime ? We should say there was more crime. 

5. Is the law working so satisfactorily that you would advise other States to 
adopt such amendments to their Constitutions ? The entire prohibition law in 
this State is a farce and used as a political machine. 

6. Any other information that will assist one who is a delegate to a constitu- 
tional convention, and desires (being unpledged and unbiased) to do just what 
is for the best interest of his State. 

If you will kindly give this an early reply, as our convention sits January 4, 
1889, I shall be pleased to pay you for any trouble or expense you are caused 
thereby, if you will forward your bill with reply. 

Very truly yours, 

F. M. BECKFORD. 

It is possible that in a few small towns the law may have a good effect, but 
in larger towns throughout the State liquor can be freely obtained, the only 
effect being that a poor, cheap quality of liquor is kept, and the traffic is 
driven into the hands of a class of unscrupulous men. 

Very truly yours, 

E. C. ALLEN & CO. 

The following is a letter from the city marshal of Woon- 
socket, R. I. : 

DEAR SIR, In reply to your inquiries of the working of the prohibition 
amendment in this city, think there are many more places where liquor can be 
bought than before ; do not notice any difference in crime ; think between 
sixty and seventy places were licensed here before the amendment ; do not 
notice any great difference in drunkenness ; cannot say that I would advise 
other States to adopt such an amendment if the result would be the same as in 
Rhode Island. 

Very respectfully, 

JOHN G. CURRIER, 

Chief of Police. 

The following letter is also from Rhode Island : 

OFFICE OF RHODE ISLAND DEMOCRAT, 

PROVIDENCE, R. I., December 31, 1888. 

DEAR SIR, Yours of December 2ist received. Hope you will pardon 
delay in writing and attribute it to the busy season of the year. Am glad your 
letter fell into my hands, and will answer your several questions conscien- 
tiously. I voted for the prohibitory amendment, and therefore feel that I have 
a right to express my views, and I can do so from an unprejudiced standpoint. 

13 



194 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

As to your first question, more or less places where liquor is sold, I am in- 
clined to think places have increased, and certainly of a more degenerate 
character. 

2. As to crime, there is as much, if not more, and rum as usual appears to 
be the inspiring demon. 

3. Have not statistics on hand, but think with the club rooms that now 
infest Providence there are as many, if not more, places to obtain liquor than 
before the passage of the amendment. 

4. There is certainly as much drunkenness seen on the street now as before 
the amendment, and I think the police courts show a slight increase in business 
since the passage of the law. 

5. The law does not work satisfactorily, for it has not the moral support of 
the community, and the officials knowing this are rather lax in enforcing it. 
Judging from our experience in Rhode Island, should not advise any State to 
adopt it, and, if opportunity occurs, should vote to repeal in this State. 

Have come to the conclusion that instead of pi-ohibiting, the law demoralizes 
the traffic, without decreasing the sales to any perceptible extent. 

The letter is marked " Confidential," and therefore I withhold 
the name of the writer. 

I listened to the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Cross), as 
he portrayed to you the benefits of the constitutional provision 
in Iowa in such glowing language and eloquent manner, and I 
was amazed that a judge in one of our cities, and one who is 
such authority on temperance matters, should not know that they 
have no constitutional prohibition in Iowa. The fact of the 
case is that Iowa is living under statutory prohibition, and all 
that has been accomplished for temperance in that State has 
been done by a statute law no stronger or better than our own, 
and what has been done there can be done here, if the gentlemen 
are honest and want to see the law enforced instead of making 
new law. Gentlemen, I make this statement and challenge any 
man to deny it. Our statute law in this State is so strong to-day 
that any man who honestly wants to enforce it, if he follows it 
up, can bankrupt any man or men engaged in the sale of liquor 
against its provisions. 

I labored under the impression that Iowa had constitutional 
prohibition, and wrote to Mr. Kelley, of Forest City, la., a 
lawyer, a gentleman whom many of you know, as strong a Prohi- 
bitionist as any man upon this floor, and he informs me that 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 195 

they have not constitutional prohibition in that State. I will 
not read the whole of the letter; I will give you the contents of 
it. He says that they are living under statutory law, and thinks 
it is working well ; but he winds up his letter by saying : " By 
no means would I advise constitutional prohibition ; statutory 
law is the best method of handling this matter." 

I received from every State the same report, except that I have 
one letter, and you shall have the benefit of it, from a gentleman 
in Iowa, who believes that constitutional prohibition works well ; 
and he goes on to extol constitutional prohibition in his own 
State in eight or ten long pages which I will not trouble you 
with reading. He says there are but two places in Des Moines 
where liquor is sold. He labors under the mistake that Iowa has 
constitutional prohibition. Thus you see we have another argu- 
ment showing us that statute law is the way to govern the matter. 
He does say, however, that the ill effects of the law are noticed 
in the depreciation of property ; he says he thinks it does affect 
property badly. But with that letter came another from the Des 
Moines " Leader," which is as follows : 

THE DES MOINES LEADER, 

OFFICE MANAGING EDITOR, 

December 28, 1888. 

DEAR SIR, A pressure of business has compelled me to defer answering 
your favor of the 2 1st instant until this time, and I can now only give you the 
information desired in a very brief form. 

1. Iowa has no constitutional prohibition amendment. Such an amendment 
was submitted to a vote, and adopted in 1881, but was afterwards declared 
void by the supreme court on account of a technical error in passing the Legis- 
lature. A prohibitory law was afterwards enacted, however, and the people of 
Iowa are now living under prohibition of a very stringent kind. This city gave 
a majority of twelve hundred for the amendment when it was voted upon, and 
the county two thousand. One year ago the question of repealing the law was 
made a test ; an anti-prohibitionist was nominated for the Legislature and was 
elected by two hundred majority. I have no doubt that if the question of 
repeal was submitted free from all entangling alliances, it would receive at least 
a thousand majority. There is no diminution in the number of places where 
liquor is sold, but rather an increase, although it has cost the tax-payers of the 
city over $40,000 in attempts to enforce the law. 

2. This question I answer no, as is shown by the records of the police 
court. 



196 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

3. A prominent Prohibitionist stated the other day that there over one hun- 
dred places in this city where liquor is sold. I do not know the exact number, 
but think this is a low estimate. Under license, just preceding prohibition, 
there were fifty-six saloons. 

[You will note the other gentleman says only two places.] 

4. No. 

5. I would not. It has not promoted temperance, but it has seriously 
injured the State by keeping out an emigration, and by driving out people 
already here. 

6. I could give you a great deal of information if I had the time. I am 
satisfied that no unprejudiced man who is familiar with the operation of prohi- 
bition, its effect upon the morals and business of the community, would vote 
for its continuance or to inflict it upon the State in which he might live. 

With great respect, I remain, 

Yours truly, 

H. C. SHAVER, Editor. 

If we go through the whole list of these letters, we shall find the 
same opinions expressed, with the exception of the one man who 
favors constitutional prohibition, and thinks he is living under it 
in Iowa. Now let me ask every gentleman within the sound of 
my voice if he imagines that the placing in the Constitution of 
New Hampshire an amendment of this kind, prohibiting the 
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, will actually pro- 
hibit it ? Why, the mere enactment of such an amendment to 
the Constitution of New Hampshire, without the necessary stat- 
ute laws to enforce such amendment, would no more prohibit the 
sale of liquors in New Hampshire than it would protect your 
homes from the thunder- bolt to ingraft into the same instru- 
ment the prohibition of the lightning that flashes across the 
stormy sky in midsummer. It requires statute law and moral 
sentiment back of the law to enforce it, and every gentleman 
present knows that is true. 

Now, gentlemen, what is the Constitution ? I ask every lawyer 
in this house, I ask every judge upon the bench to-day and those 
who have sat there in the past, is not the Constitution the funda- 
mental rock, the rock whereon we build ? Was it intended to 
ingraft into the Constitution all the minute details of govern- 
ment ? Is that what the Constitution is for ? Gentlemen, the 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 197 

Constitution is the bed-rock on which we build, and in this bed- 
rock to-day there are provisions enough, for they cover temper- 
ance, morality, and religion ; there is plenty of room to build 
upon by statutory law. Now does it make prohibition any 
stronger to ingraft it into the Constitution ? Do you deem it 
necessary to put a prohibitory amendment into the Constitution 
in order to enforce the law ? If it is necessary that there should 
be such an amendment to drive out this demon drink, which I 
firmly believe is doing more to ruin our fair country than any 
other evil, if that is necessary and will entirely prohibit this 
evil, why should we not ingraft into the Constitution a prohibi- 
tion of murder, of arson, of robbery, of the social evil, and kin- 
dred crimes ? Is it not sound argument that such amendments 
should be incorporated into the Constitution as well as the one 
proposed? If this result can be accomplished in one case, it 
surely can in the other. 

Gentlemen, the whole argument is fallacious. Let us be care- 
ful what we do here at the behests of any man or clique of 
men to bring our Constitution into disgrace. Let us keep this 
grand old instrument inviolate, as it was handed down to us, not 
to be made a part of our statute law that must necessarily change 
from year to year as new exigencies may arise, but the grand 
declaration of our principles, the one guiding star toward which 
our eyes may always turn with pride and honor. For this reason 
let me say for myself right here, if the license people were before 
this convention praying for a license amendment, I would put 
my foot on that just as firmly as I do on this, on the same ground 
that no provision relating to this matter should be put into the 
Constitution any more than any other statutory crime. 

In this convention, upon every important proposition that has 
come before us, we have been told by the gentlemen who advo- 
cated it that so many States favored that proposition ; we were 
told that three fourths of the States of the Union held their ses- 
sions of the Legislature in January, and therefore we should hold 
ours at the same time ; we were told that because most of the 
other States paid a salary to their representatives, we should pay 
a salary. Now I ask those gentlemen who adduced that argu- 
ment, how do you stand on this prohibition resolution ? In this 



198 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

broad Union of ours there are but three States which have con- 
stitutional prohibition. If your argument is good in one case, 
that we should do as others are doing, why is it not as valid in 
another ? The gentleman from Exeter (Mr. Bell) who occupies 
the chair told us we should submit no amendments except such 
as are morally sure to be approved by the people, and for which 
there existed a general demand. Since this convention was 
called, I have heard gentlemen upon this floor, in this debate, say 
that there was a general demand for constitutional prohibition 
when this convention was called. I ask you who, in March, 
1887, heard of there being any desire to put into the Constitution 
an amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of liquor ? 
I tell you if the question had been submitted at that time, if the 
people at home had had any idea we should have attempted to 
tinker the Constitution in this respect, this convention never 
would have met. 

Now what are we to do with this question ? It has been said 
that it should be taken out of politics, and this will do it ; and 
my learned friend from Claremont (Mr. Colby), and let me 
here say that I am perfectly aware that my bones will lie in all 
corners of this hall when I get through and these learned gentle- 
men get after me, my learned friend from Claremont said that 
this question should be forever taken out of politics, and his 
voice rang and thrilled with every fiber of his being. Let me 
ask the gentleman from Claremont what is to prevent its being in 
politics again in seven years from now? I predict that when 
seven years shall have rolled away, if this resolution is adopted 
to-day and accepted by the people at the polls, there will stand 
at the doors of your great party convention the Prohibitionists 
of New Hampshire, demanding that you ingraft a plank into your 
platform that this amendment shall not be repealed, and woe to 
the party who refuses to obey their behest. Again, what is to 
enforce this amendment ? It will naturally disarrange your whole 
statute law. New laws must be made to enforce such an amend- 
ment. Let me again ask, will that not carry it into politics ? 
Will they not demand the right to dictate your nominations to 
the Legislature ? You say it is not going to be a party question. 
I want to know why it will not be a matter of political discus- 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 199 

sion seven years hence as well as to-day and every day up to that 
time. In God's name, can any man tell what is to hinder it ? 

Another reason adduced why we should vote for this amend- 
ment is that a large number of people demand it. Is that so ? 
What do you call a large number ? I find that the petitions pre- 
sented to this convention and if I am incorrect I hope Judge 
Cross will correct me, for I have no desire to be unfair pur- 
port to be signed by 4.300 names. We all know how easy it is 
to get signers to a petition. But beyond that, many signatures 
are in this form: Mrs. So-and-so or Mr. So-and-so, for the 
Woman's Christian Temperance Union ; Mr. So and-so or Mrs. 
So-and-so, for the Independent Order of Good Templars, repre- 
senting so many members. There is no deduction made for any 
who may have signed the petition personally, but every member 
is counted ; thus Mr. M. signs the petition, then Mr. Secretary 
of the W. C. T. U. signs for so many members, the number of 
the lodge ; then Mr. Secretary of the Golden Cross or some other 
order signs for his lodge ; and as Mr. M. belongs to all three 
lodges and signed the petition personally, he is counted four 
times. This is a moral way of repeating. If I am not greatly 
mistaken, that is the way the 4,300 names were obtained. Am 
I correct, Judge Cross ? 

Mr. Cross : I will tell you presently. 

Mr. Beckford : I should be glad to have you tell me now. I 
think you ought to tell me now. I am only a boy in debate and 
knowledge in comparison to a man of your age and ability, and 
you ought to be able and not afraid to answer my honest ques- 
tions, if you are honest in what you say and what you do. But 
I will call it five thousand signers who have petitioned this hon- 
orable body, and say nothing in regard to the repeating ; and 
now if you will take your pencils and calculate the percentage, 
calling the population of New Hampshire 350,000, the honor- 
able secretary of state (Mr. Thompson) informs me it is much 
nearer 370,000, but we will call it 350,000, you will find that 
it is one and a quarter per cent of your whole population, one 
and a quarter in every hundred in the State of New Hampshire. 
They have raked high and low, doubled them up four times in 



200 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

many instances, and found one and one fourth per cent, just 
that number, to come here and ask this legislation. Is that a 
demand ? Is that a fair demand ? Is there any demand when 
there is only one man in a hundred who comes here and asks it ? 
And I will add this : I know that upon the petition which comes 
from Laconia there are the names of men who will vote against 
it, men who would no more go without their rum than their 
dinner. 

I have heard gentlemen upon this floor, and that is one 
reason why I am obliged to express my opinion, I heard them 
say, " I shall vote for it here to submit it to the people, but shall 
vote against it at home." Ah, gentlemen, they may do that. I 
have had it said to me within twenty-four hours that I was making 
a mistake. I tell you, gentlemen, here and now, I am not ; 
neither do I lay any claim to being more honest than men in 
general, but I would sooner that right hand of mine were with- 
ered than to step into Congress to-night by casting a vote here 
to ingraft into the Constitution what I believe to be wrong, 
against my convictions. I say still further, that any man who 
takes that position and votes in that way seems to me to be acting 
nothing more and nothing less than the part of a hypocrite; and 
as for me, I had rather stand before God Almighty a horse-thief 
and a highway robber than to stand before him as a hypocrite. 
Now, gentlemen, if you will vote as you believe, I know what 
will be the fate of this amendment. 

Do not let any gentleman rise and follow me and say that I 
am not a temperance man. One of the main reasons I have 
against the passage of this resolution is that I firmly believe it 
would be the worst blow the temperance party of New Hamp- 
shire has ever received. Let me ask, how many gentlemen are 
there before me who believe this amendment will become a law 
if it is submitted to the people ? There are not two in this hall 
who believe it will become a law. And, gentlemen, if this 
amendment is defeated by the people, there will be rum-holes 
springing up at every street corner, because the dealers will feel 
that public opinion stands behind them. If we submit this 
amendment to the people and it should be defeated, I believe that 
it will be the worst blow temperance has received for twenty-five 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 201 

years. If I should vote for this amendment here, I should vote 
for it at the polls. But we have heard it urged in this conven- 
tion that we only vote to submit it to the people. Delegates here 
relieve themselves of responsibility by saying, " I do not believe 
in the amendment myself, but I am in favor of submitting it to 
the people." If that is the true principle, why need there be 
any constitutional convention ? Let me ask you, gentlemen, who 
voted against having the Legislature submit amendments to the 
people every two years, on the ground that there should be at 
least a majority who wanted the Constitution amended, if it was 
left to the Legislature they would be tinkering the Constitution 
all the time, and it would not require such a demand as ought to 
be had to amend the Constitution. 

How can you consistently vote to submit this proposition to 
the people simply because one and one fourth per cent of the 
people demand it ? Could they not demand it through the Leg- 
islature as well? There would be no call for a constitutional 
convention if you take that position, for that per cent can be 
obtained on any subject, in my judgment. 

Our Constitution should be kept inviolate. It is the funda- 
mental law upon which we stand, the organic law to which we 
can anchor our bark in every storm at all times and find safety. 
It should not infringe upon the province of statutory law'in any 
particular. The fathers who framed the Constitution had no 
such intention. They ingrafted into it their principles, grand, 
noble, and massive. Let us thus labor to keep it pure and invi- 
olate, as it has been handed down to us. Let us transmit the 
same to our children, that they may say of us, even as we do of 
our ancestors, "They builded better than they knew." 

Gentlemen, I thank you for your kind attention. I have only 
to say in closing, I am loyal to my party ; I believe in my party ; 
I am loyal to temperance ; I believe in temperance ; but as truly 
as I stand before you, while I shall vote against submitting this 
amendment to the people, I shall do it because I believe I am 
doing right, not at the behest of any man, any party, or any 
clique of men, but as I see the light in the broad sunshine of 
God's favor and countenance \ and, gentlemen, as another has 
said, " If this be treason, make the most of it." 



202 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : The gentleman (Mr. Beckford) 
who has so eloquently addressed you is a temperance man and 
fears that the temperance cause may suffer if you ingraft this 
principle into the Constitution. Of course the gentleman is 
honest and sincere. Now the other friends of temperance, I 
think, by a large majority do not agree with him. They have 
looked the matter over in this State and in other States, and are 
urging the measure which we are urging here. They are 
attempting to establish it in Massachusetts, and I think they will 
succeed. They have incorporated it into their Constitution in 
some other States. The gentleman from Laconia (Mr. Beck- 
ford) says I was mistaken about Iowa ; yet in the latter part of 
his talk he said something about such a constitutional provision 
being ratified in that State. I hold in my hand a joint resolu- 
tion proposing to amend the Constitution so as to prohibit the 
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor as a beverage in the 
State of Iowa. The twenty-sixth section provides that no person 
shall manufacture for sale, or sell, or keep for sale, as a beverage, 
any intoxicating liquor whatever, ale, wine, or beer. This is a 
part of the constitutional provision that was enacted in the State 
of Iowa and was submitted to the people of Iowa, and by a 
majority of thirty thousand they adopted that enactment. After- 
wards, it is true, there was some quibble about something in the 
passage of the resolution, and the question was submitted to the 
supreme court, and the supreme court decided, that on account 
of some technicality the amendment did not become a constitu- 
tional provision of the State ; but it was approved by the people, 
and the Legislature from that time to this have acted in accord- 
ance with it. The great party of Iowa, at the last state conven- 
tion, put into their platform with reference to temperance legis- 
lation, "The Republicans of Iowa take no step backward." 
They indorsed the provision, and they carried the State by more 
than thirty thousand majority. The gentleman (Mr. Beckford) 
said, as I understood him, that he is in favor of license as against 
prohibition. 

Mr. Beckford : Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him ? 
I have not said at any time that I was in favor of license. I 
am in doubt what is the best method. I am simply against 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 203 

this amendment. I do not say, and never have said at any time, 
that I favored a license law. I said that I should object to the 
resolution being put into the Constitution. 

Mr. Cross : The gentleman is a temperance man without any 
principle as to prohibition or license. He has not made up his 
mind yet whether it is best to have license or best to have prohi- 
bition. Now, gentlemen, it is too late to discuss this question, 
and I do not think it is necessary. I know you would weary if 
I undertook to discuss it ; but I wish to suggest this in regard to 
the letters he has presented : I do not know but those letters are 
honest, but Governor Burley, in his message to the Legislature 
of Maine within a week past, commends the advantages that the 
prohibitory amendment in the Constitution has been to the State 
of Maine, and Governor Burley lives in a city and understands 
something of the affairs of his State. He says that this provision 
in the Constitution has worked well. I hold in my hand an 
account of a meeting in Boston in which the honorable Mr. 
Grinnell, of Iowa, spoke of the beneficial effects of prohibition 
in his State. 

Iowa, Maine, and Kansas have adopted the prohibition prin- 
ciple, and it is the testimony of judges, and it is the testimony 
of individuals in those States, that it has been beneficial and has 
aided in the suppression of intemperance. I suppose that some 
gentlemen may argue that the prohibitory law has done no good 
in this State ; but I believe if you go to the country towns of 
this State, to the towns of Weare, Henniker, Dunbarton, and 
various other towns I might enumerate all over the State, you 
would find that the prohibitory law has worked well. It is true 
that it has not been everywhere enforced ; but as the gentleman 
from Claremont has said, the question of prohibition or license 
is now before the people. I believe that the men who have 
asked to have this resolution incorporated into the Constitu- 
tion think that the principle of prohibition is the true princi- 
ple to stand by and to live by. As I said, from 1778 to 1849 
and in 1855 we tried the principle of license, and its results were 
bad. Since then we have adopted the principle of prohibition, 
and, although it has not done all we might hope, it has been a 
great advance. Advance is in the line of prohibition and not in 



204 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

the line of license. I challenge any man to go to a town or city 
where they have license and compare it with a town where they 
have prohibition. In the city of Boston they have license, and 
witness the increase of crime and the increase of the numbers in 
their prisons in the last few years. If I could call attention to 
an article in a newspaper which I have in my pocket, I could 
show you that in the city of Concord, where they have under- 
taken to enforce the prohibitory law and have enforced it, and 
compare it with the city of Portsmouth, where they have not 
enforced it, you would find that the number of arrests in the city 
of Portsmouth is four times as great as the number of arrests in 
the city of Concord. 

Mr. Sulloway of Franklin : What did they do with the man 
who enforced the law at this last election ? 

Mr. Cross : I do not know what they did with this man or 
with that man ; it makes no difference. If you did right or did 
wrong in the county of Merrimack, it is none of my business. 
I think you made a mistake in not electing the man that I should 
vote for. 

Mr. Parsons of Franklin : It was a pretty good test of what 
they wanted in Merrimack county. 

Mr. Cross : The question is whether we will submit this 
amendment to the people. A respectable number of people have 
asked it. I ask and they ask that they may have the opportunity 
to indorse it. The gentleman from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard) says 
that it has not been adopted in all States. Shall we wait to be 
the last State ? That has nothing to do with it. The question 
is whether the principle is right, and if the principle is right let 
us act fearlessly. 

Mr. Pitman of Conway : It is a self-evident fact that it will 
take much time to dispose of this question, and on account of 
the lateness of the hour I move we now adjourn. 

The motion was rejected. 

Upon this question Mr. Hatch of Greenland demanded a 
division, which resulted as follows : 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 205 

One hundred and forty-four members voted in the affirmative 
and one hundred and thirty-eight in the negative, and the 
motion did not prevail. 

Mr. Beckford of Laconia : I hope there will be no dilatory 
motions. The question has been fully discussed, and I am sure 
we shall all be glad to get it out of the way. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the resolution reported by the special committee be 
adopted ? 

Upon this question Mr. Sulloway of Franklin demanded the 
yeas and nays, and the demand was sustained. 

The following gentlemen voted in the affirmative : 

Abbott, Andros, Annett, Armington, Baker, Barker, Barnard 
of Hopkinton, Barnard of Thornton, Bartlett of Derry, Bart- 
lett of Manchester, Barton, Bell, Bemis, Bill, Binford, Blake of 
Danville, Blake of Fitzwilliam, Bond, Briggs, Brigham, Brown 
of Exeter, Bun ten, Burton, Buttrick of Alexandria, Buttrick of 
Troy, Buxton, Cass, Gate, Chadwick, Clifford, Cochran of An- 
trim, Cochran of Pembroke, Cochran of Windham, Colby, Cole 
of Berlin, Cole of Dummer, Cole of Stark, Collins of Milan, 
Coleman, Con way, Cram, Crawford, Cross, Curtis, Damon, 
Danforth, Davis of Hopkinton, Davis of Warner, Dolbeer, Dole, 
Dolloff, Dorr, Dowe, Drake, Dudley, Duncan, Durgin, Edgerly, 
Ellis, Emory of Rindge, Farnham of Stewartstown, Felker, 
Fletcher, Foster, French of Nashua, Frost, Gerrish, Gilmore, 
Gould, Gove, Gray, Hadley, Hall of Claremont, Hall of Man- 
chester, Hanson of Ward 2 Dover, Hardy, Harvey, Hatch of 
Peterborough, Hayes of Milton, Hayward, Hersey, Hill of Straf- 
ford, Holland, Holt, Howard, Huse, Johnson of Hampton, Kelley, 
Knapp, Knowles, Lang, Lary, Libbey, Little of Pembroke, Luce, 
Lyman, Manahan, Marshall of Nashua, Marshall of Pelham, 
Marshall of Unity, Mason of Concord, Mason of Harrisville, 
Mathes, McKellips, McLane, Melcher, Merriam, Messenger, 
Miles, Miller, Morrill of Grantham, Mussey, Newell, Newton of 
Hill, Noyes, Page of Manchester, Paul, Perley, Philbrick, Pills- 
bury of Derry, Pillsbury of Londonderry, Prescott, Prichard, 
Putney, Rawson, Richards, Richardson, Roby, Ruggles, Sanborn 



206 JOUBNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

of Ashland, Sanborn of Hampstead,* Sawyer of Columbia, 
Sawyer of Newbury, Schoppe, Shepard, Sherman, Sisson, Smith 
of Hudson, Smith of Manchester, Smith of New Hampton, 
Spalter, Spaulding, Story, Stowell, Taggart, Thompson, Thurs- 
ton, Tilton, Todd, Towle, Walker, Wallace of Milford, Wash- 
burn, Webster, Wells, Whitaker, Whitney of Keene, Wiggin 
of Bedford, Wiggin of Tamworth, Wilson, Winch, Wood, 
Woolson, Woodman, Young of Madbury, Young of Northfield. 

