Page images
PDF
EPUB

pressed by the importance of consulting "unity of purpose or uniformity of operation" in the legislation with regard to fugitive slaves, the Court has assumed a power over this subject, and then, as a natural incident to this assumption, it has excluded the States from all sovereignty in the premises.

Now, if this rule be applicable to the pretended power over fugitive slaves, it is more applicable to the power over the militia which nobody questions. Besides, I know of no power which so absolutely requires what has been regarded as an important criterion, "unity of purpose or uniformity of operation," as that over the militia. No uniform military organization can spring from opposite or inharmonious systems, and all systems proceeding from different sources are liable to be opposite or inharmonious.

Now, sir, let us apply this reasoning to the matter in hand, that we may arrive at a just conclusion. In Massachusetts, there exists, and has for a long time existed, an anomalous system, familiarly and loosely described as the Volunteer Militia, not composed absolutely of those enrolled under the laws of the United States, but a smaller, more select and peculiar body. Now it cannot be doubted that the State, by virtue of its police powers within its own borders, has power to constitute or organize a body of volunteers, to aid in enforcing its laws. But it does not follow that it has power to constitute or organize a body of volunteers, who shall be regarded as a part of the National Militia. And, sir, I make bold to say that the volunteer militia I prefer to call it the volunteer military companies - cannot be regarded as a part of the National Militia. It is no part of that

[ocr errors]

uniform militia which it was the object of the early Act of Congress to organize. It may appear to be a part of this system—it may affect to be, but I submit, it is a mistake to suppose that it is so in any just constitutional sense.

As a local system, disconnected from the national militia, and not in any way constrained by its organization, it is within our jurisdiction. We are free to declare the principles which shall govern it. We may declare that, whatever may be the existing law of the United States with regard to its enrolled militia - and with this I propose no interference, because it would be futile - I say, Massachusetts may proudly declare that in her own volunteer military companies, marshalled under her own local laws, there shall be no distinction of color or race.

THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM AND ITS

PROPER BASIS.

SPEECH ON THE PROPOSITION TO AMEND THE BASIS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE CONVENTION TO REVISE AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THAT STATE, 7TH JULY, 1853.

Mr. President, if the question under consideration were less important in its bearings, or less embarrassed by conflicting opinions, I should hesitate to break the silence which I have been inclined to

[ocr errors]

preserve in this Convention. In taking the seat to which, while absent from the Commonwealth, in another sphere of duty, I have been unexpectedly chosen, I felt that it would be becoming in me and that my associates here would recognize the propriety of my course considering the little opportunities I had of late enjoyed to make myself acquainted with the sentiments of the people on proposed changes, especially in comparison with friends to whom this movement is mainly due on these accounts, and, also, on other accounts, I felt that it would be becoming in me to interfere as little as possible with these debates. To others, I have willingly left the part which I might have taken.

And now, when I think that since our labors began, weeks, even months, have passed, and that the term has been already reached, when, according to the just

[ocr errors]

expectations and earnest desires of many, they should be closed, I feel that acts rather than words that votes rather than speeches at least such as I might hope to make are needed here, to the end that the Convention, seasonably, and effectively completing its beneficent work, may itself be hailed as a Great Act in the history of the Commonwealth.

But the magnitude of this question justifies debate: and allow me to add that the State, our common mother, may feel proud of the ability, the eloquence, and the good temper with which it has thus far been conducted. Gentlemen have addressed the Convention in a manner which would grace any assembly, which it has been my fortune to know, at home or abroad. Sir, the character of these proceedings gives us new assurance for the future. The alarmist, who starts at every suggestion of change, and the croaker, who augurs constant evil from the irresistible tendency of events, must confess, that there are men here, to whose intelligence and patriotism, under God, the interests of our beloved Commonwealth may be entrusted. Yes, sir, Massachusetts is safe. Whatever may be the result even of the present important question-whichsoever scheme of representation may be adopted— Massachusetts will continue to prosper as in times past.

But

In the course of human history, two States, small in territory, have won enviable renown by their genius and devotion to Freedom, so that their very names awaken echoes; I refer to Athens and Scotland. Athens even at Salamis, repelling the Persian host, or afterwards, in the golden days of Pericles and Scotland, throughout her long struggles with England,

[ocr errors]

down to the very act of Union at the beginning of the last century were inferior, each of them, in population and in wealth, to Massachusetts at this moment. It belongs to us, according to our capacities, to see that this comparison does not end here. Others may believe that our duty will be best accomplished by standing still. I believe that it can be completely done only by a constant incessant advance in all things -in knowledge, in science, in art, and lastly in government itself, destined to be the bright consummation, on earth, of all knowledge, all science, and all art.

And now, sir, in framing anew our Constitution, we encounter a difficulty which at its original formation in 1780, perplexed our fathers which perplexed the Convention of 1820 which with its perplexities has haunted successive Legislatures and the whole people down to this day and which now perplexes us. This difficulty occurs in determining the Representative System, and it arises mainly from the corporate claims of towns. From an early period, the towns in the State, both great and small, with slight exceptions, have sent one or more representatives to the Legislature. In primitive days, when the towns were few and the whole population was scanty, this arrangement was convenient at least, if not equitable. But now, with the increased number of towns, and the unequal distribution of a large population, it has become inconvenient, if not inequitable. The existing system does not work well, and we are summoned to reform it.

And here, sir, let me congratulate the Convention that, on this most important question, transcending

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »