FRIDAY, July 15th, 1853.

The Convention assembled pursuant to adjournment, and was called to order by the President at nine o'clock.

Prayer by the Chaplain.

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read.

Orders of the Day.

On motion of Mr. BUTLER, of Lowell, the Convention proceeded to the consideration of the Orders of the Day.

Limitation of Speeches.

The PRESIDENT stated the first business in order to be the consideration of an order presented yesterday by the gentleman from Bernardston, (Mr. Cushman,) to limit the time allowed to each member to speak upon any question, to half an hour.

Mr. BUTLER observed, that he did not mean to oppose the adoption of the rule; but, he would remark, that we had for sometime had a rule of the Convention, limiting the speeches of members to an hour each, yet that rule had never been enforced in one single instance. Whenever a gentleman had consumed his hour without concluding his remarks, members would cry, "go on," "go on,” and he would go on so long as he pleased. Under such circumstances, of course, it would be a personal matter for any gentleman to get up and object. He was in favor of limiting the debate, but he saw no benefit in adopting a rule you

[July 15th.

could not enforce, and gentlemen had better carry out their hour rule before they undertook to make any new ones upon the subject. Unless there could be an amendment to the order now before the Convention, which should limit gentlemen to half an hour, and then make general consent for them to go on, go for nothing, he thought the rule would be of little avail. He saw, very much, the need of curtailing the debate. He could say all he had to say, and more too, in the course of half an hour. And if any gentleman thought any good could be effected by the adoption of the order, it should have his vote.

Mr. CUSHMAN, of Bernardston, thought there was a great necessity for something of this kind to be adopted. The Convention were now in the eleventh week of their session. They had already consumed much more time than was expected when they commenced, and some measure should be adopted to bring their labors to a close. He appealed to gentlemen to say if, at this period of the session, half an hour was not long enough for any member to speak? The Convention would not listen patiently to them for a longer time. If they desired their speeches to produce an effect upon the Convention itself, they would certainly fail to accomplish the object by continuing them beyond that limit; and if they desired that their speeches should go upon the record for the perusal of posterity, they would be much more likely to be read by making them short.

In regard to the suggestion of the gentleman from Lowell, (Mr. Butler,) he thought it would

be rather inconsistent for him to accept it as an amendment; but he would say, for himself, that if the order was adopted, and hereafter at the close of any half hour speech, there should be a cry of go on," "go on," he would pledge himself to rise in his place, and object. If the order was adopted, he hoped it would be adhered to rigidly, and he could see no reason why it should not be. A MEMBER suggested that all the subjects of importance had been before the Convention, and had been discussed to a considerable extent, and there was, therefore, no more need of long speeches.

Mr. EARLE, of Worcester, said, that so far as he was personally concerned, he did not care whether the order was adopted or not, but if it was adopted, he hoped that members would not be allowed to go on by general consent, beyond the time allotted to them under the rule. If one member was allowed, by general consent, to go on beyond his time, no gentleman would think of enforcing the rule against another member who desired also to speak more than his time. He hoped the rule would be rigidly enforced if it was adopted. And he gave notice that if, should it become one of the rules of the Convention, and any member in future was allowed to go on beyond his time, he would move to abrogate the rule itself.

Mr. KNOWLTON, of Worcester, said, he was as anxious as any member in the Convention to bring this session to a close. He had given a practical demonstration of his anxiety in that respect, by sitting quietly in his seat ever since the session first commenced. But there were important questions upon the table of the Convention, which had not been touched. There was one, especially, which he had been waiting a fortnight for an opportunity to call up, but had not yet found a chance-a subject which is regarded by a portion of the community, and an influential portion too, as one of the most important that can be brought before the Convention. While, therefore, he did not wish that any man should occupy the time of the Convention for a moment more than necessity required, he desired that the subject to which he had referred should receive more consideration than it could receive in a half hour discussion. For that reason, he hoped the order would not be adopted.

Mr. STEVENS, of Rehoboth, remarked that he had noticed, since the hour rule was adopted, that when members had spoken to the extent of their limit, there was a general cry of " on," and they had taken it for granted that such was the desire of the Convention, and without any formal action upon the part of the Convention

"go

[July 15th.

That was all

granting them leave, have gone on. right. He supposed that when any one came to the end of his hour, and no one cried "go on," he would take it for granted that the Convention did not want to hear him, and sit down.

Again, he had noticed that when any attempt had been made here to curtail debate in any shape whatever, for the purpose of progressing more rapidly with the business, nothing had been accomplished by it, and he believed no good would be accomplished by the adoption of this limit. There was yet important business to come before the Convention. The gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Knowlton,) had referred to an important matter which he had been for some time waiting for an opportunity to call up.

So far as the one hour system was concerned, if any gentleman could not say all he wanted to say in that time, and it should be the general wish for him to continue, he saw no objection. He should vote against the adoption of the order.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield, trusted that the motion would prevail, as the Convention ought to adjourn next week, and the adoption of this rule would facilitate such a result. The hour rule had worked well, and although in a few instances speakers had been allowed to go on beyond their hour, yet we had gained a good deal of time in the long run by its adoption. He hoped, therefore, that the present proposition would be adopted.

Mr. ALLEN moved the following amendment, to come in at the end of the resolution :-" Provided the chairman of each Committee of the Convention shall be allowed one hour upon the subject of his Report."

The question was taken on the amendment, and it was agreed to.

The question was then taken on the order as amended, and it was agreed to.

Loan of State Credit.

The PRESIDENT. The first question before the Convention is upon the motion of Mr. Thompson, of Charlestown, to reconsider the vote by which the resolve concerning the loan of the State credit, was ordered to a second reading.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Charlestown. I have but few words to say in reference to the motion I had the honor to submit a few days since. I deem the question to be too important, involving as it does the great interests of the Commonwealth, to be settled by so thin a House as it was the day when the amendment was offered to the original Report, and adopted by the Convention. I am opposed to that amendment, and desire to submit some reasons why I am thus opposed.

Two corpo

Sir, I am opposed to thus restricting the legisla- | ture in their action upon a matter of so much interest to the Commonwealth. What has been the experience of the State in relation to the action heretofore taken by the legislature upon this subject of loaning the credit of the State? Has it not been promotive of her best interests? I believe no one will deny that it has, at least no member has as yet denied it. Has it not done more to develop the mineral and other resources of the Commonwealth, to build up villages and increase the taxable property of the State on the lines of the several roads to which the loans have been made, than any other cause? And I would ask, has the Commonwealth suffered any loss, or is it within the range of probability that she can suffer any loss, from the course pursued on this matter? I believe no one will for a moment pretend that she has, or that she can. rations to whom smaller loans have been made by the State, have been prepared to reimburse to the State, and if I am correctly informed, have offered to redeem the whole, or a large portion of that loaned to them, but the Commonwealth declined taking it. How stands the matter with reference to the other great corporation about which so much has been said here, and to which the loan of four millions of dollars was made. The Commonwealth holds stock of that corporation to the whole amount of the loan, besides having a preference over the whole stock held by individuals in that corporation, which is now worth about par, and has been within a short time above par, and could have been sold in the market at a profit of over $50,000. It may be asked, why was not that done? I believe a good and sufficient answer to that is, it was for the interest of the Commonwealth to allow it to remain, for the reason that the State was receiving from that stock seven or eight per cent. interest, and she could not have obtained over five per cent. upon the money derived from the sale thereof; hence, as a business transaction, I say it was a wise and judicious course for the executive to refuse to sell the stock, or take any portion of the money. We are told these loans were an experiment. Admit they were; but does the success of an experiment furnish any argument why it should not be repeated? I think not.

The amendment which was adopted, I conceive to be one that amounts to an entire prohibition of loaning the credit of the State, under all or any circumstances. What is it, and what does it require? A vote of two-thirds of both branches of the legislature—a greater vote than is required to amend the Constitution. I think, Sir, it would be more to the credit of the Convention, to come

up openly and boldly, and assert, in the organic law, that the credit of the State shall never be loaned, than to attempt to prohibit it by such an indirect measure as this amendment would practically carry out. Sir, I am in favor, in all cases, of doing things openly and boldly, and not by any covert means, or the introduction of amendments which may have some plausibility in them, but which, when they come to be applied practically, amount to a prohibition, as much as if explicit words to that effect had been used in the Constitution. I wish that the legislature may stand, in reference to this matter, as they have stood heretofore; and, as I before remarked in relation to the experience of the Commonwealth, it does strike me that it is the dictate of wisdom to profit by the experience of the past. Generally, in business matters, the lessons of experience are the most advantageous and profitable; and I think we need not fear any loss by following the experience of the past in this matter, and allow every case that comes up to be judged of or acted upon in reference to its merits. There may be, and I have no doubt there will be, cases come up when the interests of the Commonwealth may be promoted to as great an extent as they have been in times past; but if we allow this amendment to remain as the action of this Convention, however great may be the necessity, and however much the interests of the Commonwealth might be promoted by carrying out or adopting the same policy which has been heretofore pursued, the gates are entirely closed against the adoption of any such policy. I hope, therefore, that the restrictive amendment will be rejected, upon farther consideration, and that we shall trust the servants of the people to legislate upon this subject as they have in times past, believing, as I do most fully, that the interests of the Commonwealth will be guarded and protected, and that we may expect a promotion of our true interests, instead of any loss which may accrue from such a course.

