\^^ !•■ 
 
 aJ**: 
 
 U 
 
 h^:^- 
 
Glass 
 
 Book M^3 
 
ANSWER OF THE WHIG MEMBERS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Address of His Excellency Iflarcus morton. 
 
ANSWER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 WHIG MEMBERS 
 
 / ^- 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 CONSTITUTING 
 
 A MAJORITY OF BOTH BRANCHES, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 A D D R £ l§ 1$ 
 
 His Excellency MARCUS MORTON, 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 CONVENTION OF THE TWO HOUSES, 
 JANUARY 22, 1840. 
 
 (^ U.S.A. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY PERKINS & MARVIN. 
 HX 18 4 0. 
 
M 
 
 A.-'^ -^ 
 

 TO HIS EXCELLENCY 
 
 MARCUS MORTON. 
 
 May it please your Excellency, 
 
 The whig MAJORITY of the LEGISLATURE of Massa- 
 chusetts, listened with regret and disappointment to your Excellency's 
 Inaugural Address to the Convention of the two Houses; — regret, that 
 sentiments which had before been used as the mere stratagems of party, 
 should now be heard from the Chair of State, — and disappointment, 
 that they should have proceeded from one, whose dignified and impartial 
 conduct in another high office seemed a pledge of a more independent 
 course. In reading the Address more deliberately, our regret in- 
 creased, and our disappointment became surprise, until, upon mature 
 reflection, we have felt it our duty to make to it a Public Answer. 
 This we should have done, according to the time-honored custom of our 
 Fathers, in the name and with the authority of the Legislature, but for 
 the conviction that the Minority, who support your Excellency in the 
 two Branches, would have insisted upon a protracted debate, at great 
 expense to the Commonwealth, but which your Excellency will per- 
 ceive, by counting the names subscribed to this Answer, would have 
 been wholly unavailing. More desirous of saving the money of the 
 people than of talking long and loudly about economy, we have readily 
 yielded to that consideration the advantage of giving to this Reply, in 
 form, the authority which really belongs to it, as the Answer of the 
 Legislature to the Address of the Executive. 
 
 Your Excellency at the commencement of the Address, after 
 announcing yourself as the 'Supreme Executive Magistrate,' — a title 
 which, though authorized by the Constitution, has heretofore been 
 waived for the more simple one of ' Chief Magistrate,' — proceeds to 
 characterize the 'purpose' of those, by whose 'unsought suffrages' 
 you have at length attained to that dignity, after having been for 
 fifteen years an unsuccessful candidate. And this purpose your 
 
Excellency states to have been 'higher and holier' than that of 
 * personal preference,' and by necessary inference higher and holier 
 than that of your opponents. It might be considered under any cir- 
 cumstances, a delicate task for a Chief Magistrate to institute such a 
 comparison between the purposes of two portions of his fellow citizens, 
 who happen to be as exactly balanced as possible, short of absolute 
 equality ; — but the comparison seems peculiarly unfortunate in this 
 case, when it is considered that the result of the late election was 
 brought about by a union of persons on a single point, who differ 
 widely upon most political questions. Whether the 51,034 citizens 
 whose support was given to your Excellency under such circumstances, 
 were actuated by ' higher and holier' motives than the 51,032 who 
 cast their votes for other candidates, were better left to a higher than 
 human wisdom. 
 
