The order of the day being called up,

Mr. SLOCUM of Dartmouth.-Mr. President, I feel myself very incompetent to lead the way in the discussion which is to take place on the subject of the resolves (proposed by Judge PRESCOTT,) which have now been read. When I look around me and see so many venerable men experienced in public affairs, some of whom have had a share in making our constitution, and many have taken a part in the administration of it, I feel the smalless of my abilities, but I deem it my duty to express my sentiments on the resolutions, confident that what is well intended will be favorably received. I thought the first question would be whether we should make any amendment in the constitution; but now we are taking this for granted, and parcelling it out in order to make them. We are leaping the stile before we get to it. I hope the report will not prevail; I do not know that my wishes will prevail, but I think it my duty to express them. I shall now sit down, and hear what other gentlemen have to say, and I shall be very happy to be convinced by their arguments; otherwise I shall remain opposed to these resolutions.

Mr. DANA of Groton said, that as no gentleman rose to present his views to the Convention, he would make a few observations. He said that the inquiry now presented, was whether the mode proposed was the best method of entering upon the business of the Convention. The old convention had no land-marks to direct them in the course which they were to pursue; but our labors were of a different kind. We had a constitution, which was believed by many to be perfect already. It was stated by the gentleman who moved the resolutions (Judge PRESCOTT), that the whole constitution was to be revised by us. This sentiment met with his entire and hearty approbation. He approved of the form in which the subject had been presented in these resolutions, because he presumed that different gentlemen had come with views to particular parts; and certain members would be better masters of particular parts than any could be of the whole entire. The several committees will have studied the parts referred to them, and when their reports come in, they would be more complete and satisfactory. There would besides be a large body of the members assembled, who could not be much employed, till the subjects had been matured in the committees. That mode which will employ the greatest number was the best. He had not examined whether the subject could be differently divided, but it was not material in what manner it was divided. The forms are such, that every member can be assured that his propositions will have full consideration; and he was on the whole well satisfied with the mode proposed. He was not able to conceive a mode better adapted than the one presented by the gentleman from Boston.

Mr. VARNUM of Dracut. I am very sorry, Mr. President, to be compelled to differ from the gentleman from Groton. Great formality has been used in taking the sense of the people of this Com

monwealth, and a large majority have voted in favor of a revision of the constitution. The several towns have in consequence sent their delegates to look over the constitution, and see whether it requires any, and what amendments. The people have judged for themselves that the whole is to be revised; but now we are parcelling out the constitution, one part to one committee, and another to another, before we have determined that any amendment ought to be made. Now that we are assembled in Convention, it is our duty to inquire what we are to do, and what we may not do.

(The hon. gentleman then read the third section of the act providing for calling the Convention; which section, among other things, prescribes that the delegates elected, when organized, may take into consideration the propriety and expediency of making any, and if any, what alterations and amendments in the present Constitution of Government of the Commonwealth.)

He proceeded-We have met according to the act, in the State House in Boston. So far we have done right. What further then are we to do? We are to take into consideration whether the constitution requires any amendment. It appears to me that we are not to touch a finger to the sacred instrument, under which our institutions have grown up, under which we have so long enjoyed prosperity and happiness, until this question is decided. We are not to begin by parcelling it out in the manner proposed by these resolutions. In my opinion, our only proper way is to read the whole constitution, either in convention, or in a committee of the whole, and point out those parts which require amendment, proceeding article by article. The Convention is sent here to consider what will be for the public good, not only of this generation, but of thousands yet unborn. What are the objections to the mode which I am recommending? That it will waste time? Instead of consuming time, Mr. President, it will save time. Those parts which we pass over will stand firm, and those only which require amendment, will be left to occupy our attention; but if we send out committees, their reports will be discussed as much as the whole constitution; and will thus cause a great deal of time to be wasted. these resolutions shall not be adopted, I shall move, that the Convention resolve itself into a committee of the whole, in order that it may take such a course as upon deliberation shall be deemed expedient. I shall vote against the present motion, in order to bring forward the proposition I have before suggested; and the subject now before the Convention, I esteem of such vital importance, that I shall call for the yeas and nays on the question when it shall be taken.

If

The motion was then put, whether the question when taken should be by yeas and nays, and carried-139 in favor-being more than one fifth of the members present.

Mr. BLAKE of Boston rose. Professing to have little acquaintance with the proceedings of legislative bodies, he had originally contemplated no course as most appropriate to this occasion. He was, however, yesterday much pleased with the mode proposed by

these resolutions; and, on further reflection, he had been more and more satisfied that it was the best possible course that could be pursued. It was impossible to give a construction to the law by which we should not at some time or other examine every part of the venerable instrument. What was a more convenient time to proceed to examine it, and how could it be better done, than by taking it up in several parts. The gentleman from Dracut had observed that we had no liberty to put our finger upon a single article, until we had examined the whole instrument. He would ask, how it was possible to examine the whole constitution, without considering it in parts?

Mr. VARNUM rose to explain. His idea was, that they had no right to parcel it out until the Convention had decided that the whole should be the subject of amendment.