And the following gentlemen answered in the negative : 

Amidon, Bachelder, Bales,f Bartlett of Raymond, Becker, 
Beckford, Bennett of Alton, Bennett of Tuftonborough, Berry, 
Blodgett, Boynton, Brown of Nashua, Brown of Rye, Butler, 
Cavanaugh, Chase, Child, Cilley, Clark of Deerfield, Clark of 
Manchester, Clarkson, Clough, Collins of Manchester, Cone, 
Craig, Crowell, Cummings, Currier of Chester, Currier of Went- 
worth, Davis of Acworth, Davis of Amherst, Davis of Bow, 
Davis of Ossipee, Day, DeMeritt, Dresser, Drury, Duston, East- 
man, Eldredge, Emerson, Emery of Auburn, Farnum of Fran- 
cestown, Fernald, Fessenden, Fisher, Flood, Fradd, Frazier, 
French of Portsmouth, Furbush, Garland, George, Glidden, 
Graves, Green, Griffin, Hatch of Eaton, Hatch of Greenland, 
Hayes of Manchester, Hibbard, Hill of Ellsworth, Hobbs, Hoit, 
Hopkins, Hubbard, Hunkings, Johnson of Enfield, Jones of 
Monroe, Jones of Portsmouth, Jones of Stratham, Ladd, Leigh- 
ton, Lane, Leahy, Little of Warren, Littlefield, Locke, Lovejoy, 
Mallon, Manning, McCrillis, McMahan, Mellows, Morrill of 
Gilford, Morse of Bradford, Nash, Newton of Bennington, 
Noonan, Nutter, Page of Dover, Page of Portsmouth, Parker of 
Farmington, Parker of Nashua, Parsons, Pillsbury of Tilton, 
Pitcher, Pitman of Bartlett, Pitman of Conway, Poor, Porter, 
Randall of Chesterfield, Randall of Grafton, Rounsevel, Ryan, 
Sanborn of East Kingston, Sanborn of Fremont, Sanborn of 
Portsmouth, Sanborn of Wakefield, Scott, Smith of Haverhill, 
Smith of Lancaster, Smith of Mont Vernon, Smith of Plymouth, 
Smith of Salisbury, Sullivan, Sulloway, Trefethen, Wallace of 
Holderness, Watson, Waterhouse, Weeks, Wheeler, Whitcher, 
Whitman, Whitney of Franconia, Whittier, Wilkinson, Wil- 
liams, Willis, York. 

* See statement of Mr. Todd, page 263. t See statement, page 253. 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 207 

And one hundred and sixty-six gentlemen having answered in 
the affirmative and one hundred and thirty-one in the negative, 
the affirmative prevailed and the resolution was adopted. 

The president announced the Committee on Publication as 
follows : Messrs. Hibbard of Laconia, Frost of Dover, Mana- 
han of Hillsborough, Curtis of Concord, and Foster of Lisbon. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter moved that when the convention ad- 
journ, it be to meet at 7.30 o'clock this evening, and the mo- 
tion prevailed. 

Mr. Bickford of Manchester, from the Committee on Mileage, 
submitted the following report : 

We find the members of this convention entitled to pay for 
38,341 miles' travel, according to the returns made to the com- 
mittee by the members, with such other information as the com- 
mittee have been able to obtain, a list of the members with the 
number of miles traveled by each being herewith submitted as a 
part of this report, and the committee offer the following resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved, That each member be allowed the number of miles' 
travel set opposite his name in the list submitted, and that the 
secretary be instructed to make up the mileage roll of the con- 
vention in accordance therewith. 

The resolution was adopted. 

MILEAGE ROLL. 

Abbott . . .154 Barnard of Thornton . 130 

Amidon . . .170 Bartlett of Derry . 60 

Andros . . . 206 Bartlett of Manchester . 40 

Annett . . .197 Bartlett of Raymond . 75 

Armington . . . 260 Barton ... 90 

Bachelder . . .140 Becker . . .128 

Baker . -130 Beckford . . -54 

Bales . . . .102 Bell . . . .142 

Barker . . . 250 Bemis . . .114 

Barnard of Hopkinton 22 Bennett of Alton . 176 



208 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 



Bennett of Newmarket 


104 


Cochran of Pembroke . 


18 


Bennett of Tuftonbor- 




Cochran of Windham . 


70 


ough 


220 


Colby 


no 


Berry .... 


170 


Cole of Berlin . 


344 


Bickford . 


40 


Cole of Dummer 


320 


Bill .... 


158 


Cole of Stark 


322 


Binford 


3 J 4 


Collins of Manchester . 


40 


Blake of Danville 


I2O 


Collins of Milan 


360 


Blake of Fitzwilliam . 


2OO 


Coleman 


186 


Blodgett 


38 


Cone 


72 


Bond .... 


J 34 


Conway 


166 


Boynton 


1 60 


Craig 


114 


Briggs 


40 


Cram 


112 


Brigham 


154 


Crawford . 


IOO 


Brown of Exeter . 


142 


Cross .... 


40 


Brown of Nashua 


72 


Crowell 


162 


Brown of Rye 


130 


Cummings. 


340 


Bunten 


16 


Currier of Chester 


96 


Burnham 


40 


Currier of Wentworth . 


138 


Burton 


140 


Curtis 


4 


Butler 


40 


Damon 


120 


Buttrick of Alexandria 


70 


Dan forth 


2 


Buttrick of Troy . 


200 


Davis of Acworth 


114 


Buxton 


16 


Davis of Amherst 


9 2 


Cass .... 


116 


Davis of Bow 


6 


Gate .... 


48 


Davis of Hopkinton . 


24 


Cavanaugh . 


40 


Davis of Ossipee 


250 


Chadwick . 


76 


Davis of Warner . 


38 


Chase 


20 


Day .... 


300 


Child .... 


174 


DeMeritt . 


114 


Cilley 


IOO 


Dolbeer 


28 


Clark of Deerfield 


80 


Dole .... 


130 


Clark of Manchester . 


40 


Dolloff 


132 


Clarkson . 


72 


Dorr .... 


130 


Clifford 


8 


Dowe 


130 


Clough 


42 


Drake 


58 


Coburn 


226 


Dresser 


64 


Cochran of Antrim 


70 


Drury 


82 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 



209 



Dudley . . .148 
Dunbar . . .100 
Duncan . . .144 
Durgin ... 2 
Duston ... 86 
Eastman . . . 206 
Edgerly ... 65 
Eldredge . . .120 
Ellis .... 100 
Emerson . . .172 
Emery of Auburn . 60 
Emery of Concord . 2 
Emory of Rindge . 191 
Farnum of Francestown 120 
Farnham of Stewarts- 
town . . .362 
Farrington . . .140 
Fassett . . .76 
Felker . . .140 
Fernald . . .160 
Fessenden . . .142 
Fisher . . .176 
Fletcher . . .184 
Flood ... 72 

Foster . . . 206 
Fradd ... 40 
Frazier ... 70 
French of Nashua . 72 
French of Portsmouth 120 
Frpst . . . .120 
Furbush . . .266 
Garland . . .270 
George . . -50 
Gerrish . . -25 
Gilmore ... 40 
Glidden . . .112 
Gould . . .134 
Gove . 260 



Graves . . .54 
Gray . . 336 

Green . . .118 
Griffin ... 40 
Hadley ... 2 
Hall of Claremont . 114 
Hall of Manchester . 40 
Hanson of Ward 2, 

Dover . . .122 
Hanson of Ward 4, 

Dover . . .122 
Hardy ... 74 
Harvey . . .146 
Hatch of Eaton . . 300 
Hatch of Greenland . no 
Hatch of Peterborough 96 
Hayes of Dover . . 122 
Hayes of Manchester . 40 
Hayes of Milton . 176 

Hayes of Somersworth 130 
Hay ward . . .92 
Hersey . 130 

Hibbard . . .54 
Hill of Ellsworth . 128 

Hill of Strafford . .148 
Hobbs ... 70 
Hoit .... 72 
Holland . . .122 

Holt 128 

Hopkins . . .170 
Howard . . .100 
Hubbard ... 40 
Hunkings ... 98 
Huse .... 42 
Johnson of Enfield . 116 
Johnson of Hampton . 144 
Jones of Monroe . 228 
Jones of Portsmouth . 120 



14 



210 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 



Jones of Stratham 


IOO 


Morrill of Grantham . 


1 60 


Kelley 


78 


Morse of Bradford 


56 


Kimball . 


2 


Morse of Loudon 


16 


Knapp 


130 


Mussey 


no 


Knowles 


42 


Nash .... 


284 


Ladd .... 


272 


Newell 


174 


Leighton . 


40 


Newton of Bennington 


70 


Lane .... 


32 


Newton of Hill . 


56 


Lang .... 


1 80 


Noonan 


400 


Lary .... 


240 


Noyes 


246 


Leahy 


I4O 


Nutter 


70 


Libbey 


206 


Page of Dover . 


124 


Little of Pembroke 


16 


Page of Manchester . 


42 


Little of Warren 


142 


Page of Portsmouth . 


I2O 


Littlefield . 


120 


Pageot 


I4O 


Locke 


I2O 


Paris .... 


40 


Lovejoy 


86 


Parker of Farmington . 


1 60 


Luce .... 


40 


Parker of Nashua 


72 


Lyman 


142 


Parsons 


36 


Mallon 


120 


Paul .... 


IOO 


Manahan 


56 


Perley 


112 


Manning 


40 


Philbrick . 


72 


Marshall of Nashua 


74 


Pillsbury of Derry 


60 


Marshall of Pelham 


80 


Pillsbury of London- 




Marshall of Unity 


126 


derry 


60 


Mason of Concord 


2 


Pillsbury of Tilton 


36 


Mason of Harrisville . 


105 


Pitcher 


I 3 2 


Mathes 


206 


Pitman of Bartlett 


292 


McCrillis . 


88 


Pitman of Conway 


284 


McKellips . 


76 


Poor .... 


20O 


McLane 


64 


Porter 


122 


McMahan . 


120 


Prescott 


18 


Melcher 


54 


Preston 


146 


Mellows 


104 


Prichard 


166 


Merriam 


1 60 


Putney 


6 


Messenger . 


410 


Quimby 


108 


Miles .... 


265 


Randall of Chesterfield 


198 


Miller . . . 


96 


Randall of Grafton 


95 


Morrill of Gilford 


62 


Rawson 


I 5 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 



211 



Richards 
Richardson 

Roby .... 
Rounsevel . 
Rowell 
Ruggles 

Ryan .... 
Sanborn of Ashland . 
Sanborn of East Kings- 
ton 

Sanborn of Fremont . 
Sanborn of Hampstead 
Sanborn of Manchester 
Sanborn of Portsmouth 120 
Sanborn of Sanbornton 
Sanborn of Wakefield . 200 
Sawyer of Columbia 
Sawyer of Newbury 
Schoppe 
Scott . 
Shepard 
Sherman 
Sisson 

Smith of Dalton . 
Smith of Haverhill 
Smith of Hudson 
Smith of Lancaster 
Smith of Manchester 
Smith of Mont Vernon 104 
Smith of New Hampton 94 
Smith of Plymouth 
Smith of Salisbury 
Smith of Sunapee 
Spalter 
Spaulding . 
Stevens 
Story . 
.Stowell 
Sullivan . 16 



86 


Sulloway 


38 


112 


Taggart 


54 


60 


Thompson . 


48 


226 


Thurston . 


1 20 


I 3 


Tilton 


70 


150 


Todd. 


114 


40 


Towle 


148 


9 2 


Trefethen . 


112 




Walker 


2 


I 3 2 


Wallace of Holderness 


IO4 


9 6 


Wallace of Mitford . 


94 


82 


Washburn . 


176 


40 


Watson 


5 


120 


Waterhouse 


1 20 


68 


Webster 


90 


200 


Weeks 


IO2 


3 22 


Wells. 


I 3 


58 


Wheeler . . . 


85 


396 


Whitaker . 


146 


120 


Whitcher . 


216 


7 6 


Whitman . 


72 


216 


Whitney of Franconia 


242 


152 


Whitney of Keene 


130 


264 


Whittier 


148 


170 


Wiggin of Bedford 


50 


66 


Wiggin of Tamworth . 


250 


270 


Wilkins 


TOO 


40 


Wilkinson . 


40 


104 


Williams . 


162 


94 


Willis 


146 


102 


Wilson 


6 4 


36 


Winch 


144 


80 


Wood 


I 3 


I 3 


Woolson 


206 


70 


Woodman . 


2 


9 


York .... 


146 


40 


Young of Madbury 


I 3 


114 


Young of Northfield . 


36 



212 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Resolved, That the convention be brought to a close on Satur- 
day, January 12, and that the secretary be requested to make up 
the pay-roll accordingly. 

Mr. Danforth : I introduce this resolution at the request of 
the state treasurer. It will be known to every one present that 
the state treasurer wants the pay-rolls in his possession as soon as 
possible, and he desired a resolution of this kind introduced, so 
that everything could be ready and there would not be such a 
rush as would otherwise occur. 

The resolution was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Hobbs of Candia, the convention ad- 
journed. 

EVENING. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 
(The president in the chair.) 

On motion of Mr. Smith of Manchester, the following resolu- 
tion was adopted : 

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to report to 
this convention whether any provision should be made with ref- 
erence to the time when the terms of office of the executive and 
legislative officers of the State, commencing in June, 1889, shall 
terminate, in case the amendment changing the time for the 
assembling of the Legislature from June to January shall be 
adopted by the qualified voters. 

The president appointed the following gentlemen as said 
committee : 

Messrs. Messrs. 

Smith of Manchester, Ladd of Lancaster, 

Briggs of Manchester, Dole of Lebanon. 

Hibbard of Laconia, 

Mr. Hayes of Milton offered the following resolution : 
Resolved, That a select committee of ten, one from each 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 



213 



county, be appointed by the chair to take into consideration the 
subject of the suffrage of women. 

The resolution was adopted, and the president announced the 
following gentlemen as said committee : 



Messrs. 

Hayes of Milton, 
Mellows of Newmarket, 
Beckford of Laconia, 
Gray of Jackson, 
Danforth of Concord, 



Messrs. 

Merriam of Greenville, 
Randall of Chesterfield, 
Marshall of Unity, 
Smith of Plymouth, 
Cummings of Colebrook. 



Mr. Briggs, from the Committee on Legislative Department, 
to which was recommitted the amendment changing the time of 
the meeting of the Legislature from June to January, having 
considered the same, reported the same with the following sub- 
stitute therefor, and recommend its adoption : 

Substitute for the resolution introduced by Mr. Blake of Fitz- 
william, relating to changing the time of holding sessions of the 
Legislature from June to January, the following : 

Amend article 3, part second of the Constitution, as follows : 

Strike out the word "June" wherever it appears in said 
article, and insert "January," so that said article as amended 
shall read as follows : 

" ART. 3. The Senate and House shall assemble biennially, 
on the first Wednesday of January and at such other times 
as they may judge necessary, and shall dissolve and be dissolved 
seven days next preceding the said first Wednesday of January, 
biennially, and shall be styled THE GENERAL COURT OF NEW 
HAMPSHIRE." 

Amend article 25, part second, by striking out the word 
" June " wherever it occurs in said article, and inserting " Janu- 
ary," so that the said article as amended shall read as follows : 

" ART. 25. The Senate shall consist of twenty- four members, 
who shall hold their office for two years from the first Wednesday 
of January next ensuing their election." 



214 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Amend article 32, part second, by striking out the word 
"June" wherever it occurs in said article, and inserting the 
word "January," so that said article as amended shall read as 
follows : 

" ART. 32. The meetings for the choice of governor, council, 
and senators shall be warned by warrant from the selectmen, 
and governed by a moderator, who shall, in the presence of the 
selectmen (whose duty it shall be to attend), in open meeting, 
receive the votes of all the inhabitants of such towns and par- 
ishes present and qualified to vote for senators; and shall, in 
said meetings, in presence of the said selectmen and of the town 
clerk in said meetings, sort and count the said votes, and make 
a public declaration thereof, with the name of every person voted 
for and the number of votes for each person ; and the town clerk 
shall make a fair record of the same, at large, in the town book, 
and shall make out a fair attested copy thereof, to be by him 
sealed up and directed to the secretary of the State, with a super- 
scription expressing the purport thereof; and the said town clerk 
shall cause such attested copy to be delivered to the sheriff of the 
county in which said town or parish shall lie thirty days at least 
before the first Wednesday of January, or to the secretary of the 
State at least twenty days before the said first Wednesday of Jan- 
uary ; and the sheriff of each county or his deputy shall deliver 
all such certificates by him received into the secretary's office at 
least twenty days before the first Wednesday of January. ' ' 

Amend article 33, part second, by striking out the word 
"June" wherever it occurs in said article, and inserting the 
word "January," so that the article as amended shall read as 
follows : 

" ART. 33. And, that there may be a due meeting of senators 
on the first Wednesday of January, biennially, the governor and 
a majority of the council for the time being shall, as soon as 
may be, examine the returned copies of such records, and, four- 
teen days before the first Wednesday of January, he shall issue 
his summons to such persons as appear to be chosen senators by 
a majority of votes to attend and take their seats on that day ; 
provided, nevertheless, that, for the first year, the said returned 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 215 

copies shall be examined by the president and a majority of the 
council then in office ; and the said president shall, in like man- 
ner, notify the persons elected to attend and take their seats 
accordingly." 

Amend article 42, part second, by striking out the word 
"June" wherever it occurs in said article, and inserting therefor 
the word "January," so that said article as amended shall read 
as follows : 

"ART. 42. The governor shall be chosen biennially, in the 
month of November, and the votes for governor shall be received, 
sorted, counted, certified, and returned in the same manner as 
the votes for senators ; and the secretary shall lay the same before 
the Senate and House of Representatives on the first Wednesday 
of January, to be by them examined ; and in case of an election 
by a majority of votes through the State, the choice shall be by 
them declared and published ; and the qualifications of electors 
of the governor shall be the same as those for senators ; and, if 
no person shall have a majority of votes, the Senate and House 
of Representatives shall, by a joint ballot, elect one of the two 
persons having the highest number of votes, who shall be de- 
clared governor. And no person shall be eligible to this office 
unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhab- 
itant of this State for seven years next preceding, and unless he 
shall be of the age of thirty years." 

Amend article 43, part second, by striking out the word 
" June " wherever it occurs in said article, and inserting therefor 
the word " January," so that said article as amended shall read 
as follows : 

" ART. 43. In cases of disagreement between the two houses 
with regard to the time or place of adjournment or prorogation, 
the governor, with advice of council, shall have the right to ad- 
journ or prorogue the General Court, not exceeding ninety days 
at any one time, as he may determine the public good may re- 
quire ; and he shall dissolve the same seven days before the said 
first Wednesday of January. And, in case of any infectious dis- 
temper prevailing in the place where the said court at any time 
is to convene, or any other cause whereby dangers may arise to 



216 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

the health or lives of the members from their attendance, the 
governor may direct the session to be holden at some other, the 
most convenient, place within the State." 

Amend article 60, part second, by striking out the word 
" June " wherever it occurs in this article, and inserting the word 
" January," so that the article as amended shall read as follows : 

"ART. 60. There shall be biennially elected by ballot five 
councilors, for advising the governor in the executive part of 
government. The freeholders and other inhabitants in each 
county qualified to vote for senators shall, some time in the 
month of November, give in their votes for one councilor, which 
votes shall be received, sorted, counted, certified, and returned 
to the secretary's office, in the same manner as the votes for sen- 
ators, to be by the secretary laid before the Senate and House 
of Representatives on the first Wednesday of January. ' ' 

Amend article 66, part second, by striking out the word 
" June " wherever it occurs in this article, and inserting the word 
" January," so that the article as amended shall read as follows : 

" ART. 66. And, whereas the elections appointed to be made 
by this Constitution on the first Wednesday of January, bienni- 
ally, by the two houses of the Legislature, may not be com- 
pleted on that day, the said elections may be adjourned from 
day to day until the same be completed. And the order of the 
elections shall be as follows : The vacancies in the Senate, if any, 
shall be first filled up ; the governor shall then be elected, pro- 
vided there shall be no choice of him by the people ; and, after- 
wards, the two houses shall proceed to fill up the vacancy, if any, 
in the council." 

The question being stated, 
Shall the report be accepted ? 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I think there is one word that needs 
to be stricken out. Article 3, as the committee report it, reads, 
" The Senate and House shall assemble biennially, on the first 
Wednesday of January and at such other times as they may 
judge necessary, and shall dissolve and be dissolved seven days 
next preceding the said first Wednesday of January biennially." 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1889. 217 

The word " said " I think should be stricken out, and I move to 
strike out the word " said." 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester : I think myself that the word may 
as well be stricken out, but we followed the exact language as it 
is in the present Constitution ; we simply changed June to Janu- 
ary. I think the phraseology would be better with the word 
" said " stricken out, and I hope it will be done. 

Mr. French of Nashua : I might inquire of those who have 
examined the matter, whether it would then be made certain 
which Wednesday of January the clause relates to, whether the 
one following the assembling or one two years after that ? As it 
now stands, of course it is understood to mean seven days before 
the assembling of the next Legislature ; but if you strike out the 
word "said," it leaves it "seven days next preceding the first 
Wednesday of January biennially." It seems to me there might 
be some uncertainty. 

Mr. Smith : Does not the word biennially make it all right ? 

Mr. French : That is where I am uncertain ; does it ? I move, 
in order that we may have a chance to look at it a little longer, 
that the report of the committee lie upon the table. 

The question being stated, the motion prevailed. 

Mr. Wells, from the Committee on Future Mode of Amend- 
ing the Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments, to which 
was referred the resolution entitled "An amendment of article 
10, part second of the Constitution, in relation to classed towns," 
introduced by the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith), re- 
ported the same with the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to legislate on the subject as 
proposed. 

On motion of Mr. Hatch of Greenland, the report was laid on 
the table. 

Mr. Abbott, from the same committee, to which was referred 
the amendment offered by Mr. Harvey of Surry, entitled an 
amendment to articles 10 and n of the Constitution, in relation 



218 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

to representatives in classed towns, having considered the same, 
reported the same with the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the amendment be adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Hatch of Greenland, the report was laid on 
the table. 

Mr. Smith, from the Committee on Bill of Rights and Execu- 
tive Department, to which was referred the resolution proposing 
to amend article 6 of the Bill of Rights by striking out the 
word " Protestant," also the resolution proposing to strike arti- 
cle 6 from the Bill of Rights, reported that they had considered 
the same and recommend that, in place of either of said proposed 
amendments, the following be adopted, to wit : 

Substitute for article 6 the following: "Every religious sect 
or denomination demeaning themselves quietly and as good sub- 
jects of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the 
law ; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to 
another shall ever be established by law. ' ' 

The report was accepted and the proposed substitute laid on 
the table, on motion of Mr. Hibbard of Laconia. 

On motion of Mr. Smith of Manchester, the convention re- 
solved itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the me- 
morial of the New England Woman Suffrage Association. 

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

(Mr. Lyman of Exeter in the chair.) 

Dr. H. B. Blackwell and Miss Blackwell of Boston, and Prof. 
Carruth of Kansas University addressed the committee. 

On motion of Mr. Woolson of Lisbon, ordered that the com- 
mittee rise and report progress. 

IN CONVENTION. 

(The president having resumed the chair.) 

Mr. Lyman, chairman, from the Committee of the Whole, re- 
ported that the committee had had under consideration the me- 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 219 

morial of the New England Woman Suffrage Association, and 
had made progress. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the memorial of the New 
England Woman Suffrage Association was referred to the special 
committee on that subject. 

On motion of Mr. Felker of Rochester, the report of the Com- 
mittee on Bill of Rights, relating to the striking out of the word 
"Protestant" from the Bill of Rights, was made the special 
order for to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock. 