 Your Excellency has described this peculiar purpose of your own 
 supporters, as * the better establishment and more perfect develop- 
 ment of the democratic principle.' If your Excellency means by this, 
 any other democracy than that of the Constitution, particularly that 
 new democracy which evaporates in professions of regard for the 
 people, while it is undermining, for selfish purposes, the foundations of 
 the great compact which alone protects popular rights from anarchy, 
 we shall not dispute with your Excellency's party their exclusive 
 claim to its honors and its profits. But if your Excellency means the 
 true democracy of the Constitution, it will probably be new informa- 
 tion to the people of this Commonwealth, that the elevation of your Ex- 
 cellency, by a bare majority of votes, aided by an unfortunate division 
 •among your opponents, manifests any new desire for its * better estab- 
 lishment or more perfect development.' It had been until now be- 
 lieved, that the true democratic principle was sufficiently defined and 
 guarded in the Constitution and Bill of Rights of Massachusetts ; and 
 it was left to your Excellency, and your political advisers, to discover 
 that such a fortuitous election could impart to that principle new 
 vigor, or greater security. It would be a melancholy indication of 
 the instability of our institutions, if, after sixty years' experience of 
 the blessings of liberty, equality, and prosperity, which we have so 
 eminently enjoyed, and which we have attributed to a Constitution, 
 supposed to contain within itself the true principle and sufficient de- 
 fences of democratic liberty, we are now to learn, that their establish- 
 ment and development depend upon the individual, whom the temper of 
 the times, or the mutations of public opinion upon temporary topics, 
 may have placed in the chair. 
 
 If your Excellency had described 'the democratic principle' of 
 which you have been thus thought ' worthy to be the representative,' 
 as consisting in any peculiar views of civil polity, or opinions on the 
 
leading topics of the day, the comparison drawn between * the higher 
 and holier purpose ' of your supporters, and that of your opponents, 
 would have been less offensive. But your Excellency has, in the Ad- 
 dress, placed yourself before the people as having been adjudged by 
 their votes the more worthy representative of all the acknowledged 
 principles of civil liberty, founded upon all the Christian virtues, — of 
 ' a principle founded in humanity, guided by benevolence, and look- 
 ing to the ever progressing improvement and happiness of the whole 
 human family — which ever seeks to protect the weak, to elevate the 
 depressed, and to secure the just and equal rights of all, — a principle 
 which is in harmony with pure religion, that establishes the love of 
 God as the first law of morality, — a principle which, by listening to 
 the voice of reason as it breathes through the people, bows reverently 
 before the dictates of justice, while it spurns at the despotism of man, 
 — a principle which gives the highest security to property, by giving 
 security also to labor in the enjoyment of the fruits of its own indus- 
 try, — a principle which is free from envy and narrow jealousy, and 
 cheerfully acknowledges the benefits of cultivated intelligence, and of 
 experience, while it respects, as the paramount fountain of freedom and 
 order, the collective will that includes all the intelligence of the com- 
 munity — the will of the people.' This is the ' principle ' assumed 
 by your Excellency as the standard and criterion by which you have 
 been successfully compared with your ' distinguished predecessor/ 
 and these are the peculiar civil and Christian graces that separate 
 your Excellency's supporters from those who have shown a disregard 
 of them by voting for other candidates. It will be indeed fortunate 
 for the people, if their ' Supreme Executive Magistrate ' shall justify 
 a choice made upon such principles, by an administration of corres- 
 ponding excellence ; but we cannot think it a happy augury of its 
 success, that those advisers, to whose more perfect acquaintance with 
 the exigencies of the party your Excellency must in this particular 
 have yielded your own better sense of propriety, should have judged it 
 necessary thus to begin by flattering one-half of your fellow citizens at 
 the expense of the other. 
 
 Your Excellency proceeds to the discussion of some of the most 
 important political questions of the day, commencing with the Cur- 
 rency ; and your Excellency remarks that, — ' there is no branch of 
 the sovereign power more important or more difficult to be exercised 
 than the regulation of the currency ; ' that ' it extends to all the 
 relations of life, and reaches the personal interest of every man 
 in the community ; ' ' and that the great and leading object of 
 Government should be, to establish and maintain a uniform and 
 unchangeable measure of value.' To these sound and seasonable 
 opinions we entirely assent ; and if there ever was a country so 
 
extensive as ours, where, under popular institutions, a more uniform 
 measure of value prevailed than in the United States, when President 
 Jackson began to develope his financial policy, it has escaped our 
 knowledge. We possessed then a convertible paper, with which a 
 man inight travel from Maine to Louisiana ; and the rate of exchange 
 between the very remotest extremities of the country rarely exceeded 
 one per cent. Let this state of things be compared by any practical 
 man with that now existing, after the promises of the National 
 Administration for six years past to give the country 'abetter cur- 
 rency.' Let him consider, that under the operation of that policy, 
 the exchange between distant parts of the Union has become so 
 enormous, as to cut off almost all business between them which 
 requires the transmission of funds — thus striking a deadly blow at 
 the great interest of manufactures, and seriously impairing those of 
 commerce and agriculture within the Commonwealth. For every 
 dollar that was paid by the manufacturer in Massachusetts, to get 
 home the proceeds of his sales in the great market of the South 
 and West, while the United States' Bank was in operation and held 
 the public deposites, he pays now from five to twenty-five times as 
 much, if he attempts to sell at all against such a ruinous discount. 
 This effect began from the moment that the Bank of the U. S. was de- 
 prived by Gen. Jackson of the power of regulating the currency and 
 exchanges of the country ; and it has gone on from bad to worse, under 
 the miserable, imbecile administration of those who, in succeeding to 
 his power, seem only to have inherited his capacity for mischief 
 
 Most heartily do we agree with your Excellency, ' that the great 
 and leading object of Government should be to establish a uniform 
 and unchangeable measure of value.' We rejoice that your Excellency, 
 disdaining the feeble subterfuge of the dominant party at Washington, 
 admits that it is the duty of Government to regulate the currency, — 
 and we should have rejoiced still more, had your Excellency followed 
 up the admission with the proper censure of that party, for so grossly 
 neglecting its duty and denying its power. We should have expected, 
 from one holding upon this point so sound a theory, the most indignant 
 denunciation, instead of the most obsequious approval, of the policy of 
 the National Administration upon this subject — a policy founded in 
 the assumption, that the regulation of the currency is not within the 
 province of the General Government. This is the new doctrine of the 
 party upon this subject. When the deposits were removed from the 
 United States' Bank, where they had been the efficient instrument of 
 that regulation, it was not on the ground that the General Government 
 had no power or right over the subject, but that the State Banks, if 
 made the depositaries of the public funds, would furnish the country 
 ' a better currency.' It was only when this system exploded, and 
 
scattered dismay and rain through the land — when, by the failure of 
 the Pet Banks, (whose irresponsible officers had been tempted first to 
 speculation, and then to plunder, by the possession of the public moneys,) 
 widows and orphans and public charities saw their property swept 
 into the gulf of party profligacy — when the hard working fisherman, 
 and the worn out pensioner, had received, the one his bounty, and 
 the other his annual stipend, in the worthless rags of these first 
 Independent Treasuries, — then it was, that the new doctrine was put 
 forth, that the Government had no right nor power to regulate the 
 currency, and that its action was limited to provision for the safe 
 keeping of the public funds. Against this new doctrine, we most 
 earnestly remonstrate. It has no foundation in the Constitution. 
 
 We agree with your Excellency, that 'twenty-six Sovereignties, 
 acting independently of each other, under very little restraint from 
 the common Government, and influenced by different interests and 
 circumstances,' can hardly be expected on this subject ' to act with 
 unity of purpose, and harmony of measures,' and that ' these com- 
 plicated difficulties were understood and fully appreciated, by 
 the patriotic statesmen who formed our federal constitution,' 
 and that ' they supposed that they had invested the General 
 Government with all the necessary authority to the proper admin- 
 istration of this branch of sovereign power;' — and mainly do we 
 agree with your Excellency, when we consider the course of the 
 General Government for the last six years, that ' in the practical con- 
 struction and operation of these provisions, all the benefits which 
 were expected from them have not been realised;' but we probably 
 differ from your Excellency in the conviction, that these provisions of 
 the Constitution have failed to produce those benefits, only because 
 the General Government, supported by the (self styled) Democratic 
 party, have wilfully neglected to make use of them. The ' practical 
 construction' of these provisions by the Administration is, that they 
 were adopted and ordained by the people, only that they might be 
 neglected and repudiated by the Government. And in the opinion of 
 the Majority of the Legislature of Massachusetts, never did the 
 Government of a free people more grossly betray their trust, than in 
 this refusal even to attempt to discharge this great duty to the country. 
 Denying as well as neglecting it, a plan for the mere custody of the 
 public funds is now again proposed to Congress, under the name of 
 the Independent Treasury ; and if any thing were needed to show the 
 total inappropriateness of the description of ' the democratic prin- 
 ciple,' in the opening of the Address, as the distinguishing test of 
 your Excellency's party, it would be the striking fact, that on this 
 most important measure, that party has within the last five years enter- 
 tained opinions, and pursued a course, diametrically opposite. The 
 
8 
 
 Sub-treasury, or Independent Treasury, when proposed in Congress 
 a few years ago by a Southern States' rights member, was unanimously 
 opposed by the friends of President Jackson, and denounced in 
 unsparing terms by the accredited organ of his sentiments. ' The 
 principles of pure religion, of humanity, and benevolence,' are the 
 same now that they were then ; but the stability of these principles 
 has not preserved the party, to whom your Excellency attributes a 
 monopoly of them, from a total revolution in their opinions. 
 
 Your Excellency speaks of the system of the Independent Treasury 
 with approbation, as likely to be beneficial to American manufactures, 
 and even as having a tendency, in connection with the suppression of 
 small bank bills, ' to found their prosperity upon a rock.' The Majority 
 of the Legislature are ignorant by what possible operation this effect 
 is to be produced. This system is a mere fiscal device, which in 
 substance provides that the revenue shall be collected in specie funds, 
 and kept in the iron chests and brick vaults of certain officers, till 
 drawn out by warrants from the Treasury, in payment of public dues. 
 As a measure for multiplying government patronage, as creating 
 temptations to fraud, and withdrawing a part of the money of the 
 country — greater or less according to circumstances — from the chan- 
 nels of trade, it is obviously mischievous. And it would have been 
 very instructive to have been informed by your Excellency, how this 
 system, which appears to us to be a mere hoarding of the precious 
 metals, where they can be of no use to any one but the absconding 
 defaulter, is to help ' to found our manufactures on a rock.' The 
 obvious and the only important effect of it is, to give to the Govern- 
 ment, or rather to the receiving officers of the Government, the actual 
 possession of a large portion of the specie of the country. So long as 
 they keep it, the system simply withdraws so much money from circu- 
 lation ; and when it is paid out by the disbursing officers, the system 
 ceases to operate upon it. It is precisely, on a large scale, that vice 
 of hoarding, which all political economists have pointed out as 
 enfeebling a country when practised by individuals. For every dollar 
 thus locked up by the Government, much more than an equal amount 
 of active capital is withdrawn from commerce and manufactures, as 
 every dollar in specie may safely maintain more than an equal amount 
 of credit. How this withdrawal of money from circulation — this con- 
 traction of the basis of credit — this actual diminution of the capital of 
 the country, is to ' found the manufactures of Massachusetts on a 
 rock,' the Majority of the Legislature is at a loss to understand. To 
 them they seem to be words without meaning. — But that the ' system' 
 will not be without its effect upon the business and politics of the 
 country, the Majority will readily admit. The possession of such a 
 considerable amount of the specie capital of the country, which the 
 
president states, in his last Message to Congress, will amount in the 
 hands of the Collector of New York alone to an average of $500,000 
 at a time, and will be often over a million, will, besides the enormous 
 temptation to plunder, give to the Government the most dangerous 
 power of disturbing the money market, though not the salutary power 
 of regulating the currency — the power of oppressing particular Banks, 
 though not of controlling the whole — the power of creating a panic, 
 without that of restoring confidence. It will hang like a cloud in the 
 atmosphere, to be directed by Executive favor or vengeance, formi- 
 dable from the uncertainty where it may fall — an engine of oppression 
 and corruption, operating upon the fears of the community and the 
 cupidity of partisans. Whether its favors or its frowns are to be felt 
 by the manufacturers of Massachusetts, is to depend, we presume, upon 
 the strength of their adhesion to the new 'democratic principle.' 
 
 The Majority of the Legislature can see nothing in this system but 
 ignorance of the first principles of political economy, or a wilful con- 
 version of the public funds into an instrument of coercion and corrup- 
 tion for party purposes. And what can possibly be the ' view,' in 
 which your Excellency ' regards it as fraught with benefits to the 
 whole Union, but most of all to Massachusetts,' it is believed that the 
 most diligent reader of the Address will be wholly unable to conjecture. 
 The only reasons apparently given by your Excellency for this opinion, 
 are, that ' a moderate revenue, steady prices, cash duties, these are the 
 true safeguards to domestic industry,' — but what agency the locking 
 up the revenue in specie in iron chests and brick vaults, instead of 
 depositing it with responsible Banks, will have in moderating the 
 revenue, unless it be by exposing it to be more readily carried off by 
 defaulters, is not very obvious. The subject of cash duties is not 
 mentioned in the Sub-treasury bill. It is a system totally independent 
 of and unconnected with this or any other mode of keeping the public 
 funds ; and that this mode is to insure * steady prices,' seems to us a 
 matter whose novelty and importance, if there be any pretence of 
 truth in it, would have justified some effort on the part of your Excel- 
 lency to make it intelligible to others. — That the system will operate 
 to reduce the rate of wages of the laboring classes, has been loudly 
 insisted upon by your Excellency's friends at Washington, as one 
 of its signal advantages. We do not observe that your Excellency 
 enumerates this as one of the modes in which it will help to ' found the 
 manufactures of Massachusetts upon a rock,' though obviously, of all 
 its supposed effects, this seems most likely to benefit the manufacturer. 
 If this is the ' view ' in which it appears to your Excellency so ' fraught 
 with benefits to Massachusetts, whatever of soundness there may be in 
 that opinion, it only shows how little the system deserves the name of 
 a Democratic measure. 
 
10 
 
 Your Excellency passes from the subject of the Currency to that of 
 the Banks, and discusses at length the imperfections of the Banking 
 System of the Commonwealth. There are undoubtedly great im- 
 perfections and liabilities to abuse in the system, and it would gratify 
 us to believe that any substitute for it will be found more free from 
 objection. ' Under the operation of this system, however/ as your 
 Excellency observes, ' and notwithstanding its evils, we have grown 
 in wealth, and have enjoyed an extraordinary degree of prosperity.' 
 On the other hand, the measures proposed elsewhere, for a change in 
 the existing system, have proved utterly abortive, commencing with 
 that which, under the name of the Safety Fund, was introduced into 
 New York by Mr. Van Buren while Governor of that State, and 
 ending with the present General Banking Law of the same State, 
 which seems to be decidedly disapproved by your Excellency. Mean- 
 time the Banks of Mcissachusetts, in the recent financial crisis, stood 
 firm, and have preserved to this Commonwealth and all New England, 
 a sound convertible currency. Whatever be the general objections 
 to our Banking system, and we do not deny their existence, it appears 
 to us expedient ' to postpone any fundamental action on the subject,' 
 not as your Excellency recommends, ' until the measures of the General 
 Government with regard to the collection and disbursement of the 
 national revenue shall be definitely settled,' for from these, no rational 
 man can hope for any relief; but until some practical improvement in 
 our own system is suggested. That has not yet been done. We 
 anxiously but vainly hoped to have found it in your Excellency's 
 Address, as the sequel of so much complaint of the existing state 
 of things. Your Excellency does not venture to recommend the hard 
 money system, the favorite topic of party declamation, but advises the 
 Legislature to leave the Banking system to 'private responsibility and 
 enterprise,' and to let the Banks * spring up under the action of 
 general laws,' and 'not to share the responsibility of creating them,' 
 — thereby meaning, we presume, to recommend, as the panacea for 
 the evils of the present system, an unrestrained liberty to all to issue 
 their notes as currency. We need not inform your Excellency that 
 this principle was long ago found so mischievous in practice as to 
 have been specially prohibited by law, and we should have doubted 
 whether such could possibly be your Excellency's meaning, could 
 we have interpreted your Excellency's language otherwise. We 
 apprehend that this recommendation has been read with astonishment 
 by persons of all parties. That the circulation of the notes of in- 
 dividuals as currency, would be the necessary effect of an attempt to 
 establish the hard money system, was once demonstrated by a dis- 
 tinguished statesman of Massachusetts, as one of its most deplorable 
 consequences ; — and the ' experiment ' of supplying the place of the con- 
 
11 
 
 vertible bills of Banks, incorporated and controlled by the Legislature, 
 with the notes of every individual or voluntary partnership who should 
 choose to issue a currency of their own, must convince all sober 
 minded persons how much easier it is to point out the evils of the 
 existing system than to amend them. So much denunciation, followed 
 up by the proposition "of such a remedy only, is far better adapted to 
 foment popular discontent, than to improve the condition of the currency. 
 