Mr. BLAKE proceeded. How could the Convention determine whether the whole constitution should be subject to amendments, without first examining the parts of which it is composed? The language of the constitution was simple, and easily comprehended by persons of moderate capacity. Still, it embraced a variety of important subjects, and they must be, at some time or other, examined in all their parts. Can this be done more satisfactorily, than by dividing the whole instrument among a number of respectable committees, leaving it to the whole Convention to judge and act upon their reports, and, afterwards, upon the whole constitution? There was a great variety of opinions. Almost every individual had formed his particular project for amendment. Each one had his own ingredients to throw into the political cauldron, and it might be imagined what would be the mixture. He said it was their duty to bring into exercise the greatest portion of intellect which could be commanded in this body, and it was no compliment to say, that it would be of the highest character. This could not be done in any other manner, than by placing it in the hands of committees, judiciously selected. He did not think there was any force in the suggestion made yesterday, that this mode was calculated to produce a mass of disjointed materials. If we assembled to form a new constitution, there might be some aptness in the comparison of the gentleman (Gen. VARNUM); but God forbid that any of us should entertain an idea that we were to form a new constitution. We have the power to examine the instrument committed to us, to supply its defects. We have a fabric already erected; there may be defects in it. He believed that such as there were arose rather from accidental circumstances, than from any inherent fault. He believed that the manner which the gentleman from Dracut had proposed, would be attended with great mischiefs; and that that offered in the resolutions on the table, was the best that could be devised.

Mr. HUBBARD of Boston said, that as they were appointed to revise the whole constitution, he would move to amend the first resolution, so as to include the preamble, together with the Declaration of Rights.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. WEBSTER observed, that the appointment of committees was no derogation from the powers of the Convention, nor a transfer of the trusts which the people had reposed in them, to others. It was certainly true, that the Convention itself was bound to inquire into the propriety and expediency of making alterations in the constitution. But how was it to inquire? It was a numerous, deliberative body; clearly resembling, in its organization, a numerous legislative body. It, therefore, had adopted its rules of proceeding, in general, from the practice of legislative bodies; and, among others, the common rules respecting the appointment of committees. He would ask, therefore, why it might not proceed in the important inquiries before it, as other such bodies are accustomed to proceed? It had been urged, by the honorable member from Dracut, that no committee ought to be appointed, on any part of the constitution, until the Convention had come to a conclusion that such part needed amendment. But why might not the Convention commence an inquiry into this very matter, the necessity of any alteration by a committee? It seemed to be treated in argument, as if it were a proposition to confide in others, the authority committed to our own hands. He did not look upon the proposition in that light. Committees are but instruments and organs of the body which appoints them. They are but means, which the body uses to aid it, in its inquiries and investigations. The constitution of this Commonwealth confers on the General Court, and on no other body, authority to lay taxes, establish judicatures, and pass laws. The General Court cannot transfer or delegate this power; and yet every one knows that in exercising it, the General Court uniformly acts through the agency of committees. What tax is laid, what judicature established, what law passed, without committees first appointed to inquire into the propriety and expediency of the proposed measure in every case? He thought it a mere question of expediency and fitness, whether the Convention should proceed in its inquiries, in the first place, by committees, or in another course. He was favorable to the appointment of committees; among other reasons, because he thought that mode would give greater security against ill-considered and hasty propositions of change. We might, it was true, go into committee of the whole upon the constitution, in the first instance, and go through it, paragraph by paragraph; but he thought it better to follow the usual forms, and to inquire by committees in the first instance. Everybody knew, of course, that on the report of any committee being made, any member might oppose it, or propose to amend it, or to recommit it; or, he might bring forward himself any amendment to the constitution which the committee had not brought forward. No member would be precluded from an opportunity of submitting any proposition to the Convention. At the same time, it might be confidently hoped, that the reports of respectable committees might contain useful suggestions and reasons on the subjects reported on

by them, and might produce an effect on the judgment and discretion of members, with respect to the propriety of proposing alterations. It was in this way, as he thought, that the proceeding by way of committees, while it left an entire liberty to every member, to bring forward his propositions, might yet have some tendency to produce a salutary caution in regard to the propriety of submitting such propositions. This course seemed to him, on the whole, to be expedient, and he thought it quite clear, at least, that from the duty imposed upon the Convention by the law, there was no impropriety in their adopting it, if they judged it the most suitable manner of commencing their important inquiries.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on the adoption of the first resolution, and carried in the affirmative. Yeas 377, nays 90.

It was then moved that the question be taken on the rest of the resolutions together. Agreed to.

The question on the acceptance of the other nine resolutions was then taken, and decided in the affirmative, without a division.

On successive motions, it was ordered that the committee, to whom should be referred the part of the constitution embraced in the first resolution, should consist of twenty-one members. The committee under the 2d resolution, of fifteen members; the 3d, of twenty-nine; the 4th, of fifteen; the 5th, of twenty-one; the 6th, of fifteen; the 7th, of fifteen; the 8th, of five; the 9th, of twentyone; and the tenth, of twenty-one.

Mr. CHILDS of Pittsfield said he hoped it would not be indelicate, or be thought to show any want of respect to the chair, if he should move that the committee on the first resolution should be chosen by ballot. He had no doubt that the President would act with the strictest impartiality, but he thought it would be impossible for any single man to have such a knowledge of all the members as to be able to appoint a committee on this important subject which should represent the interests and feelings of all the different parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr. WEBSTER spoke on the impracticability of the measure proposed. He said it would be a great waste of time to choose all the committees, one consisting of twenty-one, another of twenty-nine members; and the others of a large number of members. All the ballots that would be necessary, could not be gone through with in a week. To state the proposition, was enough to show it to be impracticable. It was stated by the mover that the presiding officer could not have the requisite information. But his proposition rendered it necessary that every member should have the requisite information. When they were nominated from the chair, the House would act upon each one, and either confirm or reject it. The appointments would be entirely within the power of the House. This would be a sufficient check, if any were necessary, upon the presiding officer, acting as he would under the responsibility belonging to his station.