On motion of Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry, the convention 
adjourned. 



FRIDAY, JANUARY n, 1889. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 

The reading of the journal was begun, when, on motion of 
Mr. Danforth of Concord, the further reading was dispensed 
with. 

The special order was the report of the Committee on Bill 
of Rights and Executive Department, proposing to substitute 
the following for article 6 of the Bill of Rights : 

"ART. 6. Every religious sect or denomination demeaning 
themselves quietly and as good subjects of the State shall be 
equally under the protection of the law ; and no subordination 
of any one sect to another shall ever be established by law." 

The question being stated, Mr. Ruggles of Hanover moved to 
amend the substitute reported by the committee so that said 
article shall read as follows : 

" ART. 6. As morality and piety will give the best and great- 
est security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the 
strongest obligations to due subjection, and as the knowledge of 



220 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the 
institution of the public worship of the DEITY and of public 
instruction in morality and religion, therefore, to promote these 
important purposes, the people of this State have a right to em- 
power, and do hereby fully empower, the Legislature to author- 
ize, from time to time, the religious societies within this State to 
make adequate provision, at their own expense, for the support 
and maintenance of public teachers of piety, religion, and 
morality. 

"The several religious societies shall at all times have the exclu- 
sive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contract- 
ing with them for their support and maintenance ; and no person 
of any one particular religious sect or denomination shall ever 
be compelled to pay toward the support of the teacher or teach- 
ers of another persuasion, sect, or denomination. 

"And every religious sect or denomination demeaning them- 
selves quietly and as good subjects of the State shall be equally 
under the protection of the law ; and no subordination of any 
one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by 
law." 

The question being stated, 

Shall the amendment offered by the gentleman from Hanover 
(Mr. Ruggles) be adopted ? 

Mr. Ruggles of Hanover : I am aware that the time for mak- 
ing long speeches in this convention has gone by. I have no 
ambition to make a speech, but I do desire to say a few words on 
this question. I think all will agree with me that some change 
is necessary. The first part of article 6 is, " As morality and 
piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles." What are 
evangelical principles? This is a point on which we do not 
agree. There are in this body a hundred men, probably, I 
speak loosely, attached to some religious organization which is 
commonly spoken of as not being evangelical. We have in this 
body Unitarians, Universalists, Episcopalians, not far from sixty, 
and others. Everybody knows, that as the term is commonly 
employed, they are not evangelical. 

Now, gentlemen, do you care to keep those words which are 
objectionable to a large and respectable body of our citizens ? 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 221 

What is the use of keeping them ? They do nobody any good ; 
they can only do harm if they have any effect at all. 

This article was originally drawn with reference to a state 
religion. It starts off with a declaration, almost eloquent, a 
declaration we all like to read, and which many of us would be 
very unwilling to have taken out of the Bill of Rights. We 
want to keep it there ; we want to read it ; we want to feel the 
influence of it ; we want our children to read it, and that it 
should have its due influence upon them. As we go on we find 
that it is provided that " the people of this State have the right 
to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the Legislature to 
authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies 
corporate," etc. What does that mean? Why, it meant, of 
course, a state church, and until the toleration act of 1819 we 
had a state church. It became intolerable, and was done away 
with. A distinguished judge of this State informs us that if the 
Legislature chose, it might again, under this article, establish a 
state church. Gentlemen say, " We do not fear a state church." 
Neither do I. I do not think there is any probability of any 
Legislature attempting to establish a state church, and still, in 
the years to come, it might possibly happen. Why not strike 
out those words, which can only do harm, which can do no 
one any good ? As far as I can find out nobody wants them 
there, and what harm to leave the words " religious societies?" 
The article goes on and says, " to make adequate provisions at 
their own expense for the support and maintenance of public 
Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality." Now we 
have in this State a large and respectable body of Catholics. 
Gentlemen, I am not a politician ; I never held political office; 
I aspire to none ; I speak the thing as it comes to me, and as I 
understand it. The Catholics have not come in here and asked 
that the word ' ' Protestant ' ' should be stricken out, so far as I 
know ; though, as a matter of course, it would be agreeable to 
them to have that word disappear. Every politician knows that 
the word is bandied back and forth between the two political 
parties in every election. It is a kind of red rag that will float 
there until we remove it from the Bill of Rights. Why not take 
it out ? Some say that it means nothing. If it means nothing, 
why not take it out ? What is the object of its standing there ? 



222 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

A gentleman has said that the word " Protestant " is not man- 
datory. Probably it is not. It has been said that the State 
might employ Catholics, that it is not limited to Protestant 
teachers, and this is probably the fact. One gentleman has said 
to me that he had some fear with regard to the word " teacher," 
understanding it had reference to schools. I am told that the 
word " teacher " in this connection can only be interpreted by 
the word "preacher." The article says, "teachers of piety, 
religion, and morality." In fact the courts have interpreted the 
word as meaning simply preacher, as we ordinarily use that term. 

Further on it is provided that " every denomination of Chris- 
tians." We hold that a Jew is not a Christian, still do we not 
want to admit him to all political and religious rights ? This 
Bill of Rights sets forth in strong language freedom for all, 
freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of a 
man's conscience; and yet we have here a word which appar- 
ently excludes a Jew. This Bill of Rights is one of the most 
liberal documents that you can possibly find, and yet, apparently, 
there are restrictions in it which would make it appear illiberal in 
the extreme. Why not strike out the word " Christians," and 
put in "every religious sect or denomination." I am not par- 
ticular about the exact words. If any one will suggest a better 
form of expression, let us adopt it ; but let us strike out the word 
" Christians," and receive our friend, the Jew, and let him stand 
where he ought to stand, with perfect freedom, not only to wor- 
ship God as he sees fit, but with a recognized right to worship 
God if he sees fit. 

The last four or five lines of this article have been said by an 
eminent judge to be lumber. I suppose, in the present state of 
affairs it is so. They refer to contracts existing at that time with 
the clergy. Those clergymen have long since gone to their rest ; 
none of those contracts can exist at the present time, and there- 
fore there seems to be no good reason for retaining those provis- 
ions. I hope we shall give, even at this late hour of the con- 
vention, our serious consideration to the matter. I believe that 
if this proposed amendment were to come before the people of 
the State of New Hampshire, properly explained, so that they 
would understand exactly what it means, they would ratify it. 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 223 

Mr. Felker of Rochester : Heartily concurring in the remarks 
of the last gentleman (Mr. Ruggles), I move that the report of 
the committee be amended by inserting in place thereof article 
6, amended as proposed by Mr. Ruggles. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I dislike to trespass further upon 
the time of the convention, and I would not do so if it did not 
seem necessary that the convention may understand correctly the 
position of this question. I will be as brief as possible. I con- 
cede in the outset that article 6 of the Bill of Rights, whatever 
importance may have been attached to it at the time it was put 
there, has ceased to have any practical importance. You will 
notice that it provides that the Legislature may authorize towns 
to raise money for the support and maintenance of public Prot- 
estant teachers of piety, religion, and morality. The Legislature 
did authorize towns to raise money for that purpose, and up to 
the year 1819 we had a law upon our statute book authorizing 
towns to raise money for the support of the minister, and taxes 
were assessed upon the polls and estates of the people of towns 
for that purpose. The proviso inserted in the article excused 
those persons from paying who belonged to some other sect or 
denomination, and the result was that the selectmen of towns 
assessed " minister taxes " upon the inhabitants; next, numerous 
suits in the courts were brought by persons who claimed to be- 
long to some other religious sect or denomination, to be relieved 
from paying their proportion of taxes, and frequently there were 
trials by jury to determine whether the tax-payer was a Congre- 
gationalist, Baptist, Universalist, or Unitarian ; and the suits 
were vexatious. In 1819 the Legislature repealed that law, and 
for seventy years there has been no law (n this State authorizing 
towns to assess taxes for the support of public preaching, and I 
suppose the chances are infinitesimally small that any Legislature 
for the next thousand years will pass such a law. If that be so, 
then this article in the Bill of Rights, so far as its practical 
operation is concerned, is of no importance whatever, and in 
that view of the case I do not care whether it is in the Bill of 
Rights or whether it is out, it has ceased to have any practical 
operation. 

Then the question arises, Why meddle with it at all if it harms 



224 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

no one ? If no tax can be assessed on any one, why meddle with 
it ? The gentleman from Hanover has explained that there is in 
it a word which is an eyesore to some ten thousand voters of this 
State, I refer to the word "Protestant." To them it seems 
an odious discrimination against their religion. I suppose they 
are as tenacious of their religious rights as I am of mine, and I 
freely concede to them the same rights that I claim for myself; 
therefore, I am willing that the word "Protestant" be stricken 
out. It will leave the article in this way : that the Legislature 
may authorize a town to raise money by taxes for the support of 
public teachers of piety, religion, and morality. So that if a 
Legislature should ever be foolish enough to pass such a law and 
the Catholics were a majority in any town, they might raise 
money for the support of the Catholic minister, and if the Prot- 
estants were a majority in another town, they might raise money 
for the support of a Protestant teacher, and in that way we might 
have two or more state religions. The probability of any such 
thing occurring is extremely small. 

There are in the second line of the article words which are 
offensive to at least two denominations of Christians in this State, 
" morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical princi- 
ples." Conceding to all religious denominations the same rights 
I claim for myself, not to have anything in the Bill of Rights 
that is offensive, if these words are offensive to them, as they seem 
to be, I am in favor of changing that phrase so as to relieve it of 
its offensive character. The committee found itself in a dilemma, 
as perhaps this convention may, from the fact that we were not 
all of the same mind. Some of us thought it was unwise to 
meddle with the article at all, because it had no practical impor- 
tance except as a matter of sentiment ; others thought that the 
words in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Han- 
over (Mr. Ruggles), which are inclosed in brackets, might be 
stricken out and leave the article acceptable to everybody ; others 
of the committee thought that the shorter method proposed by 
the gentleman from Milton (Mr. Hayes) was best on the whole. 
It takes four lines from the article and substitutes them for the 
whole article, and the majority of the committee were of the 
opinion that upon the whole it was better to take those four lines 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 225 

which would express, perhaps, all that it was necessary to say, and 
substitute them for article 6, and then everybody would be satis- 
fied. The two amendments mean the same thing, except that 
the substitute which the gentleman from Hanover proposes is a 
good deal longer. I hope I have made myself understood. As 
I said in the outset, personally I care very little whether this arti- 
cle is voted out or retained. The committee thought it their 
duty to present this subject to you in such a way that if you choose 
to make any alteration in the article, you may take your choice 
from these several modes. If the amendment proposed by the 
gentleman from Milton is acceptable to you, then you will accept 
the recommendation of the committee. If it appears to you that 
the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Hanover is bet- 
ter, then you can adopt that. If you are of the opinion that it 
is best to do nothing except to strike out the word " Protestant," 
then that can be done. And if you are of the opinion that we 
had better not meddle with it at all, then you will say so by your 
votes. Personally I have no feeling about the matter. 

Mr. Thurston of Dover : I can see, as the gentleman from 
Manchester (Mr. Smith) says, that practically it makes no differ- 
ence whether this article is changed or not. But it is an ancient 
one ; it was written by the fathers. Freed from these terms that 
have become objectionable in the progress of society, I think it 
ought to stay there. It is traditional, it is venerable, and I do 
not like to infract upon the doings of the fathers any more than 
is absolutely necessary. It takes but very little space ; space is 
of no account whatever. It contains all we want, nothing more. 
Why not let it stay with these amendments proposed by the gen- 
tleman from Hanover (Mr. Ruggles) ? I hope we shall. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : I would like simply to say that the 
report of the committee reading thus, " And every religious[sect 
or denomination demeaning themselves quietly and as good sub- 
jects of the State shall be equally under the protection of the 
law, and no subordination of any one sect or denomination*to 
another shall ever be established by law, ' ' appears to me nearly 
right. But I hardly like to leave an inference in our Bill of 
Rights that our religious sects and denominations do not demean 

15 



226 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

themselves quietly and as good subjects. I understand it is one 
of the objects of religion to make good subjects who will quietly 
demean themselves. If I were going to write it myself, I would 
have it read : " All good citizens shall be equally under the pro- 
tection of the law ; and no subordination of any one sect or 
denomination to another shall ever be established by law." I 
would not leave the inference that religion is calculated to make 
people demean themselves otherwise than as good subjects. 

Mr. Felker of Rochester : I introduced the resolution to strike 
out the word " Protestant " from article 6 of our Bill of Rights. 
I did it, in the first instance, because I believed that the word 
"Protestant" is distasteful to a certain class of our citizens. 
They are entitled to as much consideration as we are. Suppose 
the word " Catholic " instead of " Protestant " was there, would 
it not be just as distasteful to us ? I do not care which form the 
resolution takes ; the one proposed by the gentleman from 
Hanover (Mr. Ruggles) or the one proposed by the gentleman 
from Milton (Mr. Hayes). I am for religious freedom, even if 
it is a matter of sentiment, for sentiments are sometimes very 
dear to us. I have as much veneration for the works of the 
fathers as the gentleman from Dover (Mr. Thurston). If he 
will look in the old Bill of Rights of Massachusetts, he will see 
somewhat similar language, which was thoroughly revised in 
1833 ; but it would do no harm, if it were satisfactory to our 
Methodist brethren, to retain the old form stripped of its objec- 
tionable features. Ours is the last State in the Union that 
retains any such article in its Bill of Rights, and it seems to me 
that it should be changed so as to give everybody equality in 
matters of religion. 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : I wish simply to make one remark 
about old things. My friend from Lancaster (Mr. Ladd) does 
not wish to disturb the Constitution because he so venerates the 
work of our fathers. Now, if a thing that they did is better 
than anything that we propose now, I would retain it. If what 
they did is not as good as what we can do now, I would reject 
it. I would look at things in the light of reason. I have an 
old dictionary one hundred years old, and I would be glad to 
exchange it for a new revised Webster. 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 227 

Mr. Thurston of Dover : I am sorry to speak several times, but 
I wish to ask my friend (Mr. Todd) suppose it is neither better 
nor worse, isn't there something to be considered in the fact of 
its venerableness ? In regard to the remarks of my friend from 
Exeter (Mr. Lyman) about the inference that religious people 
might be disturbers, I think that such an inference may be enter- 
tained. Suppose the Mormons should come here and establish 
themselves. I think that not only should religious establishments 
be protected, but they may need restraint. I hope the amendment 
will prevail. 

Mr. Felker of Rochester : I believe the supreme court has 
decided that Mormonism as a religion and Mormontsm as prac- 
ticed are two different things. A plurality of wives is not neces- 
sarily a matter of religion. 

Mr. Davis of Warner : I think quite a number of the members 
have not a very intelligent idea as to what the amendment is 
which is offered by the gentleman from Hanover (Mr. Ruggles). 

Mr. Smith : It is all in print, and if any member has not a 
copy he can be supplied. There are plenty of copies in the 
room of the sergeant-at-arms. 

Mr. Durgin of Concord: It has been said that we ought not 
to lumber up these amendments with any more questions than are 
necessary, for fear we injure the success of those which we most 
desire to have adopted. If I rightly judge the temper of the 
people of this State, they would adopt the amendment suggested 
by the gentleman from Hanover (Mr. Ruggles) ; but I, for one, 
should most certainly vote against the wholesale slaughter of 
this article. It seems to me that there is nothing in life about 
which people are so sensitive as they are about their religion, and 
the majority of the people of this State are of the Protestant 
faith. Now I am willing that the word "Protestant" should 
be stricken out, if it is desired. I do not wish to offend unne- 
cessarily the men of a different faith who have come to our land, 
if they behave well ; nor do I wish to throw unnecessarily into 
the teeth of other people who do not believe in it the idea of 
evangelical religion. I think, however, there are some principles 
inculcated by the remainder of the section which ought not to be 



228 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

stricken out, I shall most certainly vote for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Hanover (Mr. Ruggles), and 
against the proposed amendment of the committee. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster: I desire to say but a single word. 
My highly esteemed friend from Atkinson (Mr. Todd) has sug- 
gested that I have such a great veneration for old things, and 
especially for our old Constitution, that I am ready to oppose 
anything in the way of amendment or progress, that I am 
blinded to the progress of the age. That is hardly a correct 
statement of my position. The only diffidence I feel about this 
matter is in determining what is better. What I desire to say is, 
Mr. President, that I am in favor of removing, in some way, 
these two words "evangelical" and "Protestant" from the 
Constitution ; not because they are of the slightest practical im- 
portance in my judgment, but because they stand there, as has 
been said, a sort of eyesore to very many of the citizens of this 
State. It seems to me that it is a matter of no practical impor- 
tance which way it is done. The method suggested by the com- 
mittee, as I understand it, puts it beyond the power of the 
Legislature ever to authorize towns to raise money, in general 
terms, for the support of the ministry of any denomination. I 
understand that to be the practical effect of the amendment pro- 
posed by the committee. It makes it certain that such a thing 
can never be done under any circumstances without a change of 
the Constitution; whereas, as I understand it, the amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Hanover (Mr. Ruggles) leaves 
it within the power of the Legislature to authorize religious 
societies to raise money for the support of their minister, but 
does not enable the Legislature to authorize towns or parishes to 
raise money. I would like to know if I am right. 

Mr. Ruggles of Hanover : The several legal gentlemen whom I 
consulted stated in very distinct terms, after examining it, that it 
took away forever from the Legislature any power to raise money 
for religious purposes or to authorize money to be raised, and the 
possibility of union of church and state. 

Mr. Ladd : I now understand that this amendment takes 
away from the Legislature forever the power to authorize towns, 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 229 

parishes, and bodies corporate to raise money for the support of 
the ministry ; but it leaves religious societies at liberty to raise 
money themselves for the support of their minister, exactly 
the same right they would have independently of any constitu- 
tional provision whatever. 

Mr. Mellows of Newmarket : Could they raise it by taxation ? 

Mr. Ladd : Possibly there might be a technical question there ; 
that may be so ; but it leaves it for the religious societies to 
settle that matter for themselves. As I said before, it seems to 
me one method comes to just the same thing, practically, as the 
other. I do not see any difference. It is a matter of taste which 
is adopted. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I desire to ask a question of the 
gentleman from Lancaster. Did not the supreme court in the 
Dover church case, in an opinion in which the gentleman him- 
self concurred, decide that, independently of anything contained 
in the sixth article of the Bill of Rights, the Legislature had 
power under the fifth article of the Form of Government to grant 
to towns, parishes, bodies corporate, and religious societies 
authority to make provision at their own expense for the support 
of teachers, either Protestant or Catholic, of religion, morality, 
and piety ? In other words, did they not decide that the article 
now under consideration does not grant any power whatever that 
is not granted by the fifth article of part second of the Constitu- 
tion ? 

Mr. Ladd : My recollection of all the details of that very long 
opinion is not entirely distinct ; I should dislike to answer the 
question categorically. It is my impression that it was so held 
in that case. 

Mr. Hibbard : I may not have understood the gentleman. I 
thought he said that if the amendments reported by the commit- 
tee were adopted it would take away the power of towns, parishes, 
and bodies corporate to make provision for the support of teachers 
of piety, morality, and religion. 

Mr. Ladd : I think you misunderstand me. What I intended 
to say was, that as I understand the report of the committee, it 



230 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

would take away from the Legislature the power to authorize 
towns and parishes to raise money by taxation for the support of 
the ministry of any religious sect or denomination, and my rec- 
ollection and what I intended to say in regard to the Dover 
church case was, that it was held that religious societies would 
have the right under article 5 the common-law right to 
raise money at their will for the support of their own preacher, 
independently of any constitutiopal provision on the subject. I 
may not be accurate about it, but that is what I intended to say 
and that is my understanding of it. It seems to me there is no 
practical difference between the two propositions. I may not be 
right about it. 

Mr. Barton of Newport : I think if the framers of the Consti- 
tution had any idea when they framed this article there would 
ever be so much trouble about its meaning, they never would 
have placed it in the Constitution ; and if their disembodied 
spirits are around about us to-day, they must be pained at the 
way the discussion has gone on for the repeal or modification of 
this article. Twelve years ago this article came up for discussion, 
and the convention voted to strike out the word "Protestant." 
I was in favor of it ; I thought it was right. When the question 
was submitted to the people, they voted against it. Now it has come 
up again, I am in favor of striking out the word " Protestant." 
I am in favor of striking out all words and sentences that can 
affect anybody improperly or unjustly. I am in favor of the 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Hanover ; I think 
it is a fair one ; it eliminates everything that is objectionable. 
No person can say that it is not fair to every class of citizens. 
Now why not leave as much of the language of the Constitution 
as possible ? The burden of proof is upon those who wish to 
strike out the language of the Constitution as proposed by the 
amendment ; it is on them to show that it is better to strike it 
out than not to strike it out. I love the works of the fathers ; 
I do not wish to obliterate the whole of this article ; I wish to 
retain all that is not obnoxious. If it does no harm where it is, 
it will do no good to strike it out. When I take up the Consti- 
tution I want to read as much of what the fathers put in there as 
I can. Everything that is improper or bears unjustly on any 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 231 

class or order, strike out. That is what the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Hanover (Mr. Ruggles) does. Then why 
talk longer upon this matter ? Let us vote for the amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Hanover. Let me predict, if 
the proposition reported by the committee to the house goes to 
the people, they will reject it. It never will pass ; but I think 
the amendment proposed by the gentleman From Hanover will be 
adopted by the people most readily, not from any well-grounded 
apprehension that the Legislature could ever establish a state 
church, as has been suggested, but to allay and forever put to 
rest this ever-recurring suspicion of religious intolerance and op- 
pression which are about as likely to affect freedom of religious 
thought and action as lightning is to strike the north pole. How- 
ever, we can well afford to concede in the interest of peace what 
is of no practical advantage to the people to retain. 

Mr. French of Nashua : There is danger that the people will 
not understand the purposes of this amendment when they come 
to vote upon it. The amendment proposed before was rejected, 
although there was a large vote in its favor. Now I am afraid 
that the people who do not hear this discussion will say that the 
amendment suggested by the committee strikes out of the Bill of 
Rights every recognition in the Constitution that religion and 
piety are controlling and useful factors in government. I find 
nowhere else in the Bill of Rights or in the Constitution any 
recognition of the fact that religion and piety are useful, con- 
trolling, and valuable factors in government. In the article pre- 
ceding the one under consideration something is said about the 
right of people to worship God ; but whether they ought to wor- 
ship God, or whether it is a useful thing to the State that they 
should, is not declared, and it is not declared anywhere else that 
I am aware of. Now will not the people say, in the absence of 
information as to the course of this discussion, that this is going 
over to Bob Ingersoll and to those who believe that there ought 
to be no recognition, in the Constitution or the laws, of piety and 
religion ? Whether they ought to be recognized in the organic 
law we need not discuss ; the fathers recognized it years ago, 
and that recognition is with us now. When the question was be- 
fore submitted to the people to take out the words " Protestant," 



232 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

"evangelical," and " Christians," they would not consent to it. 
If they would not do that, can you believe that they will will- 
ingly take out of the Bill of Rights the recognition of piety and 
religion as useful factors in government ? 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : For the purpose of clearing up the 
question I proposed to the gentleman from Lancaster. I will read 
the first and second head notes of Hale vs. Everett, 53 N. H. i : 

"i. Article 6 in the Bill of Rights of the New Hampshire 
Constitution, while it empowers the Legislature to authorize the 
several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies 
within the State to make adequate provision, at their own ex- 
pense, for the support and maintenance of public Protestant 
teachers of piety, religion, and morality, does not directly and 
was not intended to, and does not by implication, forbid the 
Legislature to authorize such towns, etc., or religious societies, 
to make provision for the support of any other religious teachers 
besides Protestant. 

"2. Under section 5 of part second of said Constitution, the 
Legislature is as fully empowered to authorize such towns, par- 
ishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies to make provision 
for the support of any other religious teachers besides Protest- 
ants, if they think it for the welfare or benefit of the State to do 
so, as it is by article 6 of part first to make provision for the sup- 
port of Protestant teachers." 

Of course, if under article 5 the Legislature has power to 
make provision for the support of all other than Protestant 
teachers, it must also have power to make provision for the sup- 
port of Protestant teachers ; and that applies to towns, parishes, 
and bodies corporate as well as to religious societies. 

Mr. Colby of Claremont : I would like to know how that case 
agrees with this clause, found on the second page of the report of 
the committee : " And no person of any one particular sect or 
denomination shall ever be compelled to pay toward the support 
of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or denom- 
ination." 

Mr. Hibbard : That provision clearly prevents the application 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 233 

of this power to persons of a different sect, persuasion, or de- 
nomination. 

Mr. Colby : How can a town vote a tax to support any par- 
ticular denomination while that clause exists which says positively 
that nobody shall be obliged to pay a tax for any other persua- 
sion. 

Mr. Hibbard : I do not propose to put myself in a position to 
answer conundrums. Whether the town can make such a pro- 
vision and not have it applicable to everybody in town, whatever 
his religious belief or preference may be, I will leave to the court, 
and as my friend from Lancaster was one of the members of the 
court, perhaps he will enlighten us. 

The question being stated, the amendment proposed by Mr. 
Ruggles of Hanover was adopted. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the report of the committee as amended be adopted ? 

It was decided in the affirmative, and the proposed amendment 
to the Bill of Rights adopted. 

Mr. Cross, from the Special Committee on the Prohibitory 
Amendment, made a report recommending that the resolution 
adopted by the convention, prohibiting the sale and manufacture 
of intoxicating liquor, be embodied in a separate article of the 
Constitution and numbered 102, in the following words, to wit : 

"ART. 102. The sale, or keeping for sale, or manufacture of 
alcoholic or intoxicating liquor, except cider, or of any com- 
pound of which such liquor is a part, to be used as a beverage, is 
a misdemeanor, and is hereby prohibited." 

The report was accepted and adopted. 

On motion of Mr. French of Nashua, the report of the Com- 
mittee on Legislative Department, relating to changing the time 
of holding sessions of the Legislature, was taken from the table 
and considered. 



234 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. French : Last evening, when this matter was brought 
before the convention, in looking at the phraseology of the 
amendments proposed, some of us did not understand, and I 
cannot now understand, the amendments as they were drawn. I 
therefore move, as an amendment to the report, that article 3, 
part second of the Constitution, be amended so that it shall read 
as follows : 

" The Senate and House shall assemble biennially, on the 
first Wednesday of January next ensuing their election and 
at such other times as they may judge necessary, and shall dis- 
solve and be dissolved seven days next preceding the first Wednes- 
day of January two years thereafter, and shall be styled THE 
GENERAL COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE." 

Also, to amend article 43, line 7, as it is printed here, so as to 
bring it into conformity, by striking out the word " said " and 
inserting the words " next ensuing after the next biennial elec- 
tion " after the word "January," so that it shall read: "and 
he shall dissolve the same seven days before the first Wednesday 
of January next ensuing after the next biennial election." 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : I would like to inquire what provis- 
ion there is, in that case, for dissolving the Legislature that will 
be in existence at the time of the meeting of the first Legislature 
under the new Constitution. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : The question was referred to the 
committee last night, and that committee will probably make a 
report to-day. The question will not interfere with the action 
proposed by the gentleman from Nashua (Mr. French). 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : It seems to me that the phraseology 
is exactly right as it is. There is no particular January men- 
tioned ; there is no year, no date ; it is simply the first 
Wednesday of January biennially. As I read it, I understand 
that the Legislature in existence at the close of the year which 
comes before the first Wednesday of January biennially, when 
the next Legislature will convene, that the Governor, then being 
in the chair of the term previous, shall have the duty to dissolve 
the Legislature, if it shall then be in session. The words "said 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 235 

first Wednesday of January biennially" plainly indicate wliich 
January is meant ; it is not the January which comes between 
the years that the Legislature shall meet. I do not see a particle 
of inconsistency there. The word " said " should be there in 
order to show what January it applies to. The language does 
not refer to any specific year, but to any January when the 
Legislature shall convene. 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester : I dislike, gentlemen of the con- 
vention, to take up your time in the discussion of this matter. 
I am somewhat surprised at the attempt that is made to tinker 
and change the form of expression adopted in this old Constitu- 
tion. Now I do not believe that all the wisdom died with the 
fathers. I do not believe that the present has all the wisdom of 
to-day and of the past. I made this report myself. We were in- 
structed to change the time of the meeting of the Legislature 
from the first Wednesday of June to the first Wednesday of Jan- 
uary, and that there might be no mistake in what we did, I took 
from the Constitution as it stands to-day every single clause 
which needed to be amended and struck out the word " June " 
and inserted the word " January." Take this article 3, which is 
the first one that came up : 

" The Senate and House shall assemble biennially on the first 
Wednesday of June and at such other times as they may judge 
necessary, and shall dissolve and be dissolved seven days next 
preceding the said first Wednesday of June biennially, and shall 
be styled THE GENERAL COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. ' ' 

That is as the Constitution stands to-day. To modify it, we 
struck out the word " June " and inserted the word " January " 
where it occurs first ; and then in the fourth line struck out the 
word "June" and inserted "January." There you have pre- 
cisely the same form of expression, precisely the same article that 
exists in the Constitution to-day, precisely the same article that 
has existed for nearly a hundred years in the Constitution, with 
the exception that in 1876 they inserted the word "biennially" 
in place of " annually." We have lived under this old Constitu- 
tion down to the present time, and the gentleman from Nashua 
(Mr. French) is the first man that I ever knew who got into the 
fog and did not know what it meant. 



236 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

You may take all the other amendments in the same way, and 
every single amendment proposed by this committee is simply a 
change of the word " June" for the word " January." It is 
your old Constitution, with that exception. It is of no earthly 
consequence perhaps it may be a matter of taste, a mere mat- 
ter of opinion whether you adopt one form of expression or 
another. I think, but perhaps I am all wrong, perhaps I have 
too much regard for this old instrument, I may be too much in 
love with ancient things, I think if you leave the original lan- 
guage in the Constitution as it has stood for years, and simply 
change the word "June" to "January," we can live under it 
for the next hundred years and have no difficulty in understand- 
ing its meaning. I hope that no change will be made, and that 
this report will be adopted. 

Mr. French : I do not understand why we need to have any 
feeling about a matter of phraseology. I do not know whether 
this earnestness is inspired by a veneration of the fathers or a 
veneration of the report of the committee. I want to make the 
language as plain as possible, so that I can understand it. If I 
am the only person in the State of New Hampshire who cannot 
understand it, I am mistaken, because the very phraseology was 
before other members of the convention, and it struck them as 
rather peculiar and rather uncertain. There is no need of any 
earnestness about this matter. It is a question of grammar and 
.rhetoric. Because I venerate the fathers I do not want to spell 
the words of the Constitution the way they spelled them, nor do 
I want to run into any uncertainties that they may possibly have 
put in there. They were discussing principles, matters of most 
vital importance, and it is barely possible that they not only 
spelled differently from us but that they might understand things 
differently from us. If you will look at article 3, I do not 
believe you will think it so very strange that I wanted it made a 
little clearer. " The said first Wednesday of June " is the first 
Wednesday of June upon which they assembled, according to my 
understanding of language, and I think that is the understanding 
of most people. All I want is to make it plainer, not to have 
my way or anybody's way. The language proposed by the 
amendment, "seven days next preceding the first Wednesday of 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 237 

January two years thereafter," puts it beyond all discussion and 
controversy; but it does not matter much which way you have 
it. I do not apprehend any danger from the old phraseology, 
because time has established for it a certain construction ; still I 
am not alone in thinking a better form of expression, one more 
clear and unequivocal, could be substituted. 

Mr. Huse of Manchester : I do not wish to put my legal 
knowledge, of which technically I have none, against that of the 
older and honorable gentlemen here, but I must confess that 
when, in my ignorance of the laws of my State, I first turned to 
its Constitution to read it, I found myself at a loss, as the gentle- 
man from Nashua has said he did, to know just the exact mean- 
ing of this article. And I would suggest to those who say that 
it has always remained in this way, and that they use the exact 
words of the fathers who framed this Constitution, that when the 
"first Wednesday of June" was put in, the Legislature met 
every year; and then there could have been no discussion, no 
hesitation or doubt as to which first Wednesday of June was 
intended. But when the words " every year " were changed to 
"biennially," and nothing was put in to designate which 
Wednesday of June the session must commence, I am at a loss 
to say whether the first Wednesday of the second June after the 
election might not be intended as well as the first Wednesday of 
the first June ; and although there has never been any trouble 
about it, and probably never would be, if the phraseology should 
remain as it is, for the reason that the members of the Legislature 
if they had no worthier motive, would be glad to assemble here 
and get their salaries, still it leaves the article ambiguous, it 
does not state plainly which Wednesday of June is intended. 
Since the session last evening I have looked into the several Con- 
stitutions of those States whose Legislatures assemble biennially, 
and in every one of them it is stated distinctly that they shall 
assemble on some particular day next ensuing their election and 
shall dissolve and be dissolved on a particular day two years next 
ensuing their election, or upon a certain day previous to the as- 
sembling of the next Legislature. As I said, practically it may 
make no difference which form of phraseology is adopted, but I 
do think if you make any change it is best to make it perfectly 



238 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

plain and beyond all doubt. I heartily second the amendment 
of the gentleman from Nashua (Mr. French). 

Mr. Colby of Claremont : I desire to ask a question not ex- 
actly relevant to the matter under discussion. I should like to 
know what the committee mean by these words in their report : 
11 on the first Wednesday of January, and at such other times as 
they may judge necessary." 

Mr. Briggs of Manchester : Those words are in the old Con- 
stitution, and we did not make any change. We were instructed 
to change the time from June to January. We did not suppose 
we had power to remodel the phraseology of the Constitution any 
further than to effect the change from June to January. We thought 
we could carry out the instructions of the convention by simply in- 
serting the word January in the place of June. That is what we did ; 
we did not attempt to remodel or change the language of article 
3 any further than that ; we supposed if we did more we should 
be criticised for stepping over the boundary. If you will look 
along further, in relation to the council, you will find other 
phraseology that might be changed and perhaps made more in 
accordance with the facts. I judge in the original Constitution 
the councilors were elected by counties, and the phraseology in 
relation to counties in connection with councilors might be 
changed and improved. 

I have no objection personally to any change which this con- 
vention may make, in phraseology or anything else ; but it seemed 
to me that it was stickling for a point of no practical consequence 
to make these verbal changes of the original text which has not 
been disturbed, and from which no trouble has ever arisen. To 
avoid that we copied the Constitution exactly, except that we 
substituted January for June. 

Mr. French : The committee were instructed, I think, to re- 
port the first Wednesday of January, and they reported the sec- 
ond Wednesday of January. That is of no consequence. They 
seem to be tenacious at least the chairman is about this 
matter of phraseology. Now I am tenacious about my amend- 
ment only because it represents the views of certain others here, 
and I think their views are correct, and because I do stumble 



FRIDAY, JANUAEY 11, 1889. 239 

over the thing as it stands. No one is able to present an objec- 
tion to the amendment suggested ; it leaves it clear beyond con- 
troversy, and I do not think the present language does. The 
people are not going to reject anything we submit to them sim- 
ply because we make it clearer. We should not be afraid of 
making things clear. Take article 43. It says, " he shall dis- 
solve the same seven days before the said first Wednesday of 
January." There is no first Wednesday of January mentioned 
anywhere else in the article, and the reader has to go back to find 
what first Wednesday is referred to. Now strike out the word 
" said," and insert after January the words " next ensuing after 
the next biennial election," and it is clear beyond controversy. 

Mr. Pitman of Conway : It seems to me as though the lan- 
guage is clear as it now stands. I do not think there is a man in 
the State of New Hampshire who would understand it to mean 
that the Legislature should be dissolved seven days prior to its 
sitting. 

Mr. French : Then why word it so ? 

Mr. Hadley of Concord : I would ask the gentleman from 
Nashua (Mr. French) if the word " biennially " which is inserted 
here does not answer every purpose as well as the amendment 
which he proposes ? It is perfectly clear to my mind that it means 
the same as ' ' two years thereafter. ' ' 

The question being stated, the amendment was rejected. 

The question recurred upon the adoption of the substitute 
reported by the committee. 

The question being stated, the substitute reported by the com- 
mittee was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Hatch of Greenland, the reports from the 
Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution, re- 
lating to the mode of electing representatives to the General 
Court in classed towns, were taken from the table and considered. 

Mr. Hatch of Greenland : I wish simply to make an explana- 
tion, and then let the convention take the matter into their own 



240 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

hands and consider what is best to be done. There came before 
the committee representatives of many of the classed towns with 
complaints of the great inconvenience they are subjected to in 
traveling from one town to another, as required by article 10 of 
the Constitution, in order to vote. I think the representatives of 
certainly a majority of the classed towns came before the com- 
mittee and they all made the one complaint of inconvenience, 
sometimes impossibility, of traveling from one town to another 
in order to vote. I will mention only one case, which is perhaps 
the most grievous. The town of Jackson is classed with the towns 
of Livermore and Hart's Location. The town of Jackson, if I am 
not mistaken, lacks but about fourteen of the necessary number of 
population to entitle them to send a representative themselves. The 
Constitution requires that the elections shall be held in the towns 
in rotation. Now the effect of this provision was, as represented 
by the delegate from Jackson, that he was compelled to go 
twenty-two miles to the voting place at the last election, and 
twenty-two miles back home, and he thought that was an unrea- 
sonable burden to put upon the people of the town, and the re- 
sult was they did not attend the elections. That was the general 
complaint of all the gentlemen who appeared before the com- 
mittee, I think, with one exception. One gentleman said he had 
no particular preference. 

The representatives of the classed towns expressed a preference 
to be represented a proportionate part of the time, according to 
the plan reported by the committee ; but the committee had 
grave doubts as to the expediency or practicability of such an 
amendment, for this reason principally, that many towns, cer- 
tainly six towns, have less than one hundred population ; in one 
town I think there are about forty only, and perhaps there are 
some locations and places with even less population than that. 
Now the result would be that if these towns sent representatives 
to the General Court a proportionate part of the time, that is, 
in proportion to their population, some of these towns would 
send but one tenth part of the time, and the sessions of the Leg- 
islature being held only once in two years, the result would be 
that those towns would be represented in the Legislature but once 
in twenty years, and practically the town is disfranchised. When 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 241 

the Legislature apportions the taxes among the towns, these towns 
have no representation ; and we were met by the question whether 
such a measure does not conflict with the fundamental principle 
that there shall be no taxation without representation. I have 
no preference in the matter, and I think every member of the 
committee will say the same, but they desire to furnish if possi- 
ble some relief to the grievances complained of, and have there- 
fore submitted the matter to the convention. 

Mr. Abbott of Winchester : As a member of the committee 
that reported this amendment, I would say, as the gentleman 
from Greenland (Mr. Hatch) has said, that there was a hearing 
before the committee and a very large representation from the 
classed towns. The matter first came up in regard to giving 
them a right to vote in their towns, but there were great difficul- 
ties in that plan because it would require returning-boards, and 
as a majority vote is required to elect, it might be necessary to 
vote a number of times before an election could be obtained. 
It seemed to be the desire of the representatives of classed towns 
to send members to the Legislature a proportionate part of the 
time, according to the number of the inhabitants. You will find 
that these towns are classed so that voters have to pass through 
other towns to get to the polling place, and some of the best men 
in the State never attend one of these elections ; they practically 
feel themselves deprived of the right of voting. They have to 
travel from ten to twenty and forty miles in order to vote. 
Moreover, in many of these towns it was necessary to have three 
elections in November last in order that the voters might have a 
chance to vote the national and state ticket in their own towns 
first, then in some one of the classed towns for representatives to 
the Legislature, and then on some other day for a delegate to 
this convention. Now taxation and representation go together, 
yet there is a town in this State which by the statute laws is de- 
prived of any representation. It has a representative upon this 
floor, but he is here only by your sufferance, and not by any act 
that gives his town a right to be represented either upon this 
floor or in the Legislature of New Hampshire. It is a town that 
cannot be classed, yet in that town, as I understand, they have 

16 



242 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

elected a member to represent them at the coming session of 
the Legislature. 

Now it seems to me that it is just and right that we should 
give to the people of these classed towns an opportunity to vote 
in their own towns and send a representative a proportionate part 
of the time, according as the number of their inhabitants is to 
six hundred. If I am right, there are some sixty towns, grants, 
and locations in this State that are classed. There are twenty of 
these towns to-day which send a proportionate part of the time. 
There are two methods now in this State in respect to these small 
towns ; if this method is adopted, there will be but one. A man 
will not go from one town to another and spend two or three 
days in an election. I hope this amendment will be adopted. 

Mr. Damon of Campton : Woodstock and Lincoln are classed 
together. The people of those towns have to travel twenty miles 
each way in order to get to the polls, and the representatives 
from those towns would very much like to have this amendment 
adopted. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I have no personal interest, and my 
constituents have none, in the question now before the conven- 
tion ; but I propose, at least, to put myself upon record as being 
of the opinion that the report of the committee is wrong, and 
that the proposition of the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. 
Smith), which the committee voted to reject, is right. Whether 
there is any serious difficulty in granting to towns having less than 
one hundred and twenty (one fifth of six hundred) inhabitants a 
right to representation a proportionate part of the time, when 
in some instances it will run over a period of thirty years, I will 
not undertake to say ; perhaps that can be legally done. Cer- 
tainly the town of Waterville would not have a representative 
oftener than once in thirty years ; the town of Windsor, if we 
may judge from the falling off of ratable polls since the census of 
1880 was taken, would have a representative but once in thirty 
years. My opinion is, although I do not propose to make any 
motion here, that the elections should be held according to the 
plan of the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith). The pro- 
vision in the resolution of the gentleman from Manchester is 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 243 

that the elections in classed towns shall be held in the various 
towns at the time of the biennial election. Then it concludes in 
this way : " The manner of calling and conducting the meetings 
for the choice of representatives by such classes, and of ascer- 
taining their election, shall be prescribed by law." 

Now I entertain not a particle of doubt that the Legislature at 
the very first opportunity would provide in that particular case, 
if the amendment of the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. 
Smith) should be adopted, that elections in those towns which 
are classed shall be determined by a plurality vote. It seems to 
me that those towns would then be well situated, and that it will 
be for their best interests to do that way. At the same time, if 
it is a fact that all of those towns which are classed prefer the 
plan reported by the committee, I do not propose to trouble 
myself very much about it ; but I have stated my views, so far as 
I have any, after only a very brief consideration of the subject. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I am sorry to take the time of the 
convention upon this matter, but it seems to me a word further 
in the way of explanation is called for. Of course this is a mat- 
ter which would not naturally engage the attention of very many 
members of the convention, for the reason that there are very 
few who are interested in it ; but, at the same time, it is a mat- 
ter of very considerable importance to a few, comparatively few, 
citizens of the State. I may say, I think without impropriety, 
that there has been no matter before the committee of which I 
am a member that has given the committee so much real trouble, 
if I may use the word, as this subject. The two propositions are 
undoubtedly understood ; but perhaps it may be doubted whether 
a very large number of the convention have given their attention 
to the thing as it now exists under the Constitution. This pro- 
vision was introduced with the amendment adopted in 1876, for 
the purpose of reducing the membership of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. Perhaps there are thirty or forty towns, I do not 
know exactly how many, which have not the requisite popula- 
tion to entitle them to a representative in the General Court ; the 
Legislature was authorized to class such towns as could be con- 
veniently classed to make up in population the requisite number 
for a representative. The Legislature also has authority to 



244 JOUKNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

allow such towns as cannot be conveniently classed to elect their 
representatives for such proportionate part of the time as their 
population bears to six hundred, which is the number a town 
must have to entitle it to a representative ; and the Legislature, 
under that provision, was to look into each individual case, and 
was to determine whether towns were so situated that they could 
be conveniently classed, and if they were, put them into a class. 
A town so situated that it could not be conveniently classed with 
another would be left by the Legislature to elect a representative 
for a proportionate part of the time. There was only one town 
in Rockingham county which had less than six hundred inhabi- 
tants, and, as it was remote from other towns, it would be left to 
send a representative such a proportion of the time as its inhabi- 
tants bore to six hundred. The whole matter was left to the Leg- 
islature, and the Legislature made up certain classes soon after the 
adoption of the amendment. Then, upon a census, this matter 
is looked over and revised every ten years. It was revised in 
1 88 1, and the classes were then considerably changed. Now 
the complaint is, as has been said, and it is well grounded 
beyond question, that in towns which have been classed and 
are now classed under this provision, the voters are subjected to 
great inconvenience in getting to the place of meeting. The 
first town meeting is held in the town having the largest number 
of inhabitants, the next in the next largest, and so on, rotating 
year after year. 

The convention has two proposals before it, and then there is 
the alternative of allowing the matter to rest where it is now 
under the amendment of 1876. There are three ways to be 
considered, to let it alone, adopt the resolution of the gentle- 
man from Manchester (Mr. Smith) which provides a method of 
voting in each town, and some provision for a returning, count- 
ing of the votes, and declaration of the person elected, or, 
striking out classes altogether, to leave all the towns to send a 
representative a proportionate part of the time. 

Now the committee were in much doubt. I think there was 
no member of the committee who expressed any very decided 
views about it, and I am sorry that we are not able to offer 
a proposal which we can support with confidence as the 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 245 

best. I will say that my own individual judgment about it as 
a mere practical thing, as a matter of convenience, coincides 
with the opinion of the gentleman from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard), 
who has expressed himself in favor of the proposition of the gen- 
tleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith). Upon the best consider- 
ation I have been able to give the matter, I think I should vote 
in favor of that proposition rather than leave it as it is or give to 
towns a representation in proportion to their population. It has 
been suggested that there are three or four towns in the State 
which would not have a representative oftener than once in 
twenty years, which would not amount to very much ; but, as 
has been said, the committee decided, on the whole, to report in 
favor of this proposal to strike out classes entirely, for the reason 
that almost every one of the gentlemen from those classed towns 
who appeared before the committee and those towns were 
largely represented, and we had quite a long talk seemed to 
be in favor of that proposition. I think, however, there was no 
very decided preference expressed, nor decided objection to the 
other method from any one. The main inteiest seemed to be 
that some plan should be adopted which would relieve the people 
of these small towns from the great inconvenience to which they 
are now subjected. 

Mr. Harvey of Surry : I have the honor to represent in this 
convention three of these classed towns. I know it is the uni- 
versal desire of the voters in our class that the class be broken up 
and that each town be allowed to send a representative its pro- 
portion of the time. In 1883 a petition to break up the class 
was presented to the Legislature. It was circulated through the 
three towns and received the signature of every man to whom it 
was presented, of each and every party, and it was presented to 
nearly every man ; it was signed by almost the entire number of 
legal voters in the class. The inconvenience of these classes may 
not be apparent to gentlemen who live in a large town ; it may 
not be apparent to gentlemen who live in this city who go to 
their polling places and vote in fifteen or twenty minutes and dis- 
pose of the whole duties of election in half an hour. We had 
to spend three days this fall in the operation. For the old men 
of our towns who have voted all their lives for representatives to 



246 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

be compelled on a cold November day to drive fifteen or twenty 
miles over the hills to vote for representative is quite a hardship, 
and the majority of them say, that if they cannot vote in their 
own towns they will not vote. In the last election, in fact in all 
elections that have been held in the class, there never has been 
fifty per cent of the full vote polled ; in the election this fall I 
think the number was not nearly as large as that. I know that in 
the election for delegate, although we have more than two hun- 
dred names on the list, the number of ballots cast was less than 
thirty, owing to the distance, weather, and bad traveling. As 
to the argument that we will not have representation often enough, 
perhaps but once in twenty years, the men of my town say : " Let 
us vote for our own men, and at home ; if we cannot have a rep- 
resentative more than once in ten years, we had rather elect our 
own man than to go to some other town and vote for their man." 
When a representative comes from another town of the class, we 
feel somewhat towards him as we should towards a representative 
from any other town ; he is a stranger to us, we do not know 
him. 

Reference has been made to the town of Windsor. I under- 
stand the gentleman who represents that town in this convention 
that they have not sent a representative since 1878, and they are 
better satisfied than they would be if they were classed. They 
have elected a representative to the next Legislature, and I hope 
in deference to the town he maybe admitted ; but rather than be 
classed they would prefer to be disfranchised and left alone. I 
know this is the feeling quite largely with the delegates from 
these classed towns, and I hope that these small towns, many of 
which may be growing smaller but have an interest in the welfare 
of New Hampshire second to none, may be given their choice as 
to the manner of electing their representatives. I hope the reso- 
lution which I have introduced will be adopted. 

Mr. Colby of Claremont : I was a member of that committee, 
and although, as has been said, it was a very difficult subject to 
pass upon and determine what was desirable, I voted for the re- 
port of the committee. My principal objection to the scheme 
presented by the gentleman from Manchester is this : that it 
would amount to a practical disfranchisement of all the smaller 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 247 

places. If the plurality rule were adopted, the larger place would 
stand a chance to have the representative every time. 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : I was on the committee, and, as has 
been said, we had great difficulty to know what was best. My 
first impression was that the resolution introduced by the gentle- 
man from Manchester was the proper one. We invited delegates 
from the several classed towns to appear before us. and I think 
there were some fifteen or eighteen classed towns represented ; 
and, as the gentleman from Surry has just said, he with others 
preferred the resolution recommended by the committee. I 
voted in favor of it because I thought they understood their bus- 
iness better than I do. I live in a large city and vote very con- 
veniently. These men who live in the classed towns ask that 
they may have proportionate representation. They know what 
they want, and I submit that it is fair to let them have what is 
most convenient and best for them. 

Mr. Lyman of Exeter : Various gentlemen have spoken to me 
on this matter, commencing a number of weeks ago, I mean 
gentlemen from these towns which have not inhabitants enough 
to send a representative, and every single one of them has urged 
this plan which the committee reports in favor of. Now if the 
people living in these places wish to adopt that system, I do not 
see why we who live in larger places should object to it in the 
least. I hope the report of the committee will at once be adopted. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : I desire to say a word, inasmuch 
as my name is linked with this proposition, in explanation of the 
reason why I introduced it. It is, of course, a matter in which 
I have no personal interest, as I live in a ward which is repre- 
sented by two representatives. My attention was called to this 
matter by a letter from a gentleman in the town of Madison, 
which is classed with the town of Albany, in which he says : "I 
write to call your attention to a change desired by the classed 
towns of Albany and Madison, and other such towns, in article 
10 of the Constitution, as to the place of holding town meetings. 
Some of the voters of Albany have to travel nearly forty miles 
both ways to attend town meeting for the choice of representa- 
tives, when holden in Madison. Voters in Madison have to travel 



248 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

twenty-five miles both ways to attend town meeting in Albany 
for such purpose, and find no accommodation for their teams, 
etc., when they get there. They desire such alterations as will 
allow them to vote at home for representatives, the same as is 
done in Maine and Massachusetts. I am confident that you 
must see the justice of the change requested, and I take the lib- 
erty to write you and bring the matter to the attention of the 
convention." 

In consequence of this letter, I drew the amendment which has 
been read and introduced. If the people from the classed towns 
desire the plan reported by the committee, so be it ; if they de- 
sire the other plan, they ought to have it. My only wish is that 
the people of the classed towns shall have their own way. 

At the request of Mr. Barton of Newport, the resolution in- 
troduced by Mr. Smith of Manchester was read by the clerk. 

Mr. Cross of Manchester : This proposition that has just been 
read the classed towns do not want, but they do want the other. 
The gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith) received a letter 
from a gentleman residing in the town of Madison, and I have 
just asked my friend, Mr. Pitman, whether Madison is larger or 
smaller than Albany, and he says that Madison is three or four 
times larger than Albany. Under the system of classed towns 
the large town will have the representative all the time, and the 
small town will not have any representative at all ; so these small 
classed towns prefer proportionate representation, so that they 
will be sure they will have a representative a part of the time. 

The question being stated, 

Shall the resolution reported by the committee, adverse to the 
amendment proposed by Mr. Smith of Manchester, be adopted ? 

The resolution was adopted and the proposed amendment re- 
jected. 

The following resolution, reported from the same committee 
by Mr. Abbott of Winchester, was considered : 

Resolved, That article 10 of the Constitution be stricken out 
and article 1 1 be amended so as to read as follows : 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 249 

" Whenever any town, place, or city ward shall have less than 
six hundred such inhabitants, the General Court shall authorize 
such town, place, or ward to elect and send to the General Court 
a representative such proportionate part of the time as the num- 
ber of its inhabitants shall bear to six hundred, but the General 
Court shall not authorize any such town, place, or ward to elect 
and send such representative except as herein provided." 

The question being stated, the report was accepted and the 
resolution adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Durgin of Concord, the convention at 
12.40 adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 
(The president in the chair.) 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. Mellows, from the special committee to which was referred 
the memorial of the New England Woman Suffrage Association, 
having considered the same, report that at this late day in the 
session it is inexpedient to propose any amendment to the Con- 
stitution relative to this matter, and that the memorialists have 
leave to withdraw. 

The report was accepted and adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Dole of Lebanon, the amendment adopted 
by the convention relative to filling vacancies in the Senate, was 
recommitted to the Committee on Legislative Department. 

Mr. Bartlett of Manchester introduced the following resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved, That when the convention adjourn on Saturday it 
adjourn to meet at the call of the president, or, in case of his 
death, by the governor. 

Mr. Dole of Lebanon : I move to amend the resolution by 



250 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

adding, " Provided, such call be considered necessary by the 
governor or president, as the case may be." 

Mr. Bartlett : I accept the amendment. 

The President : As amended, the resolution is in these words : 

Resolved, That when the convention adjourn to-morrow, it 
adjourn to meet at the call of the president or governor of the 
State ; provided, such call be considered necessary by the presi- 
dent or by the governor, as the case may be. 

The question being stated, the resolution as amended was 
adopted. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : There are several committees which 
have business in hand that must be attended to before anything 
further can be done, and they must have time to do their work. 
I therefore move that we take a recess until 5 o'clock this after- 
noon. 

The motion prevailed. 

The convention reassembled at 5 o'clock. 

(The president in the chair.) 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

Mr. Briggs, from the Committee on Legislative Department, 
to which was referred the resolution proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution in relation to filling vacancies in the Senate, 
having considered the same, reported the following amendment, 
and recommended its adoption : 

Amend article 34, part second, as follows : 

Strike out all after the word " State" where it first occurs in 
the said article, and insert in place thereof the following : "All 
vacancies in the Senate arising by death, removal out of the 
State, or otherwise, except from failure to elect, shall be filled by 
a new election by the people of the district, upon the requisition 
of the governor, as soon as may be after such vacancies shall 
happen," so that as amended said article shall read as follows : 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 251 

" ART. 34. And, in case there shall not appear to be a senator 
elected by a majority of votes for any district, the deficiency 
shall be supplied in the following manner, viz. : the members 
of the House of Representatives and such senators as shall be 
declared elected shall take the names of the two persons having 
the highest number of votes in the district, and out of them shall 
elect, by joint ballot, the senator wanted for such district ; and 
in this manner all such vacancies shall be filled up in every dis- 
trict of the State. All vacancies in the Senate arising by death, 
removal out of the State, or otherwise, except from failure to 
elect, shall be filled by a new election by the people of the dis- 
trict, upon the requisition of the governor, as soon as may be 
after such vacancies shall happen." 

Mr. Hibbard, from the select committee who were instructed to 
consider the expediency of publishing a report of the proceedings 
and debates of the convention, and, if deemed expedient, to 
report a plan for the publication of such report, having considered 
the same, reported the following resolutions : 

Resolved, That the official reporter be directed to make a copy 
of the debates verbatim, not including addresses in Committee 
of the Whole by persons not members of the convention, and 
that he be paid in full for his services in reporting and copying 
said debates the usual compensation of twenty-five cents for each 
hundred words, and that his account be audited by the governor, 
who shall draw his warrant for the same. 

Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to procure at the 
close of this convention two thousand printed copies, in pam- 
phlet form, properly indexed, of the proceedings and debates, to 
be distributed as follows under the direction of the secretary of 
state : One copy to each member and officer of the convention ; 
one copy to each town, to be kept in the office of the town clerk ; 
one copy to each secretary of other States and Territories, 
to be placed in their respective state or territorial libraries \ 
one copy to each public institution of learning in our State ; 
one copy to each public or circulating library in our State ; five 
copies to Dartmouth College ; five copies to the New Hampshire 
Historical Society ; ten copies to the New Hampshire State 
Library ; five hundred copies to be reserved for the use of mem- 



252 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

bers of future conventions ; and the remainder to be disposed of 
at the discretion of the secretary of state. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : It is impossible to state exactly how 
large a volume this proposed publication will make, but, accord- 
ing to the best information we can obtain from the official re- 
porter and the secretary, it will be a smaller volume than the 
report of the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1876, 
and, according to the best information that the committee have 
been able to get from the official reporter and from the state 
printer, the whole expense of paying the reporter and the printer 
will be from $800 to $900 \ perhaps not more than $800, but 
it seemed very certain less than $900. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : I suppose that estimate does not 
include paying the secretary. The Committee on Finance have 
under consideration a resolution providing for paying the secre- 
tary, but I hardly think they will be able to report this afternoon 
and possibly not before to-morrow. It will be the duty of the 
secretary to prepare an index. An index may be good for some- 
thing or it may be good for nothing. The opinion of the Finance 
Committee is that the secretary should make an index to every 
member, an index to the town, an index to subjects, so that 
whenever any gentleman hereafter inspects the journal to find the 
remarks of any member, or to find any subject discussed, he can 
turn right to it. Now it is considerable work to make such an 
index, and the resolution just reported does not provide for that 
expense. I make this explanation at this time, but we will pre- 
pare a resolution to provide for this very thing. 

The report was accepted and the resolutions adopted. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : At the request of the president, 
as there is nothing on his table, I have just been out to see the 
chairman of the Committee on Final Presentation (Mr. Dole), 
and he thinks they cannot get ready for an hour. Now the Fi- 
nance Committee would like an hour, and if it meets the appro- 
bation of the convention, I think we had better have an evening 
session. In order to take the sense of the convention, I move 
that we adjourn until 7.30 o'clock this evening. 

The motion prevailed and the convention adjourned. 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 253 

EVENING. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 
(The president in the chair.) 

On motion of Mr. Gilmore of Manchester, voted that when 
the convention adjourn this evening it be to meet to-morrow 
morning at 9 o'clock. 

Mr. Baker of Lebanon offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the secretary of the convention be instructed 
to supervise the printing of the journal of the convention, and 
to prepare and cause to be printed therewith a proper and ex- 
tended index, under suitable headings, for ready reference to 
names, towns, and subjects ; and that his bill for compensation 
therefor, when audited and approved by the governor and coun- 
cil, be allowed and paid. 

The resolution was adopted. 

Mr. Bales of Wilton stated that the record of his vote on the 
resolution relating to the prohibitory amendment to the Consti- 
tution was incorrect; he voted "no," and the record is "yes." 

Mr. Dole, from the Committee on Time and Mode of Sub- 
mitting to the People the Amendments agreed to by the Conven- 
tion, reported the following preamble and resolutions : 

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED 
AND EIGHTY-NINE. 

In the convention of delegates assembled at Concord on the 
first Wednesday of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and eighty-nine, for the purpose of revising the 
Constitution of this State, in pursuance of an act of the Legis- 
lature passed November 5, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and eighty-seven, 

I. Resolved, That the alterations and amendments proposed to 
the Constitution shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the 



254 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

State, at meetings to be called and holden in the several towns, 
city wards, and places in the State, on the second Tuesday of 
March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
eighty-nine, to be by them acted upon at said meetings, or any 
adjournment thereof within the same week. 

II. Resolved, That the selectmen of the several towns, wards, 
and places in the State be directed to insert, in their warrants 
calling the said meetings, an article to the following effect : " To 
take the sense of the qualified voters whether the alterations and 
amendments of the Constitution proposed by the constitutional 
convention shall be approved." 

III. Resolved, That the sense of the qualified voters shall be 
taken by ballot upon each of the following questions submitted 
to them by this convention : 

1. Do you approve of changing the time for the meeting of 
the Legislature from June to January, and of changing the time 
when the terms of office of the executive and legislative depart- 
ments shall commence, and the other amendments in conformity 
therewith, as proposed in the amended Constitution ? 

2. Do you approve of compensating the members of both 
houses of the Legislature by a fixed salary, as proposed in the 
amended Constitution ? 

3. Do you approve of filling vacancies in the Senate by a new 
election, as proposed in the amended Constitution ? 

4. Do you approve of having the speaker of the House act as 
governor in case of vacancies in the offices of governor and 
president of the Senate, as proposed in the amended Constitu- 
tion ? 

5. Do you approve of inserting in the Constitution an article 
prohibiting the manufacture, or sale, or keeping for sale of alco- 
holic or intoxicating liquor as a beverage, as proposed in the 
amended Constitution? 

6. Do you approve of amending article 6 of the Bill of Rights, 
making the same non-sectarian, as proposed in the amended Con- 
stitution ? 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 255 

7. Do you approve of amending the Constitution with refer- 
ence to representation in classed towns, as proposed in the 
amended constitution ? 

IV. Resolved, That the votes on the said questions shall be 
recorded, copied, sealed up, labeled, directed, and returned by 
the town clerks to the secretary of state, on or before the first 
Tuesday of April, A. D. 1889, under the same penalty as is by 
law prescribed for neglect to return the votes for governor, and 
said votes shall be by the secretary of state seasonably laid before 
the governor and council. 

V. Resolved, That the secretary of state is hereby directed to 
furnish blanks to the town clerks of the different towns, wards, 
and places, for the return of the votes on said questions, in the 
following form : 

"STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

" TOWN OF , COUNTY of . At a legal 

meeting of the qualified voters of the town of , holden 

on the second Tuesday of March, A. D. 1889, tne votes on the 
several questions involving the alterations and amendments of 
the Constitution, submitted to the qualified voters, were as 
follows : 

" Question ist, Yeas, . Nays, . 

" Question 2d, Yeas, . Nays, , etc., etc., to and 

including question 7. 

"Attest: 

, Town Clerk." 

VI. Resolved, That the secretary of this convention be di- 
rected to procure to be printed one hundred and twenty thousand 
copies of the Constitution as altered and amended by this con- 
vention, and the same number of copies of the questions to be 
.proposed to the qualified voters, and the same number of these 
resolutions, and to cause the same to be distributed, as soon as 
may be, to the town clerks of the respective towns, wards, and 
places in the State, for the use of the qualified voters, in numbers 
proportionate as near as may be to the number of the legal 
voters in the said respective towns, wards, and places ; and it is 



256 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

made the duty of said clerks seasonably to distribute the same 
among said voters. 

VII. Resolved, That the secretary of state be also required to 
furnish an equal number of printed ballots containing said ques- 
tions to be thus voted upon, and that they be distributed to the 
town clerks as provided in the preceding resolution, a reasonable 
time previous to said March meetings, to be by them seasonably 
distributed at said meetings. 

VIII. Resolved, That the governor and council, prior to the 
third Tuesday of April, A. D. 1889, shall open and count said 
votes, and make a record thereof; and the governor shall forth- 
with issue his proclamation announcing the result of the vote on 
each oT said questions submitted to the people. 

IX. Resolved, That such of the proposed amendments as shall 
be approved by the requisite number of votes, shall take effect 
and be in force at the times hereinafter mentioned, to wit : the 
amendments to articles 3, 32, 33, 42, 43, 60, and 66, part sec- 
ond of the Constitution, on the first day of November, A. D. 
1890, and all other amendments on the first Wednesday of June, 
A. D. 1889. 

X. Resolved, That if the amendments to articles 3, 32, 33, 
42, 43, 60, and 66, part second of the Constitution, shall be 
approved by the requisite number of votes, the General Court 
elected at the biennial election in November, 1890, shall first 
assemble under the amended Constitution on the first Wednesday 
of January, A. D. 1891 ; and the senators and representatives 
elected for the term commencing on the first Wednesday of 
June, A. D. 1889, shall hold their respective offices until the 
first Wednesday of January, A. D. 1891, and no longer; and 
the governor and councilors elected for the term commencing in 
June, A. D. 1889, shall hold their respective offices until the first 
Wednesday of January, A. D. 1891, and until others are qualified 
in their stead, and no longer. 

XI. Resolved, That these resolutions, signed by the president 
of this convention and attested by the secretary, be published 
once in all the newspapers of the State authorized to publish the 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 257 

public laws ; and that these resolutions, together with the journal 
and files of this convention, be deposited in the office of the 
secretary of state. 

The question being stated, the resolutions were adopted. 

Mr. Gilmore, from the Committee on Finance, reported that 
the committee had examined and approved the following bills : 

Officers and employes' pay-roll $579.20 

John B. Clarke, printing and stationery . . . 181.67 

John W. Odl in, clerical services . . . . 2.50 

Republican Press Association, stationery . . . .50 

Total $763.87 

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYES* PAY-ROLL. 

Mileage. Total. 

James R. Jackson, secretary . . .226 $105.60 

William Tutherly, assistant secretary . . 108 93-80 

James Thurston, chaplain .... 25.00 

Timothy Tilton, sergeant-at-arms . 52 43. 70 

John Underhill, doorkeeper ... 56 44.10 

George E. Chesley, doorkeeper ... 2 38. 70 

Almon H. Sweetser, doorkeeper . . .270 65.50 

Louis M. Patterson, page . . . . 2 22.20 

Leon Coleman, page . . . . .186 40.60 

James E. Randlett, janitor . . . 60.00 

A. W. Colby, assistant janitor . . . 20.00 

O. I. Godfrey, assistant janitor . . . 20.00 

$579.20 
And they recommend the passage of the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the foregoing bills be allowed and paid, and 
that the secretary be authorized to enter the same on the pay- 
rolls of the convention. 

The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 

17 



258 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

The same gentleman, from the same committee, recommended 
the assumption, as chargeable to the expenses of this convention, 
of the bill of S. S. Jackman & Co., for $1,219.52, the same 
being, in part, the expense of providing the steam-heating appa- 
ratus for the use of the convention, and offered the following 
resolution : 

Resolved, That the bill of S. S. Jackman & Co., amounting to 
$1,219.52, be assumed, and allowed from the appropriation for 
this convention. 

The question being stated, 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : I wish to make an explanation 
in regard to the resolution just read. When this convention was 
called, the governor and council assumed the responsibility of 
putting a steam -heating apparatus into this hall. The Finance 
Committee are of the opinion that it would be only cour- 
teous to the governor and council for this convention to assume 
and pay the bill. I will read some figures as to the cost of the 
convention, and try to answer any inquiries that may be made. 

The Finance Committee find that in 1876 the Legislature 
appropriated $25,000 to be expended for a constitutional con- 
vention. There is still on the state treasurer's books $1,701.65 
unexpended balance, and that never has been covered back into 
the treasury. There was appropriated for this convention 
$25,000, and there have been paid out so far as follows : Mileage 
of members, $3,834.10; pay-roll, $10,598.50; employe's' pay- 
roll and printing, $736.87. That is less than the convention 
paid twelve years ago, by $601.65, for the same purposes. Esti- 
mated cost of two thousand journals of this convention, includ- 
ing printing, indexing, and secretary's services, $1,250. This 
estimate is on the basis of the figures given by the gentleman 
from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard). There are 120,000 copies of the 
Constitution as amended to be distributed. I have inquired of 
gentlemen who are conversant with such matters, and they say 
that will cost from $600 to $1,000; that makes the total cost 
of this convention $16,446.47, leaving unexpended a balance of 
$8,553.53. Now, if this convention assumes the payment of this 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 259 

bill of S. S. Jackman & Co., of $1,219.52, it will still leave an 
unexpended balance of $7,334.01. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : There is a motion here, that when 
this convention adjourns to-morrow it adjourn to meet at the 
call of the president or the governor. I would like to ask if there 
is a probability that it will be called together so that we should 
need this money which is unexpended. 

Mr. Gilmore : In the adoption of some amendment, parts of 
the Constitution might inadvertently be made to conflict with 
each other. Under those circumstances I presume the governor 
or the president of this convention would feel called upon to 
bring the convention together to remedy the defect, as has been 
done in one or two instances before. A gentleman has asked me 
how to account for the difference in the expenses of this conven- 
tion and those of the convention of 1876. In that convention 
there were fifty- two more members than in this, to whom were 
paid mileage and per diem. 

The question being stated, the resolution was adopted. 

(Mr. Lyman of Exeter in the chair.) 
Mr. Smith of Manchester offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the thanks of this convention be presented to 
the Hon. Charles H. Bell, for the ability and impartiality with 
which he has presided over this convention. 

The question being stated, 

Mr. Smith of Manchester : The fact that it has been my good 
fortune to have enjoyed the acquaintance and personal friendship 
of the president of this convention for a period of more than 
forty years, no less than the fact that he has presided over our 
deliberations with such fairness and ability, gives me especial pleas- 
ure in presenting this resolution. The people, by their action two 
years ago, indicated that certain changes in their organic law were 
desired. It was generally believed that the changes demanded 
were not many nor radical, that they were rather of an adminis- 
trative than of a fundamental character. I trust that this con- 



260 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

vention has correctly interpreted the popular voice so that our 
action may meet with the popular approval. If we have made 
any mistake, we probably have underestimated rather than over- 
rated the demand for amendments. If we have succeeded in 
meeting the wishes of our constituents, and have disposed of the 
business which called us here with reasonable dispatch, our suc- 
cess has been largely due to the uniform courtesy and eminent 
ability with which the president has presided over our delibera- 
tions. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : I heartily concur in the resolution 
presented by the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. Smith), and 
in all that he has said. Our presiding officer has discharged the 
delicate duties imposed upon him by the convention with impar- 
tiality, with courtesy, with dignity, with ability. He will carry 
to his home at the close of his labors here the confidence, the 
kind regard, and the best wishes of every member of this con- 
vention. 

Mr. Hadley of Concord : It gives me more than ordinary 
pleasure to testify to the merits of our presiding officer. He 
was a classmate of mine in college, he has always been my per- 
sonal friend, and I have watched with interest the eminent 
ability with which he has filled all the high positions to which he 
has been called in the political history of our State. I do not 
consider this as a mere complimentary vote, a mere matter of 
course ; it certainly is not so with me, and I feel that I am express- 
ing the opinion of all the delegates to this convention when I 
say it is not so with them. He has performed his duty well. I 
will not say that it is a rounding of his career, but it is a glorious 
and noble continuance of it, and we can heartily say, " Well 
done, good and faithful servant ; ' ' but may his days yet be long 
in the land. 

Mr. Ladd of Lancaster : I am unwilling to let this occasion 
pass without expressing my most sincere and hearty concurrence 
in the sentiments of the resolution, and in everything that has 
been said here by gentlemen upon the floor in respect to the 
manner in which the eminent gentleman who has presided over 
our deliberations has discharged his duties. 






FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1889. 261 

Mr. Bartlett of Raymond : In behalf of the younger members 
of this convention I would raise my voice to show that we heart- 
ily appreciate the extreme courtesy which the gentleman has 
shown toward us in all the deliberations of this assembly. 

Mr. Page of Manchester : I wish to offer one sentiment to the 
president of this convention : May he never make a less satisfac- 
tory display of his strong intellectual powers and executive 
ability than he has during the session of this convention. 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : I feel constrained to say just one 
word. I knew the president forty-eight years ago as a classmate 
at Dartmouth, so I think I have known him about as long as any 
one here. He was a gentleman and a scholar then, he is a 
gentleman and a scholar now ; he has been a gentleman and a 
scholar during his whole life. Few citizens of New Hampshire 
have held more positions of trust, or discharged their duties with 
more honor to themselves and the State. He will carry with him 
to his home the best wishes of us all. 

The resolution was, by a rising vote, unanimously adopted. 

The president, having resumed the chair, addressed the con- 
vention as follows : 

Gentlemen of the Convention : 

I should be insensible indeed if I were not deeply gratified by 
the resolution which you have adopted, and by the kind words 
with which it has been advocated by gentlemen whose good opin- 
ion I specially prize, in reference to my conduct in the chair. I 
have earnestly tried to do my duty faithfully and acceptably, and 
it is pleasant to feel the assurance that my efforts have been ap- 
preciated ; but I cannot forget that the character and disposition 
of the convention itself have rendered the position of its presid- 
ing officer easy and agreeable. 

It is only just to say, gentlemen, that you have brought to the 
work of the revision of the Constitution honesty of purpose, 
diligence and fidelity, intelligence and ability, not to mention 
patience and good temper, such as place this convention in the 
foremost rank among similar deliberative bodies which have been 



262 JOURNAL or THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

anywhere assembled. And now that your part here is substan- 
tially completed, you are about to return to your homes and to 
meet your constituents with the consciousness of duty well done. 
The amendments which you have agreed to submit to the voice 
of the people will, in my judgment, meet all their reasonable 
expectations and their approval, and will, I cannot doubt, work 
substantial and lasting benefit to the Constitution of the State, 
which is the object of our affection and pride. 

Gentlemen, the hour of our separation is near at hand, and 
before we part permit me to return you my sincere thanks for 
your uniform courtesy and kindness, and to assure each one of 
you of my heartfelt wishes for your prosperity and happiness. 

Mr. Emery of Auburn offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the thanks of the convention be hereby ten- 
dered to the secretary, assistant secretary, chaplain, sergeant-at- 
arms, reporters, doorkeepers, and pages for the faithful discharge 
of their several duties. 

The resolution was unanimously adopted. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : I wish to call the attention of 
the convention to the fact that it is the duty of the secretary of 
state to prepare votes for use on the day when the people act 
upon the amendments submitted to them by this convention. I 
have here a copy of the votes which were used twelve years ago. 
This form of vote might be adopted : At the right hand side, in 
a vertical column running the whole length of the votes, have 
the word "Yes" printed, and on the opposite side the word 
"No," with instructions to the moderator and selectmen that 
when the word " No " is crossed out the " Yes " is to be counted, 
when the " Yes " is crossed out the " No " is to be counted, and 
when neither word is crossed out the vote is a blank. Many 
voters come to town meeting without any pencil or other facility 
for writing, and such things are not very conveniently obtained. 
Perhaps some gentleman between now and morning will intro- 
duce a resolution covering this point. Perhaps a suggestion to 
the secretary of state would be sufficient. I speak of this merely 
to bring the matter to your attention ; I do not make any motion. 



SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1889. 263 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : How could the voter cross out the 
word if he had no pencil ? 

Mr. Gilmore : Cut it out. 

On motion of Mr. Buttrick of Troy, the convention adjourned. 



SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1889. 

The convention met according to adjournment. 

(The president in the chair.) 
Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 

On motion of Mr. Bartlett of Manchester, the reading of the 
journal was dispensed with. 

Mr. Todd of Atkinson : On the question of submitting the 
prohibitory amendment to the people, Mr. Sanborn of Hamp- 
stead voted "no," when he intended to vote "yes." He is 
hard of hearing and was a little confused, and he wished me to 
move that the journal be corrected so that his name may be re- 
corded as voting "yes" instead of "no," and accordingly I 
make that motion. 

The motion prevailed. 

Mr. Smith of Manchester, from the special committee to con- 
sider whether any provision shall be made relative to the time 
when the terms of office of executive and legislative officers of 
the State, commencing in June, 1889, sna ^ terminate, in case 
the change of time for the assembling of the Legislature shall be 
adopted by the qualified voters, report that the subject-matter 
committed to them is embraced in the tenth resolution reported 
by the Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting Amend- 
ments to the People, and that resolution has been adopted by 
the convention. The special committee therefore ask to be dis- 
charged from any further consideration of the matter. 



264 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

The report was accepted and the committee discharged. 

Mr. Dowe of Hanover : I find, from the report of the yeas and 
nays published in the "Monitor" on the question of the pro- 
hibitory amendment, that my name does not appear on the record. 
I wish my name to go on the record, and I would inquire of the 
secretary if it is on the record. 

The Secretary : The gentleman is recorded as having voted 
"yes." 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester offered the following preamble 
and resolution : 



THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED 
AND EIGHTY-NINE. 

In the convention of delegates assembled at Concord on the 
first Wednesday of January, A. D. 1889, f r the purpose of revis- 
ing the Constitution of this State, in pursuance of an act of the 
Legislature approved November 5, A. D. 1887, 

Resolved, That upon the printed ballots containing the ques- 
tions to be voted upon at the election to be held on the second 
Tuesday of March, A. D. 1889, and under each question there- 
on, be printed the word " Yes " and the word " No ; " that the 
voter desiring to vote " yes " upon either or any of said ques- 
tions shall erase the word "no", and if he desires to vote 
"no," shall erase the word "yes." All ballots cast where 
neither of said words is erased under any of said questions, shall 
not be counted as to such questions. 

The secretary of state shall cause to be printed at the bottom 
of each printed ballot, distributed to the several town clerks, a 
note in plain and conspicuous type as follows : 

" ^^ Every voter who wishes to vote ' yes ' will erase the 
word ' no.' If he wishes to vote 'no,' he will erase the word 
' yes.' If neither of said words is erased, his ballot will not 
be counted." 



SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1889. 265 

The question being stated, 

Mr. Durgin of Concord : I notice in some State, Massachu- 
setts, I think, where a similar method was adopted in voting tor 
license or no license, a great many ballots were cast without the 
"yes" or "no" being erased. Of course those ballots were 
counted blank. Every man who is qualified to vote will be able 
to read "yes" or "no." I think it would be better to have 
the blank printed as Mr. Gilmore suggested last night, the 
articles to be voted on printed down the ballot with two col- 
umns on the right, " yes " at the top of one, and " no " at the 
top of the other ; and the person who wants to vote for any of 
these articles or against any of them can so indicate in these 
columns. 

The President : A slight modification has been made. It does 
not alter the sense in any way ; it makes it more definite. 

Mr. Gilmore of Manchester : Since I called the attention of 
the convention last night to the matter of preparing votes, sev- 
eral gentlemen have expressed a desire for the introduction of a 
resolution with reference to it. The proposed form of votes dif- 
fers from the form suggested by me only in this, that instead of 
having vertical columns on the outside, the answer is in large 
letters at the bottom of each question. I can see no material 
difference. In conference with the secretary of state, who is to 
print the ballots, he said he would have them in large, conspic- 
uous type so that they will attract the attention of the voter. 

Mr. Kelley of Weare : I should be in favor of but one ballot, 
and the ballot that I would prefer would have " yes " printed on 
the left-hand side and " no " printed on the right-hand side of 
the margin, and then, if I were to go to town meeting without a 
pencil or knife, I could very readily fix that ballot to suit my- 
self. I would not have to borrow a pencil or knife from my 
townsman, and he would not be interested in knowing to what 
use I had put the pencil or knife. I could, without any trouble, 
tear off either the "yes" or the " no" from one side or the 
other. I would have the propositions all on one ballot, as was 
proposed last night ; and if I cast that ballot without tearing off 



266 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

either the " yes " or " no " from any one of the questions, the 
ballot would be returned as a blank. 

Mr. Walker of Concord : It strikes me we have already got 
this thing in the best shape we can have it. I think if we had a 
blackboard here and should write one of those questions upon it, 
and were then asked where can we best place the ' ' yes " or the 
"no," there would be no doubt in the mind of any one that it 
should be placed where it could be seen and understood the 
easiest. If I understand the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. 
Gilmore), he proposes to print the answers " yes " and "no" 
underneath each question, and at the bottom of the whole ballot 
a direction to the voter, which is in substance this : If you have 
a lead pencil, strike out whichever answer you want to ; and 
if you have not a pencil but are a smoker and have a jack- 
knife, cut out whichever you want to ; and if you have neither, 
stick your little finger through whichever one of the answers you 
want to obliterate. That method is evidently plainer and more 
easily effected than any other. If the answers be placed on the 
margin, outside of the questions, some uncertainty will arise in 
the mind of the voter what to do. I do not see how we can 
possibly make it *ny plainer than the committee have reported it. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : No intelligent voter who takes any 
interest in the matter and desires to vote understandingly on any 
of these propositions will have any difficulty ; but a large part of 
these ballots, as every one knows, will be manipulated by persons 
who distribute votes, and those persons are going to tell voters 
how they ought to vote. I move to amend the resolution so 
that half of the ballots shall be printed with the answer " yes " 
and half with the answer "no." 

Mr. Randall of Grafton : It would seem to me to obviate the 
difficulty to have the ballots printed in two different colors, and 
the voters would thus be able to distinguish them unless they are 
color blind. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton : I am urged that it is better to with- 
draw my motion, although I would like to see it put. I withdraw 
my motion. 



SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1889. 267 

The question being stated, 
The resolution reported by the committee was adopted. 

Mr. Hibbard of Laconia : It was suggested that the expense 
of publishing the resolutions, passed at the evening session yester- 
day, as contemplated in the last resolution, would be very large, 
and it was proposed that there should be adopted an amendment 
to the effect that the publication should be at the same rate as the 
publication of the laws. The publication of the laws is at a very 
low rate, and the query was raised whether the newspapers would 
publish these resolutions at that rate, as they are accustomed to 
receive the laws in a supplement from the state printer and not 
actually set them up in their offices. I have consulted with a 
printer who is as competent as any one, and he states that he 
does not think the newspapers would publish these resolutions 
generally at the rate received for publishing the pamphlet laws, 
and the query has been raised, Does this resolution mean pub- 
lished once or published three times ? It does not state. In our 
General Laws the word " published," when it relates to giving 
notice by publication, means published three times. The gentle- 
man to whom I have referred made a guess, which was all that he 
could do in the brief time he had after I succeeded in find- 
ing him a few moments since. His guess was, that publishing 
once would cost $500, and publishing three times would cost 
double that sum. Now I propose that the resolution reported 
and adopted shall be amended by unanimous consent by insert- 
ing the word " once." I do not propose any reconsideration 
of the vote adopting the resolution, but by unanimous consent, 
no doubt, this word " once " can now be inserted after the word 
" published " and before the words "in all the newspapers." 

The President : The gentleman from Laconia (Mr. Hibbard) 
desires that the amendment be made in the report by the unani- 
mous consent of the convention, and if no objection is made on 
the part of any gentleman that will be ordered, the amendment 
may be made by unanimous consent. 

No objection being made, the amendment was adopted. 



268 JOURNAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Mr. Davis of Hopkinton moved that the convention adjourn 
to meet at the call of the president, or, in case of his death, of 
the governor of the State. 

The motion prevailed, whereupon the president declared the 
convention adjourned. 

JAMES R. JACKSON, 

Secretary. 

A true copy. Attest : 

JAMES R. JACKSON, 

Secretary. 






APPENDIX, 



270 



VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 

42 



CO 

1 



I 

* 

I 

(3 
O eo 



o Cu 

111 



rl 
II 



18. 



1 



.; 


ON 


vo "-> O tx O ON O ^co ON 
envo oo vn tx rf ^noo en >-> 


vo 


* 


S3 A 


O ^t 1 N tvOO Tf-OO tx ^ N 
C^ONONTJ-TJ-'^-U->MO en 


! 






VO ON O O N HH envo OO tv. 


1 


vo 











S3 A 


HH M N l-l t_ 


en 


J> 


ON 


sa=^s|:3;8> | 


s 


O 


S3 A 


ON O ON T$-VO n VO ON ON - 


g 


4 


ON 


t>x n enoo oo oo oo envo en 
'-'i-'Oo^hLoi-omOf^ "^ 


vo 





S3 A 


ON in Fv tx O O en ONOO en 


I 


en 


ON 


u-> envO ^ -rj- ON ON en i-i tx 


$ 


o 


-A 


(S t^vo ^^ ^* t^vo oo ON vo 
O tx ONVO OO ^ (S VO ^- rt- 


O\ 





ON 


R=ffaa^ s 


I 





-A 


00 NVOVO ON^tx^- 


M 

cf 


M 


ON 


en rj- t>x in\o >-i HH o en en 


en 


O 


-A 


oo ON >-< ON Th I-N.OO vo vo N 

^" ^ S ^ ^^ ; 2 s I? N 


I 

ff 












CO 

B 



' : : ^ : : : : G ' ' 






H 


: : : -e ' : : ^ o : 

: ^ j : : ^ II : 

jfjiilligii 


1 



APPENDIX. 



271 





*; 


ON 


co "I N LO LO ON vo n OO vo fx, rt- co uico 


CO 
CO 




_f_ 


S3 A 


l-l fl M I* M M4 N 


CO 

00^ 




vd 


ON 


OO vO O *" ^^ ^* LO t^ co LOVO vO ON ^^ co co 

hH ""* M HH -. 
i 


1 




o 
fc 


S3A 


2%^^S^-R^^ft2S-88 


3 




* 


ON 


HI OO CO i-i co^O VO VO CO CO C^ N VO Lr>\O CO -" 







o 


-A 









4 


ON 


r"* 1 "^ ^^-=^- 


1 




| 


S3X 


O t^ t^xOO cs t^ co O oo t^ c^ HH ON LO co LA T^- QS 


^ 











cT 


* 




CO 


ON 


co O co O ON Ln\o O "-D ONOO OO OO ON IN. 

. . >_ -f- HI I-. CO CS l-l LTjXO l-l 


o 

CO 

CO 


u 

g 





S3A 


O "VO COOO M rt-co^tx. OvO Thvr>TttxCO 
HH co ^ co -3-OO O 00 fxVO ON ONVO >-i ON LO co 


CO 


P4 


ri 


ON 


I I IT ^ M cj ^ "^ ^ "^^ n?" ^ un ^* 


CO 




o 
fc 


S3A 


O OO co rj- rj- r}-vO LO ON ONOO >-> ^ O ONVO ^h ^* 


!> 




M 


ON 


M vo O^ -l oc s < COONC^ ONVO LO HH o >-< 


i 




1 


S3A 


HH co LO co tvoo OON OOLOONi-<tv,>-i LOCO ro 


cT 
















TOWNS. 


'.'.''.''.'. ^ ' l^ '.'.'.:': 

: ! : i : i : :| ; : ; : :f if 










Illllllllillllllll 


3 

o 



272 VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 



vo 



S3 A 



ON 



VO 



Tj- m l-l U- ON ^ m N l-l 



"-HVO -^-rt-fON 
ro>O ONCO '-nn 



O ^in 



ON OS I-H ON^O O O Ln>-iOO O >-ocO 
ri-oo >-i^'-iMi-<^-OfOCSn-i 



inoo C^ i * CO OO "^T" O vO ON C^ CO ONOO 
OO >-H N ONVO -^-oo rx M vo M m I-H 

M M fv. _, M KH W 



S9 A 



ON 



ON 



sa A 



OOOO i-i -3-1-1 ^vnroNCQVO COCO'-' O "-"CO -< 

co N o^ooo LOCS t^co cooo co 



co >^> O ON n Th -st-vO vO 



m n O t^ <-< 



t^CO co tt 



COVO W IJ^I-H ONO OM^i-i COI-H coON'-^'-i O Osfxtv.*^ 
O TJ-IXI-I o m rt- t-H t~>.vo Ovo LOQNCOOVO rj-O -i co 



ON ^ O vo I-H M 
ri in ONVO >-i vO 
n I-H o M N n 



1^ OMn 



ON 



S3 A 



Nt^inONinO 

ror^'-< r^vo 



APPENDIX. 



273 



t^-OO 10 ON HH I O 

CO VO uo I HH 



OO MD >-o OS f-> t^ 

N VO - TJ-MH 



ON LO rf O. ON co C) 
HH co M ON co ON HH 






O VO 



O\ fOVO CS f) tx rj- 
n rfoo N ON 



rr n co o r^oo <-> 
co coco - O M ON 



!-" >-< (S HH 



a fr JH o g | 

S^aJES-a H 



274 VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 



ON 



S9 A 



O ro ro rf ON t 

\o ~ -. -. 



VO 



ON 



sa A 



S3 A 






S3 A 



VOvO -rj-uoN roONO <-OMVO M <^OO I^OO 
Oni-fOOM^ >-iOOCSi^rti-irO>-iC^ 



ON 



' S3 A 



ON 



S3 A 



ON 
O 






O >-i O OMDoo Mt^O 



ON 



LOOO M 

COTJ-N 



ONCO t^ r^ O 



S3 A 







APPENDIX. 



275 



r 



j" 

S-a J2 
P I 

c.2 H 
Sa 



^^ 



276 VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 



ON 



covO 
J1MD 



rj-\O ONCO HH o CO HH 
tx. rj- n HH M CO 



'S3A 



Tfw- > fOfO'-iOOOO vn 1-1 



J-I M ri mvO CO O O m co tx O mvO ^O ON N ON 
C^ M rovO "-H fx ro N n t^OO CT\ M LOVO HH rj- u 



-<->ON'-' MVO OOO LOVO MOOVOCO 



ON 



>-noo "-< ^t-i 



S3A 



oo ft OM-" ix mvo oo i-i roo 

CJ OO VO 1-1 O fO'O CO CO >-i M O 



N -ooo N oo o rh 

HH CO OM-< C^ -* n 



H 

& 

O 
U 

O 



O 



sa A 



OM-I ON ON LO i-noo t-x 

O\ONi-HVO -^ 1-1 O^O 



rf HH ro t^vO -r}- "1 1-1 ON M O ON 

KH CO t^CO O "^t >-0 >-i i-i >-0 t^CO 



O -! t-xOO i^ hi 



tv.ro -^J-vO <O O "-> COCO CO 



ON 



S3 A 



vO M ONi^O >-o t^ O '^}" > -i 
ONOO HH ^ rj- ro ONCO ^THH 



ON 



"^OO fO HH 



ON t^ "-O N ON\O ON 



S3A 



co fOO ONIV.TJ-HH roHH o <O 

O 



ON 



S3A 



fiM'S d-^rS.S 6 c ^^=2^ ^rt o 5 ^^-?5 C^D 
o3Soo!^Gi.!i-i.rt 



APPENDIX. 



277 



ro O >-i -< CO i-ti-ii-i 



>-l | CO LO 

10 



NOOt^ -OOmwCO rf CO 00 r*- N 10 HH VO M 

IH ON i- LO HI Tj- CO COCO r^ tx -^t O CS LO rj- 

^ CO fH "1 M 

I I ^ 



O H CO 
ON CS i-i 



HH M CO CO^O OO CO 



. . . . , VOOVONTJ-C^OO 
CO <* COVO M rfOO ONt^* 

n co 



LO 

I "=* 
t^ 



t>x u-tOO 

OCO 

CO Tf 



OO O >0 lOOO Tf O 
CO 1^00 Tj- ON 



I vo 
I ON 



co TT 
^ co 



) rr LOGO OO VO 



t^ n t^ ONOO LOO O Ot^Nt^O LOVO O 
n VO n uo r^- 10 vo ON c^ ^ w 

CO >O t-H I-H >-< H-l 



O >-i t^vo vo t^oo o co ON rf t>s 10 >ooo OO 
M o vo CS LO covo ONOO n 10 O t> ^~ 

CO Tj- hH 1-4 hi l-( 



\rZrX 




278 



VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 





t; 


ON 


T}-VO vo ON ^ coco co IX N ONCOO vot-cvo coco Ix O rf- ON 
CO N CO ON -d - CO^OO ONVO N tx 




o 


- 


OO ONO co -3- O vO vo rf ^ u- rooo O vO CO tx ONVO *-< vO in 




vd 


ON 


ft|^^P^P^||r|^g 




o 


-A 


M >-oCO >-< ON Th ON u">00 t^ co co "- ONCO O ON txoo vo if\ ""> 
ON ^ "- 1 ^ M -r> L*~> ON COCO "> ON co M N 00 Lnu^O "xh w> O 

ef 




^ 


-.K 


ON ^J-CO vO "-^ t^.vO CO OO >-O >J^ covO vO co^O co J"i <-> t^vO OO 
CO 




o 


S3A 


r^- ro ^"OO u^oo N t^ 1-1 vo N O ON coco fv ON ^- ON tv O ON 

t^vO x CS CO C^ vO O CO l -ovO vO C^ co ^< vO VO n N t^x n vO 




4 


ON 


vO OO OO M COVO N ^~vO ^J-O i-nO CO^OOO "-" N OOO CO 
MNi-iC^u->rOi-<t^ '^I'ONC^C^ i-Hw^OOOOOOO 

M OO >-> >-> 


^ 

^ 
P 


o 


A 


vO COONO ^Nvo t^sOvOOO HHOOVO ONQVO ONON>-( -^-VO 
O ON ^vo CO moo rj- u^ ONVO cOrJ-LOCO'-i ONON^>-I co^n 

cf 


8 

JTI 


CO 


ON 


OO covo t-i co co LT> O N ONJ-OOO mvo u% t^oo O -^oo O OO 


O 

o 


o 


S3 A 


CO O t^ u-v lOMD coi-iOO OM-HVO txtv. txOO "1 *-r\ M "3-CO OO 
O OO CO ^0 ir\ >-OOO Tj- COCO OOi-iLorJ-COONi-iOnOOOO 

CO 


P^ 

g 

C/3 


tl 


ON 


OO O OO N I-H CO VO -^-OO ONVO O'^-OCSONt^'-iM^t'-i'J^ 


g 

s 


o 

z 


S3A 


t^oo vo >-o tx >-< **$ ^hvo N tv. N ONVO Ovb >-o<N MVOCOVO 
N co u^ ^ co tx ON txco ONVO l^i-nrfLnn co(Soo con co 

co 




M 


ON 


rj- f^ HH I-H O <-A O L^vO 1-1 COnOO >-* ^JT ^ ^ "^ ONCO VO CO 

HnO-<n'-nrO'-vo ^O>-ico >-iM\ot^ ONCO HH 

w <-> ON n 




1 


-A 


u-vt^txO ONNLOLotxC^ M O O O O""> ^fCO ON t^vO vO 
1-1 ONVO tx covO O vO CO O t^ "ivo vO ^t"- TJ-ror^N LO^- 

CO 














TOWNS. 


I 1 : 1 1 .: j : 1 i. ! : ! : if ! II : 1 ! 

g : : ' j g -.00^^^^.^ 



APPENDIX. 



279 



O oo ix >-nvO ONOO rn ONVO tx HH ONI-I ONi-iHm<-nOHHir^ unoo 
txvo ONi-if^fi-iLrim^HHm vo M M *^ m m m HH t^ M 
M rj 



rx TJ- ONVO 
00 M -i "t 

_ vo 



rj-vo o M "T "- 1 M oo "Mx -< M vo >-n i_n moo mvo 

S. ^ m "-H ^rvo OvO >-ni-< txO T}- 1-1 rhi-i c^ ^tN 



K-vO fOi-i LnO^O t^CO O m t^, O fOOO O H W M OOM 
^O Ov -" ir i-t rf ^-\O OOM^t'-ioOvOvOOOLonvO MI-I 



N Ix ONVO O tx>-i N i-ion mONm-d-^-O MOO 

O ONOO ^"VO uoc^'d-C^i-i'-int^'rJ-O J-rvVO m N HH hn N i-i ur 

fN J"> N rJ-Mi-ii-ihHi-i 



ON^ i 00 

* ""' m 

I ^ 



ONOO mm^^M o m^nixON ^-oo vo oo mvo vo o 

MHHI-I M NN_I _ (^n>-i 



ir\ NI oo i ON ONVO OO 
(S M 



ur,hH M OQ 
O vO og Tt ON 



O 00 *f ir\ O 

VO CS VO tX HH 
^}- CS hH rt 



ONOO ro t-x ONVO O vo n OO 
oo M VO co in ^ Ttoo ON 



-i n LT> O N 
vo t^co u 



ONN rj-n -^-i-H O >-iOO ONOO 
vomro>-ncococo M tx HH 



ON^rfO I-H O ONLriLnM 

<-< ir\ cs n vo tx I-H 
cNntx m ^M'-I i-< 



>-< ONnvo n 

vO HH vo ** rn 



OO OvO tx-^-ONONrt- mvo ON ONVO m O OO OO m Ix O 

Lnoo ONi-iimi-ii-iTi-unhHMON'-imMMmcjn 
n n- w 



moo ONtx I rh 
* \r\ <*"> 

f^ 



M U>| I OO 

H- ^-i- M I vo 

HH HH M MM 



ON o Lnoo 



csoooo-ivovociOfot>>-^->-ioo 



g\ TT m in d N <-< OO fOOO rj-ini-i rtf-mO ONrJ-rl 
r>x -, un ~ unvo ix mvo tx-oo noo o mt><Ti 

ro-irx ifO Ti-M'-" i_ i-, en N 1-1 *-i 



ONOO N VO IN. 

rvs TJ-_ o 



VO 



s- i- M m n- 






280 VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 



ON 



N I-H ON -^ LOCO 

HH ON rj- t-i 1-1 so 



. . 

txOO >-i u-> ro m^D ro ON 



S3 A 



O 

VQ 



ON O VO OO 00 O LO I-H M MOO Lo 

r^^o o <^^O oo M r^ m ro rooo u-ii-H o 

l-Hh-C M l-l hH fTJ HH C^ l-l l-l 



mo\ 



S3 A 



VO 
O 



ON 



ONCOO 



ONOO rfoo l^ t^oo CO vO oo N ON tx 

i-i 1-1 MOOOO IX MD M M N 



O 

ro 



O LOO LO LO N t^N t^ON^J-tx O OO N O OO ^-VO O O 

t>s rooo LO t^co t^M LO co ^ ON r^ ^ co LO\O o co LO r-s. 



ON 



sa A 



vO O ^MVO fOOvO ThN LO 
ONLo txco LO m m M 1-1 
i-i i-i N (-H 



moo LO^OO ONO ONt>.ON 



OOO O O ONI-IOO ONLO 



ON 



ON ON 



N O -^-00 fx m ON N LO 
O fO>-H j^ ONOO vO LO n 



ON 

/-s t*^ ro ^O ^" O^^ O s ^ ^^ *"" ^"'O ^^ O^ *-A ^J~CO rx O ^O vO O"^ t 1 ^ i-o 

S9^_ ^WHHHHHHHHHHrt-H H^CO^CSHHh-l HHCOH "< 

s T^- ij-^co oo t^ ^ c^ ^- HH H coco t\ t\ r^oo oo ^co u^ tx. 

OO ^d" ^-O OO cooo > ' ON t^x ^^ CN) 1 O "^O ^O LO C^ *^ 
to i-i co M CO -! 

o 01 vO fO Cl ON CJ O ^ ON ON^O N ONtxN ^O ^J-'-' txt^i-i 

HH O CO OO MD ON ON fOOO roo >-i vO O ON I-H tx tx^O O tx LO 

CO 

I 

J'C^^'^cSc^ ^" * w:3 o 



APPENDIX. 