 With regard to the ' character of monopoly,' vi'hich your Excellency 
 considers the chief vice of the Banking system, your Excellency 
 observes, that * the profusion with which Bank Charters have been 
 lavished, has at least taken from them any special value ; nor is it 
 believed that the regulation of the Banking system by a general 
 law, would create any large accession of competitors to the existing 
 Banks.' It appears to us to be at the best but an unprofitable employ- 
 ment of time, for practical statesmen to argue elaborately against a 
 monopoly, as ' a radical infirmity,' and an ' essential vice,' of the 
 Banking system, while it is admitted that such monopoly confers no 
 'special value,' and while no ' large increase of competitors' would 
 take place by its suppression; circumstances which show clearly that 
 this is not the cause of any defective operation of the system. Besides 
 which it is obvious, that the unrestrained liberty of Banking by in- 
 dividuals and unincorporated partnerships, is the only possible remedy 
 for this imputed ' vice' of monopoly ; — a remedy which, as has already 
 been intimated, has heretofore been found worse than the disease. We 
 are aware that the cry of ' monopoly,' is believed by your Excellency's 
 supporters to be a very efficient watch-word of party ; but appeals of 
 this kind, while they fill the ears of the community at first with odious 
 and alarming sounds, cannot be supposed to continue long to operate 
 upon their fears, when accompanied with such an admission of the 
 utter futility of the complaint. 
 
 Without undertaking the defence of the Banks, we will dismiss 
 this part of the Address with a single practical view of its bear- 
 ing on the affairs of this Commonwealth. If the exclusive privi- 
 lege of issuing redeemable paper now possessed by the Banks were 
 taken away, the Bank Tax must of course cease to be levied, not 
 merely because it would be unjust to levy it after the only con- 
 sideration for it is withdrawn, but because no banking company 
 would find it for its interest to continue to pay it. The Bank 
 Tax is the source from whicli seven-eighths of the revenue of the 
 State are derived. All its other regular sources of income would not 
 defray one-half of the annual charge of the House of Representatives. 
 There is no subs^titute known for it but direct taxation ; so that your 
 Excellency's proposal to remove the character of monopoly from the 
 Banks, is practically a proposal to repeal the Bank Tax, and to levy a 
 
12 
 
 Direct Tax of at least $340,000 a year, besides subjecting the State to 
 all the evils of an unregulated and irredeemable paper currency. 
 
 Whatever may be the disorders in our Banking System, these have 
 chiefly disclosed themselves since the commencement of the ' experi- 
 ments ' of the General Government upon the currency. When imme- 
 diately following a session of Congress, in which the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, by a vote of about two to one, resolved, that the public funds 
 were safe in the custody of the Bank which Congress had chartered, 
 (and which must be carefully distinguished from that which the State 
 of Pennsylvania afterwards created under the same name,) the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, by promoting one Secretary of the Treasury, 
 and displacing a second, had succeeded in finding a third pliant 
 enough to obey the Executive mandate and order the removal of the 
 deposits, — Banks in the several States were selected to receive them, 
 not because they were the soundest, but upon the avowed ground that 
 their Directors were favorable to the National Administration. This 
 shower of public money upon the local Banks, administered by politi- 
 cal favorites, stimulated into existence that ' wild and reckless spirit 
 of speculation,' to which your Excellency attributes the pecuniary 
 embarrassments of the community, by giving birth at once to an 
 enormous issue of paper, which was loaned out in most extravagant 
 sums to the partisans of government, often without any security, and 
 to be employed in the wildest schemes of speculation. A sudden and 
 general inflation of the currency thus took place, and when Congress, 
 perceiving that the surplus revenue was rapidly assuming the form of 
 a vast electioneering fund, ordered its distribution among the States, 
 many of these institutions found it impossible to restore the sums con- 
 fided to them, and after an ineffectual struggle of a few months, a gen- 
 eral explosion took place. In our own State, the Commonwealth Bank, 
 the Franklin and La Fayette Banks, totally failed, and other deposit 
 Banks found their capital seriously impaired. A contraction of the 
 circulation was necessarily made, as suddenly as it had been enlarged, 
 the whole currency of the Nation was thrown into disorder, and a gen- 
 eral bankruptcy threatened the country. The community is now 
 slowly recovering from the unnatural condition into which it was 
 thrown by this grand experiment. 
 