Mr. GRISWOLD, for Erving. I have been desirous, at some stage of the proceedings, to make a few remarks in relation to this matter, and I will now occupy but a few minutes of the time of the Convention. It seems to me that some false issues have been raised in the course of this discussion. In the first place, the proposition which has been adopted by the Convention, and which it is now proposed to reconsider, will have the effect of putting it out of the power of the legislature hereafter to make a loan in any case; because, if you make a restriction that it shall require a vote of two-thirds of each branch of the legislature, any gentleman can see that it is equivalent to shutting down the gate altogether. I

It

have taken the trouble to go back and examine the yeas and nays upon the loans which have been made heretofore, and I find that where they were taken in the House, in no one instance-I have only examined those in relation to the Western Railroad-did one of these loans pass by a vote of two-thirds of the members present. If you require a vote of two-thirds of all elected, it is nearly absolutely certain that no loan hereafter can be passed by the legislature, so that the question before this Convention is, whether you will do as you have done in times past, and leave it to the legislature to settle these matters upon their merits, or whether you will put an absolute prohibition into the Constitution. That is the practical effect of the proposition which we now propose to reconsider. I am not a little surprised at the course which this question has taken. Who supposed, when this Convention was called, that the proposition would be seriously entertained here of incorporating a provision in your Constitution which should forever after tie up the hands of the legislature, and put it out of their power to enter upon and maintain such a policy, however great the emergency might be for a different course of policy. This is a new proposition. was not entertained by gentlemen who first advocated the proposition for calling this Convention. I think that our true policy requires that we should make such changes, and such only, in the Constitution as are clearly warranted and demanded by the public sentiment of the Commonwealth. I think it would be a short-sighted and dangerous policy for this Convention to enter upon experiments and incorporate into the Constitution a provision in regard to which no great feeling was entertained—a provision which, perhaps, in its results, might endanger the whole Constitution. I say then, as a matter of expediency, let us confine ourselves in our action here to those changes which the public clearly demands, and upon which there cannot be that diversity of sentiment which must exist in regard to the question now before us. In the first place, is there any necessity, any exigency for incorporating such a provision into the Constitution? I do not now raise the question as to the expediency or propriety of granting loans by the State at all; but is there anything in the past experience of Massachusetts which requires that any such provision should be incorporated into the Constitution? None whatever. Massachusetts has loaned her credit to seven different railroad corporations. Almost every portion of the Commonwealth has received the benefit of the resources of the Commonwealth in this respect, and every one of these loans has been perfectly safe to the Common

[July 15th.

wealth. I have taken the trouble, in order to put this question at rest, to examine this matter myself, and I have a letter also before me from the auditor of the Commonwealth, who of course is perfectly familiar with this whole subject, in which he says that there is no probability that the State will ever lose the first dollar by it. Every one of these lines is perfectly secure; the interest has been promptly paid whenever it was due, and the principal itself is sufficiently secured in future, and two of the roads have paid up the loans. If this be so, what is the reason for incorporating into the Constitution a provision such as this, when the legislature has hitherto been a wise and safe depository of this power. Why, gentlemen say, because other States have run foolishly into debt. This reminds me of a person in health sending for a physician. The physician calls, and he tells his patient that he is not sick, and that he has no need of a physician; but the individual says, My neighbor is sick, and I shall certainly be sick, and I must take some medicine; and thus, against the protestations of the physician, he concludes to take medicine and thus destroys his health, when, if he had let it alone, he would have been quite well. The fact that other States, upon this subject of granting loans, have run into experiments, is no argument for Massachusetts.

Allow me to say a single word in relation to the matter of our farms being mortgaged. I do not know that I should have said anything upon this point, had it not been that an appeal was made to the Democratic portion of this Convention. I know very well that at one time there was a great cry in this Commonwealth that our farms were all mortgaged in consequence of loans to the Western Railroad. I am free to confess that I joined in that cry myself; and it was one of those things which the party with which I was associated used for political capital for several years. I was honest in the sentiments I then entertained, that our farms were mortgaged, and that these loans were not safe; but a most careful examination of the whole matter, together with the experience of eight or ten years, has convinced me—and I am equally honest in saying now what I know to be true-that there is no incumbrance whatever upon our farms in this respect, but on the other hand, there can be no doubt that the real and personal property of Massachusetts has been advanced in value by these loans, many millions.

Why, Sir, I speak from the book in relation to this matter, for I have been now nearly four years in the direction of the Western Railroad, as one of the State Directors. Will gentlemen just look