281 



rx, covo 



rj-v 

o 



^ O moo O ^- ro N ON 
VO m *-i f^. ON -" t^. u->vo 



I N 



ONioco'- rj-n rtoo co o I n 

OO O ONVO ^**^ I y 



I>* COCO CO ThvO co t-x, ON <-> 
rf 



tx.ioiooONn 

"- 1 >-i <-i OON-i 



<^-ONr}-toO ^-COM O N ON 

tx, CO 10 w W COCO l-l 10 10 CO 







282 VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 



ON 



sa A 



COOMON-TCOONt-x 



t^ ro ir\ -rj- o fN.oo cooo C -"tf- O I s * vn f>. moo o ONOO N 

rj- CO t^ t^ 1-1 VO t^ ON^O M OO -^-VO M LriLr^^ONO n H 



ON 



v Oc^oOMVOOO'^ tvoo oo >H ON u-i rooo >-o to 
OO rfrhN CS M t^i-i coco ir\\O ON LT* t^VO VO 



OO OOO N 1-1 ON>-< L 
ro^fcon -^-t-t N - O 










ON 



M rj- t>x tv. O COM3 CO -tf- O VO VO 1-1 ONOO tx Os>^ ON N O i^ 
^OO T|- O ONVO vO N u^ u-> -< t^ ON "^OO ro t^ rooo "VO N 






ON 



N u~> t^vO ONOO "> n t^oo OM-I O ONfOO HH t^^J- 
cooo n ON ro N t^oo -.QfOUM-' i^HHVot^i-i 



00 t-> VO 00 ro HH ONOO t-x ON O M 
"tf- i^oO OO noo O Tt- 



ONOO 
O rt 



S3A 



S3 A 



ONONNVO c<l Tj-^hON'-' HH ON>J^u->ir)N 1-1 ts ^t-c^ Tr^ci 
n t^ cs ON co rooo r-xN 1-1 rtu-^i-t HHVO t-i\o t>.n ^J-CON 



ro O f^ O N r^OO r^OO ON LOO *< -^t-i- 1 n vo O ONVO NO 



ON 



O t^. O "H ^ ON -^ fOVO t^ ro rovO vO >-iVO LnONM OOO < ^- 
rooo ^J" N c-J rooo ^^ c^ O LO LA H vo L*^ t^ cs N ro ro 



O-i 

O >-i 



O LOCO T}- HH t^ ui I-H ir\ 






APPENDIX. 



283 



O OO CO VC "3-M CO ON N CO u-i i/">vO O O 10 i-i ** O 
to 



VO 



O 

** 



"3- M co ON tx -^ N co I-* 



CNCO ^O O O 
000 roin 
HH ^ H-, oo 



O vO I oo 
COOO CO OO 



ON O i-" LTI^O oo 



mm-'icsvo u^-ivo nvO ^t'-i 
t^ LT> ONCO m o moo n vo oo ir 



r^- n TJ- HI OO ~t-x txVO VO OO H 0< O >-* OO KH N tx CO I OS 

MVO n rj-i-HVO O t^Tj-coi-ivovo >-oONC^ Thvo I tx 
NLr,COMi-i-i -. 



t^oo M Tj- co txvo i-i T*-\O O <*~ 
OO t^vO OvO i-OOOO Tj-OOOVO 



OCO <-oO> 
iA ONVO IX 



vO ^ fO M t 
>O M Lntx 



I 

co 



"^t*- 1 n r> 
coco TJ-HH 

-. I-C \O HH N HH 



ro O "-" -AOO rO fO rOOO ON 
rt-VO n T-H ^O ^^-^- 



t^OO OO vO VO ro P-H oo 

MVO i-i ** I-H ^fONO 
vo .-. ro 



ONOO rx OMA O>OO 

vO CO 



tx.00 OOvOvOvO IxO "iCO rl-'TfON >-OCO OO 

i-^vO >-i i-i vrvi-cvO rhrOOvO LO^ON 1 -" 

O 



CO 

n 
CO 















284 VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 



S3 A 



ON HI u-ivo CO ON co ONOO HH Ix vj- O CO CO vo MOO 
IX HH Tfvo N co CO M IX vo ro tt HH CO HH rt IX 
M 



ro rOOO N 
L^ONON 1 ^" 
rt- HH ro "-" 



ON 



sa A 



N N IXOO O "- rf- 

i-<^OMONVOON 



O ir^ o >-o ON M ONVO CO OO 
u^Tj-ONO^O^O -< \O VO fO "i 



S9 A 



O ON i- rh m o ONOO tr>c>0 CXD LTQCO TfO 
CO "O MD O covO OO>-irfMi-ii-ironp-i 



ON 



ONVO t^N ONOOO in 1-1 lx>-oi-ico ^J-'-i O ONON 

i-i HHP-IOOMVO^O 
co 



oo v> vo O -^-vO O N "V 
ON O -*> O txvo I-H O "^ 
p-i>-Oi-<roc^ < ^-coi-'CO 



00^ 
CO 



ON 



S3 A 



ON LO rt- O rj- tx O t^vo tv. N M -< coco >-i m 
>-oO ^txrf-cOHH CS ONOO NMH^TM 



ON N i^> M rf COCO ONOOOVO O 
vo ^ij->fv.u-,uoo ONCO 
co 



cocoO 

VOOO 



ON * I-H vo txoo OOCOON 



ON 



O HH oo co ON co | 



sa A 



t^O O >-" >-" coin i ^-O ONC^ '^'^coONCOOtx 
ini-HVO ONONCOCO 1 -! O Th\O VO ^ Jx -* O N O 



ON 



cs O^O co^nO 

M -i ON 1-1 ^ 



S3 A 



>-i Tt- O O tx ONOO ONCOCO 
OO -^-OO ONCO ^COO ON 
>H N 1-1 N N Tf- HI co 



OO M co>-iOO 
t^O OOO ON 



8, 






ON 



APPENDIX. 

M -i O OO fv. \O tv ON "I O 
co 1-1 rj- -i VQ n 1-1 



ur> rt T}- CO 



S3 A 



VQ w ON 

>\O vO -^f 



O tv. ir> Cl O t^ i^ CJ OCO CO LTCO 

ON ^-^O M co M LOVO N ^ <-> u~i I-H 



moo tv.vo -< m 10 TJ-OO oo 

OO O ON 



ON 



1-1 Ooo ONO O 



S3 A S ' 4 



S3 A 






285 



ON 



S3A 



ro M 1-1 



ON 



co rf- co ON Lri cooo t-x O t^ rh cooo >-> HH 
CO ON fv co rj- LT^OO ""> t^. <-> <-i S^ t^OO OO 






^ P 'S 1^ c bJD ^ S^'c g rt" "S ^~* 

rt~^?VwrtGS^-z:'Cc-^;2 









286 



VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 



O 

u 

s 



oo co O vo LO rf 
rj- iN i-c vo VO ON 
uo co LO LO LO n 



1-1 HH CO >-i rOVO 



O 
^ 



VO Tt- 

VO -" 
M O 



S3A 



OO OO 

M u-^ n >-< o 

O TO CO -< 





S3A 



co rj- >-i fx. r-x co ON ONVO 

o con coco o^ ^ 



LO o M o co n co 
*N "3- <N ^ LO >-< M LO 



O ON-^-OOOO >- LOCO co 

oo oo co -i vo coco n t 
n n LOCO co co M co o 

N M CO >-H -rhOO LO Tf Tj 



fls 

n I oo 






llll 



tn 

s 

rt 
bJO 

E 

bX) 

bJO 
< 



INDEX. 



INDEX. 



Abbott, Henry 12, 16, 30, 52, 62, 188, 205, 207, 217, 241, 242 

remarks by, on rules 30 

printing amendments 62 

representation of classed towns 241, 242 

Adjournment, final 212, 268 

Amendments proposed to the constitution in relation to the election 

of representatives in classed towns 60, 61, 112, 138 

139, 217, 218, 239 to 249, 255 

future mode of amending the constitution 53, 54, 58, 59 

112, 113, 115 to 127, 145 

limiting the term of service of justices of police courts. . 62, 130 

131, 154 

creating the office of lieutenant-governor 37, 56, 113, 114, 115 

governor, authorizing the speaker of the House to act as 113, 114 

115, 254 

relating to tei-m of service of certain judicial officers. .30, 31, 154 
legislature, changing the time of holding sessions of, 

from June to January 23, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 54, 55, 56 

105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 146 to 153, 213 to 217, 233 to 239, 254 

legislature, relating to annual sessions of 58, 79 

80, 81, 82, 83, 84 

legislature, fixing the salary of members of 46, 54, 55, 65, 77 

78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 to 101, 102, 103, 104, 145, 254 
relating to division of towns into voting precincts for 

the election of certain officers 61, 113, 154 

relating to striking the word " Protestant " from the bill 

Of rights 24, 59, 61, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222 

223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 254 
relating to method of filling vacancies in the Senate. ... 36, 53 
55, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 149, 249, 250, 251, 254 
relating to the election of civil officers by a plurality 

vote 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 47, 48 

49, 50, 65 to 87, 123, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 

relating to removal s by address 59, 113, 154 

relating to election of representatives to the general 

court 112, 131 

changing the basis for apportionment for the election 

of senators 53, 140 

relating to changing the basis of representation in the 

legislature 54, 78, 131, 141, 145 

, how to be proposed 19 

to be referred. . 19, 20 

19 



292 INDEX. 

Amendments, rule as to 19, 20 

may be received when 20 

relating to the qualification of voters 34, 36, 55, 112 

prohibiting the sale and manufacture of intoxicating 

liquors 109, 111, 155 to 207, 233, 254 

debate on 155 to 207 

yeas and nays on 187, 188, 189, 205, 617 

petitions relating to 104, 111 

special committee to consider 109 

report of special committee on 155, 233 

new draft 233 

relating to method of taking the yeas and nays in gen- 
eral court 57, 128, 129, 130 

those agreed to by the convention, how to be submitted 

to the people 253, 254, 255, 256, 257 

fixing salary of president of the Senate and speaker of 

the House 78 

Amidon, Charles J 11, 16, 51, 112, 145, 187, 206, 207 

Andrus, Eleazer P , 13, 188, 205, 207 

Annett, Thomas 11,188,205,207 

Armiugton, Willard M 14, 51, 126, 127, 151, 152, 168, 188, 205, 207 

remarks by, on future modes of amending the 

constitution 126,127 

changing time of holding ses- 
sions of the legislature 151, 152 

prohibitory amendment 168 

Assistant secretary, committee to select 15 

election of 18 

Baker, Alpheus W 3, 13, 14, 18, 24, 64, 100, 109, 188, 205, 207, 253 

Bales, Charles A 11,187,206,207,253 

Barker, Francesco W 8, 52, 188, 205, 207 

Barnard, Frank A 13, 188, 205,207 

Barnard, Joseph 9,188,205,207 

Batchelder, Thomas 1 6, 188, 206, 207 

Barton, Levi W 12, 14, 17, 40, 41, 52, 55, 71, 72, 93, 188, 205, 207, 230, 231 

remarks by, on changing time of holding session of 

legislature 40,41,42 

election of officers by plurality vote. . 71, 72 
fixing salary of members of the leg- 
islature 93 

striking word " Protestant " from the 

bill of rights 230, 231 

Bartlett, Charles H..10, 16, 32, 44, 78, 82, 83, 84, 104, 127, 139, 146, 188, 207, 249, 250, 263 

Bartlett, Gardner S., petition of 104 

Bartlett, Greenleaf K 5, 188, 205, 207 

Bartlett, John T 6,52,76,188,206,207,261 

remarks by, on election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 76 

resolution of thanks to president of 

convention 261 

Becker, Forrest 6,187,206,207 

Beckford, Frank M 7, 32, 33, 83, 157, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 

194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 213 
remarks by, on providing newspapers for use of 

convention 33 



INDEX. 293 

Beckford, Frank M., remarks by, on annual sessions of the legislature 83 

prohibitory amendment. 189 to 201, 202, 203 

Bell, Charles H 5, 14, 15, 73, 97, 150, 188, 205, 207, 259, 261, 262 

remarks by, on accepting the presidency of the con- 
vention 15 

proceedings in committee of the 

whole 45 

election of officers by plurality vote. . 73, 95 

construction of the rules 106, 107, 108 

changing time of holding session of 

the legislature 150 

in response to resolution of thanks pre- 
sented by Mr. Smith of Manchester 261, 262 

Bemis, Luther G 11, 51, 188, 205, 207 

Bennett, George A . 6 

Bennett, James A 8, 52, 188, 206,208 

Bennett, Morrison 7, 52, 67, 188, 206, 207 

remarks by, on election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 67, 68, 208 

Berry, Ichabod P 7, 52, 138, 206, 207 

Bickford, John C 10, 24, 52, 188, 205, 207, 208 

Bill of rights, amendment proposed to 50, 51, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222 

223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 

Bill, Willard, Jr 12, 188,205,208 

Benford, Charles H 8, 188, 205, 208 

Blake, Amos J 11, 16, 17, 23, 38, 52, 105, 188, 205, 208 

remarks by, on changing time of holding session of leg- 
islature 38, 39 

Blake, Edmund R 3, 5, 187, 205, 208 

Blodgett, Isaac N 9, 51, 145, 187, 206, 208 

Blackwell, H. B 218 

Blackwell, Miss 218 

Bond, George S 4, 12, 16, 109, 188, 205, 208 

Boynton, William 6,188,206,208 

Briggs, James F 10, 14, 25, 29, 47, 50 

51, 128, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 149 
153, 188, 205, 208, 212, 213, 217, 235, 236, 238, 250 

remarks by, on rules 29,133 

amending rules 132, 133 

election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 136, 137,138 

changing time of holding session of 

legislature 147, 149, 153, 217, 235, 236, 238 

Brigham, Hosea W 12, 109, 188, 205, 208 

Brown, Charles J 6, 187, 206, 208 

Brown, Elbridge P ... 11, 31, 52, 187, 206, 208 

Brown, John H 5, 52, 188, 205, 208 

Bunten, John D 9, 188, 205, 208 

Burnham, Henry E 10, 208 

Barton, William P 13,208 

Butler, James S 10, 187, 206, 208 

Butrick, Charles W 12, 188. 205, 208 

Buttrick, Edwin 12, 188, 205, 208, 263 

Burton, Willie G 8, 64, 188, 205, 208 

Business, order of 19 



294 INDEX. 

Carpenter, Mrs. J. I., communication of 32, 46 

Carruth, Prof 218 

Cass, Charles W 6, 188, 205, 208 

Cate, William H. M 9, 46, 65, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92, 157, 188, 205, 208 

remarks by, on fixing the salary of members of 

the legislature 84, 85, 86 

Cavanaugh, James F 10, 187, 206, 208 

Chadwick, William H 9, 187, 205, 208 

Chaplain, resolution as to election of 16 

election of 18 

pay of 257 

Chairman, temporary 3 

Chase, Alfred G ; 8,187,206,208 

Chesley, George E., appointed doorkeeper 18 

pay of 257 

Child, Samuel M 11,51,187,206,208 

Chutter, Frederick George, petition of II 1 

Cilley, Andrew J 5, 187 , 206, 208 

Clarke, Benjamin F 10, 188, 206, 208 

Clarke, Herbert N 5, 187,'. 206, 208 

Clarke, John B., bill of 257 

Clarkson, Thomas S 11, 187, 206, 208 

Clifford, Isaac P 9, 188, 205, 208 

Clough, Herbert S 10, 187, 206, 208 

Coburn, Asa 13, 111, 208 

Cochran, George A 9,188,205,208 

Cochran, James 6, 51, 188, 205, 208 

Cochran, Martin H 9, 188, 205, 208 

Colby, Ira 12, 21, 52, 95, 96, 104, 113, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126 

127, 128, 130, 149, 150, 151, 152, 168, 169, 170, 185, 186, 188 
206, 208, 232, 233, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246 

remarks by, in relation to copies of constitution 21 

on fixing salary of members of legislature 95, 95 

future mode of amending constitution 121, 122 

changing time of holding session of legisla- 
ture 150, 151 , 152, 238 

prohibitory amendment 168, 169, 170, 185, 186 

striking word "Protestant" from bill of 

rights 232,233 

representation of classed towns 246, 247 

Coleman, Dudley C 8,51,188,205,208 

Coleman, Leon, appointed page 31 

pay of. 257 

Cole, Abner K 13, 52. 188, 205, 208 

Cole, Daniel 14,188,205,208 

Cole, Woodbury 14,188,205,208 

Collins, Samuel A 14, 51, 188, 205, 208 

Collins, Thoma.s F 10, 51, 187, 206, 280 

Committees, how appointed 18, 20 

Committee on credentials 3, 4 

special 5 

to select officers 16 

on finance ordered 64 

appointed 109 

prohibitory amendment 109 



INDEX. 295 

Committee to consider memorial of the New England Woman Suf- 
frage Association, ordered 212 

appoi ntment of 213 

standing, rule creating 20 

appointment of 51, 52, 53 

011 bill of rights and executive department 50, 51 

on future mode of amending the constitution, 

and other proposed amendments 52 

on judicial department 51 

on legislative department ... 51 

on time and mode of submitting to the people 
the amendments agreed to by the conven- 
tion 52 

on mileage 52 

on rooms, assignment of 64,65 

of the whole, rule relating to 19 

for the consideration of the proposed amend- 
ment providing for the election of civil offi- 
cers by a plurality vote 25 to 29 

47 to 50, 65 to 77, 133 to 138 

for the consideration of the proposed amend- 
ment changing the time of meeting of the 

legislature from June to January 38 to 44 

for the consideration of the communication of 

the Woman's Christian Temperance Union 46, 47 
for the consideration of the proposed amend- 
ment fixing the salary of members of the 

legislature 78 to 104 

for the consideration of the proposed amend- 
ment relating to future method of amend- 
ing the constitution ..116 to 127 

for the consideration of the proposed amend- 
ment relating to the method of demanding 

the yeas and nays in the legislature 128 to 130 

for the consideration of the memorial of the 

New England Woman Suffrage Association 218, 219 

Cone, Dennis 11,51,187,206,208 

Conway, Charles W 11, 188, 205, 208 

Constitution, relating to copies of 21, 22 

Convention, how to be reconvened 268 

Craig, Charles C 13, 37, 61, 188, 205, 208 

Cram, Luther 10, 188, 205, 208 

Crawford, Benjamin W 6, 188, 205, 208 

Crowell, Curtis R 12, 187, 206, 208 

Cross, David 10, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 52, 55, 88, 89, 90, 99, 100, 104, 109 

155, 156, 159, 160, 177, 178, 179, 188, 202, 203, 204, 207, 233, 247, 248 
remarks by, on communication of Woman's Christian 

Temperance Union 32 

qualification of voters 34, 35, 36 

lixing the salary of members of the leg- 
is! ature 88, 89, 90, 99, 100 

prohibitory amendment 155, 156, 159, 160 

177, 178, 179, 202, 203, 204 

representation of classed towns 247, 248 

Cummings, Daniel E 4,13,51,187,206,208,213 

Currier, George W 5, 187, 206, 208 



296 INDEX. 

Currier, Samuel G 13, 52, 61, 187, 206, 208 

Curtis, George H 8, 160, 161, 188, 205, 207, 208 

remarks by, on prohibitory amendment 160, 161 

Damon, Charles A 13, 104, 188,205,208,242 

remarks by, on representation of classed towns 242 

Danforth, Charles C..5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 24, 29, 31, 54, 55, 61, 77, 188, 205, 208, 212, 213, 219 

remarks by, on rules 29 

Davis, Albert P 9, 52, 59, 109, 110, 111, 120, 188, 205, 208, 227 

remarks by, on communication of Eliza J. C. Gilbert 

and others Ill 

future mode of amending the consti- 
tution 120 

amending the rules 132 

Davis, Alfred 8, 54, 78, 79, 187, 206, 208 

remarks by, on fixing salary of members of the legisla- 
ture 78,79 

Davis, David W 8, 52, 187, 206, 208 

Davis, Josiah G 9. ]7, 51, 188, 206, 208 

Davis, Joab N 12, 52, 187, 206, 208 

Davis, Walter S 3, 4, 5, 9, 32, 34, 36, 37, 43, 52, 55, 64, 65, 77, 81, 82, 103, 111, 119 

121, 132, 141, 142, 143, 144, 188, 205, 206, 208, 234, 235, 259, 266, 26 

remarks by, on qualification of voters 36, 37 

changing time of holding session of 

the legislature 234, 235, 243 

newspapers for use of members 64 

fixing salary of members of the legis- 
lature 81, 82, 103 

filling vacancies in Senate 141, 142, 143, 144 

final adjournment .... 259 

in regard to form of ballots 266 

Day, Fred N 14,109,187,206,208 

Demerritt, Albert 7, 16, 51, 187, 206, 208 

Dolbeer, John H . . . < 9, 188, 205, 208 

Dole, Charles A 13, 15, 16, 52, 188, 205, 208, 212, 249, 253 

Dolloff, Frederick O 13, 187, 205, 208 

Dorr, Charles M 7, 188, 205, 208 

Doorkeepers, election of. 18 

Dowe, Charles B 13, 188, 205, 208, 264 

Drake, Benjamin F 7,51,188,205,208 

Dresser, Herbert F 11,188,206,208 

Drury, William H 5, 187, 206, 208 

Dudley, Arthur W 5, 52, 78, 100, 188, 205, 208 

Dunbar, George W 12, 188, 209 

Duncan, John T 12, 52, 109, 188, 205, 209 

Duston, Thomas 6, 187, 206, 209 

Durgin, Luther P 3, 8, 14, 58, 59, 69, 70, 77, 79, 83, 96, 104 

109, 133, 136, 188, 205, 209, 227, 228, 249, 265 
remarks by, on election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 69, 70, 133, 134, 136 

fixing the salary of members of the 

legislature 79, 80, 96 

annual session of the legislature 83 

striking the word " Protestant " from 

the bill of rights 227, 228 



INDEX. 297 



Eastman, William H 12, 187, 

Edgerly, Horace 7, 51, 188, 205, 209 

Ela, MaryH 110 

Eklredge, Marcellus 6, 187, 206, 209 

Ellis, Charles J 11, 188, 205, 209 

Emerson, Frank 7, 188, 206, 209 

Emery, Alfred D 5, 20, 31, 45, 187, 206, 209, 262 

Emery, George H 8, 209 

Emory, Warren W 11, 25, 188, 209 

Farnham, Lorenzo 14, 34, 52, 54, 188, 205, 209 

Farnum, William H 9, 188, 206, 209 

Farrington, James F 4, 7, 51, 109, 209 

Fasset, James B 10, 209 

Felker, Samuel D 7, 24, 52, 59, 61, 79, 113, 187, 206, 209, 219, 223, 226 

remarks by, on striking the word " Protestant " from 

the bill of rights 226, 227 

Fernald, James E 7, 52, 112, 187, 206, 209 

Fessenden, David S 4, 9, 188, 206, 209 

Final adjournment, relating to 259 

Finance, committee on, appointed 109 

ordered 64 

Fisher, Charles 13, 187, 206, 209 

Fletcher, Jonas W 11, 52, 109, 188, 205, 209 

Flood, John J 10, 187, 206, 209 

Foster, John L 13, 14, 93, 94, 95, 100, 188, 205, 207, 209 

remarks by, on amendment relating to salary of mem- 
bers of legislature 93, 94, 95 