 Your Excellency next animadverts upon the subject of Special 
 Legislation, and inculcates the doctrine that ' it should be our chief 
 duty to make laws for the benefit of the whole,' a duty represented by 
 your Excellency to have been so flagrantly violated by former Legisla- 
 tures, that out of nine hundred acts passed in the last four years, seven 
 hundred are Special, and two hundred only are General Laws. If by 
 limiting your Excellency's censure of past legislation to the last four 
 years, it is intended that the proceedings of these years are eminently 
 
13 
 
 obnoxious to the charge of multiplying special laws, we believe the 
 reproof to be misapplied. We find that in the eighteen legislative 
 days, in which your Excellency filled the Executive chair, after the 
 decease of Gov. Eustis, one hundred and two laws were passed. Of 
 these, twenty eight were general laws, and seventy four were special ; 
 and of the seventy four private acts, nine were for the creation of new 
 Banks, of which the unfortunate Banks of Belchertown and Sunderland 
 were two. — If by a special law, were understood a law to favor an 
 individual, or a body of men, which would not have been granted 
 under like circumstances to any other individual or body, it is not 
 merely ill advised legislation, but high handed tyranny. On the other 
 hand, it is for the interest of the whole people, that any individual 
 should, when a case arises requiring it, receive that parental assistance 
 from legislation, which legislation alone can afford. Provided the 
 rights of others are not invaded by it, it is difficult to perceive any 
 sound objection to Acts for the relief of individuals under peculiar 
 circumstances, to which the general laws are inapplicable. Out of 
 the seven hundred Private Acts, held up by your Excellency to public 
 odium, not one is referred to as granting privileges to any individual 
 or body, which would not alike have been granted to all ; and their 
 general beneficent character could not be better described, than by 
 comparing them, in your Excellency's language, to ' the light and air 
 and dews of heaven, which fall equally on all.' 
 
 Of the Special Acts, those establishing Corporations appear to 
 meet your Excellency's most decided disapprobation. The Address 
 states, that ' one of the vices of the present age, stimulated by ex- 
 travagance, and a thirst to acquire property without earning it, is a 
 desire to transact ordinary business by means of charters of incorpora- 
 tion.' The Majority would be glad to think, that the vices of the 
 age were of no more aggravated character than that of a desire to be 
 incorporated ' to transact ordinary business.' But as your Excellency 
 speaks with so much disapprobation of the ' perpetuity ' that attends 
 these Corporations, and particularly of the various evils that grow 
 out of their power of holding real estate, and among them, that 
 wives are deprived of dower, that the publicity of record is avoided, 
 and a species of mortmain created by such charters, — we have exam- 
 ined the Special Acts passed during your Excellency's former brief 
 administration, and find to our surprise, that among them, a grant, 
 of perhaps the most unlimited power ever given in this Common- 
 wealth, to a Corporation to hold real estate, and that forever, and 
 without any power in the Legislature to repeal it, was sanctioned by 
 your Excellency. The Act to incorporate the Proprietors of the City 
 Hotel in Boston, enables the Corporation to purchase and hold ' any 
 pieces or parcels of land adjoining each other within the City of 
 