Fradd, Horatio 10, 187, 206, 209 

Frazier, John 9, 187, 206, 209 

French, George B 6, 11, 27, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 

70, 71, 75, 76, 90, 102, 133, 136, 187, 188, 205, 206, 209 
remarks by, on election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 70, 71, 75, 76 

salary of members of legislature 102 

prohibitory amendment . 164, 165 

changing time of holding session of 

legislature 217, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239 

striking word "Protestant" from 

bill of rights 231, 232 

Frost, George S 6, 16, 188, 205, 207, 209 

Furbush, William M 8, 158, 206, 209 

Garland, Benjamin F 14, 51, 187, 206, 209 

George, Henry W 9,16,51,187,206,209 

Gerrish, Henry H 9, 15, 188, 205, 209 

Gilbert, Eliza. J. C 110 

Gilmore, George C 3,4, 10, 21,22,31,43,44,50, 108,109, 133,188 

205, 209, 252, 253, 257, 258, 259, 262, 263, 264, 265 

remarks by, relating to copies of constitution 21, 22 

adjournment 31 

on changing time of holding sessions 

of legislature 43, 44 

printing the proceedings of the 

convention 253 

bill of S. S. Jackman & Co 258, 259 

as to reassembling of the convention. . 259 



298 INDEX. 

Gilmore, George C., remarks by, in regard to ballots to be used by the 

people in voting on the amend- 
ments submitted 262, 265 

Glidden, Howard M 7, 187, 206, 209 

Godfrey, O. I., pay of 257 

Gould, Harvey N 6, 187, 205, 209 

Gove, Ira S. M 4, 14, 52, 188, 205, 209 

Graves, Ephraim G 8, 187, 206, 209 

Gray, Charles W 8, 188, 205, 209 

Green, Sidney A 12, 52, 187, 206, 209 

Griffin, Michael C 10, 187, 206, 209 

Hadley, Amos 8, 17, 18, 29, 30, 42, 58, 115, 116, 117, 119, 188, 205, 209, 239, 260 

remarks by, on changing time of holding sessions of 

the legislature 42, 239 

future mode of amending the consti- 
tution 116, 117, 118, 119 

resolution of thanks to the president 

of the convention 260 

Hall, Israel D 12, 188, 205, 209 

Hall, Marshall P 10, 165, 166, 188, 205, 209 

remarks by, on prohibitory amendment 165, 166 

Hanson, Burnham 6, 188, 205, 209 

Hanson, Horatio G 6, 209 

Hardy, Charles W 10, 188, 205, 209 

Harvey, George K 11, 138, 188, 205, 209, 245, 246 

remarks by, on amendment relating to representa- 
tion of classed towns 245, 246 

Hatch, Francis M 8, 187, 206, 209 

Hatch, John 3, 5, 17, 52, 53, 107, 108, 113, 129, 130, 131, 154, 162 

166, 167, 174, 180, 187, 204, 206, 209, 217, 218, 239, 240 

remarks by, on construction of the rules 107 

method of demanding yeas and nays in 

legislature 129, 130 

amending the rules 132 

prohibitory amendment 159, 166, 167, 180 

representation of classed towns 239, 240, 241 

Hatch, Riley B 11, 187, 206, 209 

Hayes, Joseph 6, 187, 209 

Hayes, Jeremiah J 10, 188, 206, 209 

Hayes, Charles C 4, 7, 58, 104, 131, 209, 212, 213 

Hayes, Hiram A 7, 209 

Hayward, George 1 9, 187, 205, 209 

Hersey, Charles H 11,51,123,188,205,209 

remarks by, on future mode of amending the con- 
stitution 122 

Hibbard, Ellery A 7, 15, 16, 17, 20, 28, 30, 41, 42, 51, 56, 57, 60, 65, 77 

80, 81, 82, 83, 96, 97, 107, 108, 113, 120, 138, 146, 147, 152, 155, 187 
206, 207, 209, 212, 218, 229, 232, 233, 242, 243, 251, 252, 260, 267 
remarks by, on election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 28, 29, 56, 57 

rules 30 

changing lime of holding session of 

legislature 41, 42, 146, 147, 148, 152 

representation of classed towns. ..60, 242, 243 



INDEX. 299 

Hibbard, Ellery, remarks by, on fixing salary of members of the leg- 
islature 80, 81, 96, 97 

construction of the rules 107, 108 

striking the word "Protestant" 

from bill of rights 229, 232, 233 

resolution of thanks to the president 

of the convention 260 

resolution relating to publishing 
the amendments in the newspa- 
pers 267 

printing proceedings of the conven- 
tion 252 

Hill, Hiram S 7,188,206,209 

Hill, William H 13, 188, 206, 209 

Hobbs, Armenia W 110 

Hobbs, Jonathan C 5, 187, 206, 209, 212 

Hoit, Charles W 10,31,32,188,206,209 

Holland, John 6,188,205,209 

Holt, George P 9,188,205,209 

Hopkins, Charles B 4, 11, 187, 206, 209 

Howard, William W 10, 187, 209 

Hubbard, George A 10, 187, 206, 209 

Hunkins, James 6, 188, 206, 209 

Huse, William H. 10, 188, 205,209, 237, 238 

remarks by, on changing time of holding sessions of 

the legislature 237, 238 

Jackman, S. S., & Co., relating to bill of 258 

Jackson, James R 18, 253, 257 

Judicial department, committee on 51 

Justice of peace, petitions relating to increased jurisdictions of 37, 77, 113 

Johnson, Joseph 5, 188, 205, 209 

Johnson, David A 13, 187, 206, 209 

Jones, Charles W 6, 187, 206, 210 

Jones, Frank 6, 51, 187, 206, 209 

Jones, Henry G 13, 188, 206, 209 

Kelley, John R. B 11, 24, 78, 131, ftO, 181, 182, 188, 205, 210, 265, 266 

remarks by, on prohibitory amendment 180, 181, 182 

in regard to form of ballots 265 

Kimball, Benjamin A 8, 52, 210 

Knapp, William D 7, 17, 28, 51, 103, 186, 187, 188, 189, 205, 210 

remarks by, on election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 28 

changing time of holding sessions 

of legislature 44, 45 

prohibitory amendment 185, 186, 189 

Knowles, William 6, 188, 205, 210 

Knox, Mrs. II. M 46, 47 

Ladd, William S 14, 17, 22, 35, 36, 37, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 62, 63, 86, 87 

88, 98, 99, 106, 108, 123, 126, 139, 161, 162, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 182 
183, 184, 185, 187, 206, 210, 212, 220, 228, 229, 230, 243, 244, 245, 260 

remarks by, on qualification of voters 35,36 

election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 48, 49 



300 INDEX. 

Ladd, William S-, remarks by, on printing amendments 62, 63 

fixing the salary of members of the 

legislature 86, 87, 88, 98, 99 

construction of the rules 106, 107, 108 

future mode of amending constitution 123, 124 

125, 126 

representation of classed towns 139, 243 

244,245 

prohibitory amendment 161, 162, 170 

171, 172, 173, 174, 182, 183, 184, 185 
striking word " Protestant " from bill 

of rights 228, 229, 230 

resolution of thanks to the president 

of the convention 260 

Lane, George W 8, 187, 206, 210 

Lang, Paul .13,52,112,188,205,210 

Lary, Augustus 8, 188, 205, 210 

Law and Order League, petition of 104 

Leahy, Patrick 7,187,206, 210 

Legislature, amendment, changing time of meeting from June to Jan- 
uary. 23, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 54, 55 

56, 105, 106, 108, 109, 146 to 153, 213 to 217, 233 to 239, 264 

Legislative department, committee on 51 

Leighton, George A 10, 20, 33, 34, 127, 163, 164, 187, 206, 210 

remarks by, in i-elation to newspapers for use of 

members of the convention... 20, 21, 33, 34 

on prohibitory amendment 163, 164 

Libbey, Alvah S 4, 8, 51, 188, 205, 210 

Lieutenant-governor, amendment relating to 37, 38, 113, 114, 115 

Little, Joseph M 13, 187, 206, 210 

Little, George P 9,50,188,205,210 

Littlefield, William E 6,187,206,210 

Locke, John E 6, 187, 206, 210 

Lovejoy, Solomon 7, 187, 206, 210 

Luce, Charles A 10, 188, 205, 210 

Lyman, John D 3, 5, 24, 37 

43, 47, 49, 51, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 82, 101, 104, 105, 111, 114, 115 
134, 135, 1*36, 141, 148, 152, 188, 205, 207, 210, 218, 225, 226, 247, 259 
remarks by, on changing time of holding session of 

legislature 43, 148, 152 

election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 49, 66, 67, 134, 135, 136 

printing amendments 62, 63, 64 

annual sessions of the legislature... 82, 83 
fixing salary of members of the leg- 
islature 104 

changing time of holding sessions of 

the legislature 105 

creating the office of lieutenant-gov- 
ernor 114,115 

filling vacancies in the Senate 141 

striking the word " Protestant " from 

the bill of rights 225, 226 

representation of classed towns 247 

Mallon, Patrick E 7,87,206,210 



INDEX. 



301 



Manaban, William H 9,16,20,31,44,45,53,67 

89, 149. 174, 175, 176, 188, 205, 209, 210 
remarks by, on election of civil officers by plu- 
rality vote 67, 68 

changing time of holding ses- 
sions of the legislature 149, 150 

prohibitory amendment .174, 175, 176, 177 

Manning, Charles H 10,50,187,206,210 

Marshall, Daniel 11, 188, 205, 210 

Marshall, Granville J 12,52, 188, 205,210, 213 

Marshall, John L. H 11,188,205,210 

Mason, George W 11, 188, 205, 210 

Mason, James L 8,187,205,210 

Mathes, George F 8,109,188,205,210 

Mclntire, Mrs 46 

McCrillis, Hiram S 7,109,188,206,210 

McKellips, Harvey J 11, 188,205,210 

McLane, Kiel 11,188,205,210 

McMahan, Robert 7,51,72,73, 187,206,210 

remarks by, on election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 72, 73 

Melcher, Woodbury L 4, 7, 16, 51, 135, 136, 188, 205, 210 

remarks by, on election of civil officers by plu- 
rality vote 135, 136 

Mellows, Aaron L 6, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 188, 210, 213, 229, 249 

remarks by, on changing time of holding session 

of legislature 153 

prohibitory amendment. ...157, 158, 159, 160 

Members, list of 5 to 14 

Merriam, George F 9, 188, 205, 210 

Messenger, Fred 14,188,205,210 

Mileage, committee on 24, 52 

Mileage roll 207,208,209,210,211 

Miles, Ephraim L 13,188,205,210 

Miller, John R 11,187,205,210 

Mirror, Daily, resolution relating to 20, 24, 33 

Mode of procedure 19,20 

Monitor, Daily, resolution relating to 20, 24, 33, 34 

Morrill, John B 7, 187, 210 

Morrill, Thomas J 12, 57, 188, 205, 210 

Morse, Henry C 9,210 

Morse, John W 3,8,187,206,210 

Motion, order in which received 18 

Muzzey, Robert E 12,188,205,210 

Nash, John B 4, 8, 51, 156, 157, 187, 206, 210 

remarks by, on prohibitory amendment 156, 157 

Newell, Hiram F 11, 188, 205, 210 

Newton, Moses H 9, 187, 206, 210 

James E 9,188,205,210 

Noonan , John F 14, 187, 206, 210 

Noy es, Moses C 12, 52, 109, 188, 205, 210 

Nutter, M. V. B 7, 51, 187, 206, 210 

Newspapers, resolution relating to 24, 33, 34, 45, 63, 64 

Officers, committee to select 15, 16 



302 INDEX. 

Officers, election of 18 

pay of 257 

Page, Amos B 10, 161, 164, 188, 205, 210 

remarks by, on prohibitory amendment 164 

on resolution of thanks to the president of 

the convention 261 

Calvin 6,16,20,51,53,154,162,167,187,206,210 

William F 6,188,206,210 

Pages 24,31 

Pageot, Cyrille 7, 210 

Paris, Oswald 10, 210 

Parker, Charles B 11, 206, 210 

Se well H 7, 188, 206, 210 

Parsons, Frank N 9, 142, 143, 144, 152, 187, 204, 206, 210 

remarks by, on amendment relating to the method 

of filling vacancies in the Senate 142, 143, 144 

Patterson, Lewis C ^ 31, 257 

Paul, Amos 6, 52, 188, 205, 210 

Pay roll of officers of the convention 257 

Penley, Asbury F 12, 188, 205, 210 

People and Patriot, resolutions relating to 20, 33,34, 64 

Petition of Frederick George Chatter and others Ill 

Law and Order League 104 

for amendment enlarging the jurisdiction of justices of the 

peace 37,61,77,104,112,113,154 

leave to withdraw same 154 

of Gardners. Bartlett, et al 104,154 

Lyman Merrill, et al 61, 154 

Samuel G. Currier, et al 37, 61, 154 

W. W. Russell, et al 61,154 

Nathan B. Whitten, et al 77, 154 

T. S. Simpson, et al 112, 154 

Pillsbury, John J 7, 16, 52, 187, 206, 210 

Leonard H 5,50,133, 134, 135,138, 188,205,210 

remarks by, on amendment proposing to elect 

civil officers by a plurality vote 134, 135 

Rosecrans W 5, 16, 92, 187, 205, 210, 219 

remarks by, on amendment fixing the salary 

of members of the legislature 92 

Pitcher, Charles P 11,187,206,210 

Pitman, George W. M 3,8,17,187,216,210 

Lycurgus 8, 16, 17, 23, 51, 59, 77, 144, 187, 206, 210, 239 

remarks by, on changing time of holding sessions 

of the legislature 239 

Philbrick, Sumner E 9, 188, 205, 210 

Plurality vote, relating to election of civil officers by 23, 25, 26, 27 

28, 29, 49, 50, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 

Poor, BenjaminH 12, 187,206,210 

Porter, Joseph E 6, 52, 188, 206, 210 

President, election of 14, 15 

address of 15, 261, 262 

duties of. 18 

resolution relating to 259, 260, 261 

Prescott, Arah W 9, 188, 205, 210 

Preston, Frank B .7, 187, 205, 210 



INDEX. 303 



Printing, of rules 20 

of proposed amendments 62, 63, 64 

of proceedings 253 

Pritchard, Francis W 11, 188, 205, 210 

Prohibitory amendment Ill, 155 to 207, 233, 254 

debate on 155 to 207 

yeas and nays on 187, 188, 189, 205, 206, 207 

petitions pi-ay ing for submission of. 104, 111 

resolution reported by special committee. . . 155 
new draft reported by special committee 233 

special committee to consider 109 

Protestant, amendment proposing to strike from the bill of rights, de- 
bate upon 219 to 233 

Procedure, rule as to method of 19, 20 

Privileges of the floor, to whom granted 18 

Publication of amendments in newspapers 267 

Putney, Benjamin T 8, 188, 208, 210 

Question, division of when 19 

Quimby, Joseph H 8, 210 

Randall, George H. 13, 160, 163, 187, 206, 210, 266 

remarks by, on prohibitory amendment 160, 163 

Randall, Oren E 11, 57, 187, 206, 210, 213 

Rawson, George B 11, 188, 205, 210 

Randlett, James E. , janitor, pay of 257 

Resolution, amendment proposed to Art. 6, bill of rights, striking 

the word " Protestant " therefrom 24, 59, 61, 218 to 233 

relating to vacancies in the Senate 36, 53, 55, 140 

141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 249, 250, 251, 254 

relating to annual sessions of the legislature 58, 79, 80 

81, 82, 83, 84 
relating to changing the time of holding sessions of the 

legislature 23, 33 to 44, 54, 55, 56, 57, 105, 106, 107, 108, 146 

147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 213 to 217, 233 to 239 

fixing the salary of members of the legislature 46, 54, 55, 65, 77 

78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 
93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 145 

creating the office of lieutenant-governor 36, 37, 38, 56 

relating to the qualification of voters 34, 35, 36, 37, 55, 145, 154 

relating to representatives in legislature from classed 

towns 60,61, 112, 138, 139, 217,218,239,240 

241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 

relating to basis for representation in House of Represen- 
tatives 54, 78, 131, 141, 145 

relating to basis for representation in Senate 53, 140 

providing for the appointment of a committee on mileage 24 
providing for the election of civil officers by a plurality 

vote 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 47 

48, 49, 50, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 
79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 
relating to submission of the amendments adopted by the 

convention to the people 265, 266, 267 

relating to term of service of justices of police courts.. 62, 130, 131 

relating to removals by address 59,113,154 

relating to jurisdiction of justices of the peace 113, 154 



304 INDEX. 

Resolution relating to division of certain towns into voting pre- 
cincts ei, 113, 154 

relating to future mode of amending the constitution 53, 54 
53, 59, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 154 

relating to prohibitory amendment Ill, 155 to 207, 233, 254 

yeas and nays on...... 187, 188 

189, 205, 206, 207 
relating to method of demanding the yeas and nays in 

legislature 57, 128, 129, 130 

fixing the hour of meeting of the convention 5, 17 

as to time when the term of officers elected in November, 

1888, shall expire 212 

authorizing the appointment of pages 24 

authorizing the appointment of tellers 14, 24, 31 

relating to the drawing of seats 16, 17 

to provide copies of the constitution for the use of mem- 
bers of the convention 22 

providing for the election of officers 15 

relating to rules for the government of the convention 16 

in relation to daily papers 20, 24,.33, 34, 45 

in relation to printing the rules of the convention 20 

as to printing the proceedings of the convention 253 

in relation to the memorial of the New England Woman 

Suffrage Association 212, 213 

relating to final adjournment 212, 249, 250, 252 

relating to pay of officers of the convention 257 

of thanks to president of the convention 259 

remarks upon 259, 260, 261 

of thanks to officers of the convention 262 

relating to bill of S. S. Jackman & Co 258, 259 

relating to the term of service of certain judicial officers 130 

131, 154 

Report of committee on bill of rights and executive department 113 

future mode of amending the constitution and 

other proposed amendments.. 112, 113, 154, 217, 253 

judicial department 113, 154 

legislative department 140, 145, 146, 233, 234 

special committee on prohibitory amendment 155, 232 

organization 17,18 

rules 18, 19, 20 

publication of proceedings of the con- 
vention 251, 252 

Reporter, official, of proceedings of the convention 16 

qualifications of 24 

Reconsideration of vote adopting rules 19, 29, 30 

in relation to reference of the proposed 
amendment in relation to the election of 

officers by a plurality vote 23, 24 

Republican Press Association, bill of 257 

Richards, Dexter 12, 51, 188, 205, 211 

Richards, James K 12, 189, 205, 211 

Richardson, Mrs 46 

Roby, Gustavus 13, 51, 187, 205, 211 

Roll of convention, how to be made up 21,22 



INDEX. 305 

Roll-call on prohibitory amendment 187, 188, 189, 205, 206, 207 

Rounsevel, Royal D 13, 51, 187, 206, 211 

Rowell, Clark F 11,14,23,30,51,211 

Rowell, Miss Clara E 55 

Ruggles, Edward R 4, 13, 17, 51, 61, 189, 205, 211, 220, 221, 222 

remarks by, on striking the word "Protestant " 

from the bill of rights 220, 221, 222, 228 

Rules, committee on 17 

report of 18, 19, 20 

reconsideration of vote adopting 29, 30 

amendment to 131, 132, 133 

temporary 16 

Ryan, John C 10, 187, 206, 211 

Salary of members of the General Court 46, 54, 55, 65, 77 to 104, 145 

president of the Senate and speaker of the House 101, 102, 145 

Sanborn, Abner J 10, 211 

George W 5, 187, 206, 211 

Harrison 5, 189, 206, 211 

James A 6, 109, 188, 206, 211 

John W 4, 8, 14, 17, 52, 130, 154, 188, 206, 211 

Joseph N 7,51,188,211 

Richard F 12,187,205,211 

William 5, 206, 211, 263 

Sawyer, Horace E 13, 16, 52 

William H 9, 188, 189, 206, 211 

Schoppe, Winfleld S 14,51,188,206,211 

Scott, Mark A 6, 188, 206, 211 

Seats, relating to drawing of , 16, 17, 21 

Secretary, temporary 3 

election of 18 

resolution providing for election of 15 

pay of 253 

qualification of 18 

instructions to 251, 252, 253 

assistant, election of 18 

resolution providing for election of 15 

pay of 253 

qualification of 18 

Sergeant-at-arms, resolution as to 15 

election of 18 

pay of 253 

qualification of 18 

Select committee on woman suffrage .,. . . 212, 213 

time when term of certain officers expires 212 

Senate, relating basis of representation in 249, 250, 251 

Shepard, James E 9, 189, 206, 211 

Sherman, Joseph F 13, 188, 206, 211 

Shurtleff, A. J., official reporter 16 

qualification of 24 

Sisson, William H 12, 51, 53, 189, 206, 211 

Simpson, T. S., petition of 112 

Smith, Charles G 13, 51, 188, 206, 211 

Smith, Charles J 10, 52, 92, 93, 188, 206, 211 

remarks by, on salary of members of the legislature.. 92, 93 



306 . * INDEX. 

Smith, David H 7,52, 189,206,211 

Smith, David O 10, 189, 206, 211 

Smitli, Hazen D 13, 52, 61, 112, 113, 188, 206, 211 

Smith, Isaac W 10, 14, 15, 17, 23, 25, 29, 36, 47, 50, 56, 60, 113, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122 

133, 149, 150, 151, 189, 206, 211, 212, 216, 217, 218 
223, 224, 225, 227, 234, 247, 248, 250, 259, 260, 263 

remarks by, on committee of the whole . . 23 

election of civil officers by plurality 

vote 25, 26, 27, 216, 217 

changing time of holding session of 

legislature 56, 149, 234 

representation of classed towns 60, 247, 248 

future mode of amending constitution. 117 

118, 121, 122 
striking word "Protestant" from bill 

of rights 223, 224, 225 

resolution of thanks to the president 

of the convention presented by.... 259, 260 

Smith, John C 9, 188, 206, 211 

Smith, Joseph P 4, 12, 51, 211 

Smith, Thomas J 14, 109, 211 

Smith, William H 14,16,51,188,206,211 

Spalter, Wilton H 11,189,206,211 

Spaulding, Clark S 12, 16, 51, 189, 206, 211 

Special committee, report of, relating to memorial of the New Eng- 
land Woman Suffrage Association... 249 
appointed to ascertain when term of 

certain officers expires 263, 264 

discharge of 264 

report of, on publication of proceedings of the 

convention 251, 252 

Standing committees 50, 51, 52 

Stevens, Frederick C 12, 211 

Stone, Lucy, relating to 110, 111 

Story, Abram B 10, 189, 206, 211 

Stowell, George H 12, 51, 206, 211 

Suffrage, woman, relating to 110, 111 

Sullivan, John II 8,52,188,206,211 

Sulloway, Alvah W 4,9,52,188,206,211 

Sweetzer, Almon H., doorkeeper 18 

pay of 257 

Taggart, James G 9, 189, 206, 211 

Tellers appointed 31 

to count votes for president 14 

Thompson, Edwin P 7, 52, 53, 189, 206, 211 

Thurston, James 3, 6, 18, 74, 75, 109, 162, 1(53, 189, 206, 211, 225, 227, 257 

elected chaplain 18 

pay of, as chaplain 257 

remarks by, on election of civil officers by plurality vote 74, 75 

prohibitory amendment 162, 163 

striking word "Protestant" from bill of 

rights 225,227 

Tilton, Hiram S 12,188,206,211 



INDEX. 307 



Tilton, Timothy, doorkeeper 18 

pay of 257 

To<ltl, William C 5, 16, 42, 45, 51, 53, 56, 82 

109, 140, 141, 142, 144, 189, 206, 2il, 227, 261, 263 
remarks by, on changing time of holding session of 

legislature 42 

vacancies in the Senate 53, 140, 141 

striking word " Protestant" from bill 

of rights 226 

resolution of thanks to president of 

the convention 261 

Towle, Emmons B 5, 189, 206, 211 

Trefethen.Johnl... 6,188,206,211 

Tutherly, William, elected assistant secretary 18 

pay of 257 

Underbill, John, doorkeeper 18, 257 

Union, Daily, resolution relating to 20, 24, 33, 34, 45 

Walker, Joseph B 8, 17, 39, 40, 51, 57, 90, 91, 128, 129, 140, 189, 206, 211, 266 

remarks by, on changing time of holding session of 

legislature ... 39, 40 

fixing the salary of members of the 

legislature 90,96 

method of demanding the yeas and 

nays in the legislature 128, 129 

Wallace, Robert M 10, 13, 21, 22, 52, 102, 103, 123, 189, 206, 211 

remarks by, on copies of constitution 21 

newspapers for use of members of 

convention 22 

salary of members of legislature . . . 102, 103 

future mode of amending constitu- 
tion 123 

Wallace, William M 13, 77, 189, 206, 211 

Washburn, Benjamin T 13, 189, 206, 211 

Waterhouse, William E 6, 189, 206, 211 

Watson, John P 9, 188, 206, 211 

Webster, John 7,52, 109,189,206,211 

Weeks, Joseph D 4, 13, 51, 130, 188, 206, 211 

Wells, Christopher H 7,52,189,206,211,217 

Wheeler, Ruel F 6,188,206,211 

Whitcher, Moses 13,188,206,211 

White, Armenia S 110 

Whitman, Nelson S 11,188,206,211 

Whitney, Charles H... 11,189,206,211 

Whitney, Daniel : 13,188,206,211 

Whittaker, George 10, 189, 206, 211 

Whittier, Josiah H 7, 61, 188, 206, 211 

Wiggin, Arthur E 8, 52, 189, 206, 211 

Wiggin, George H 9, 189, 206, 211 

Wilkinson, Ruf us 10, 188, 206, 211 

Wilkins, Wesley J 8, 16, 50, 51, 109, 188 

Williams, George B 4, 12, 52, 188, 206, 211 

Willis, George W 12, 51, 167, 206, 211 



308 INDEX. 



Wilson, Horace W 10, 189,206,211 

Winch, Thomas 12,189,206,211 

Woman's Christian Temperance Union 31, 32, 46, 47, 55 

Woman Suffrage 109, 110, 111, 212, 213, 218, 219, 249 

Wood, Charles T 7, 189, 20<>, 211 

Woodman, Edgar H 8, 57,109, 130, 179,180,189,206,211 

remarks by, on prohibitory amendment 179, 180 

Woolson, Augustus A 13, 16, 30, 38, 44, 50, 51, 106, 116 

127, 131, 132, 140, 189, 206, 211, 218 
remarks by, on amending the rules 131, 132 

Yeas and nays on prohibitory amendment 187, 188, 189, 205, 206, 207 







YC 36130 




&..bMiHHl