14 
 
 Boston, and thereon to erect a building or buildings to be used and im- 
 proved as a Public Hotel, and such halls and other buildings for public 
 use and accommodation as the said Corporation may deem expedient.' 
 The value of the land and buildings wasliot to exceed half a million 
 OP dollars, and at the expiration of twenty years, the real estate was 
 to be vested in the Corporators individually, as tenants in common ; 
 thus virtually limiting the existence of the Corporation to that period. 
 This Act was approved by your Excellency Feb. 24, 1825. Two days 
 after, your Excellency approved an additional Act, in four lines, of 
 which the only provision was, to repeal this limitation of time, and 
 thus render the Corporation, and its ' mortmain' of half a million of real 
 estate, perpetual, and place it beyond the reach of any future interfer- 
 ence by the Legislature, Instructed by such examples, a law was passed 
 under one of your ' distinguished predecessors,' to prevent such im- 
 provident legislation, by reserving a general power to the Legislature to 
 modify or repeal all charters thereafter granted for an indefinite duration. 
 Besides the ' parochial, literary, benevolent, and charitable incor- 
 porations,' which are fortunate enough to escape your Excellency's 
 condemnation, by far the greater part of these charters are for 
 manufacturing or banking corporations ; and that these are pro- 
 ductive in any serious degree of the evils imputed to them, of ' inju- 
 riously affecting the matrimonial relation, depriving the wife of her 
 dower ' — ' affecting the modes of conveyance ' — ' avoiding the publicity 
 of the County Registry' — 'diminishing the liability of the partners 
 for the debts of the Company ' — ' creating mortmain ' — ' promoting 
 entails' — ' and preventing an equal distribution of property,' — the Ma- 
 jority of the Legislature cannot bring themselves to apprehend. The right 
 of dower of the Corporator's wife is not affected, because, though the 
 Corporation may hold real estate, not subject to dower, it is purchased 
 with the personal property of the stockholder, in which his wife would 
 have had no right of dower. The publicity of the County Registry is 
 not affected, because all conveyances of real estate to or from a Cor- 
 poration, must be recorded there like other deeds. They do not 
 diminish the liability of the partners for the debts of the Company., 
 because the amount of stock put in by each stockholder is liable for 
 the debts of the Company, as much as in the case of limited copart- 
 nerships, which are allowed by a general law to all : and more careful 
 provision is even made for informing the public by annual advertise- 
 ments or official returns of the condition of these Corporations, which 
 is not required of limited copartnerships. What analogy there is 
 between mortmain, which your Excellency knows, is, properly under- 
 stood, a perpetual dedication of land to religious uses, and applying 
 it to the purposes of a Cotton Mill, or Banking house, by a Corpora- 
 tion ' for transacting ordinary business,' whose shares are daily bought 
 
15 
 
 and sold in open market, we are unable to conceive. Still more 
 difficult is it for us to trace the operation of your Excellency's imagi- 
 nation in connecting these Corporations with the 'prohibition of 
 entails and the equal distribution of property.' When a stockholder 
 in a Bank or Manufacturing Company dies, his shares are divided 
 like other property among his heirs, or sold to pay his debts, and we 
 cannot conceive why ' property thus holden in perpetual succession,' 
 does not ' come under the full operation of our statutes of distribu- 
 tion.' And to say that ' the Corporation remains unchanged,' and 
 'continues to hold the corporate property,' is simply to affirm, that it is 
 always holden under the same corporate name, though by a continual 
 succession of new proprietors; — a 'perpetuity' not very dangerous, 
 one would think, to the ' democratic principle.' 
 
 'Reestablish entails and the right of primogeniture,' says the Ad- 
 dress, while on this topic, ' and I shall despair of the continuance of 
 our government;' and the danger that this will really be done, is 
 deemed so imminent by your Excellency, that a wish is expressed 
 that ' they were forbidden by the Constitution.' The Majority of 
 the Legislature are under the impression that there is no provision in 
 any act of incorporation ever passed in this Commonwealth, directly or 
 indirectly looking to either of these objects, so deprecated in the Ad- 
 dress : nor have they ever heard from any other source, that either 
 measure was desired, feared, or even thought of by any rational beinor 
 in the State. But lest your Excellency's language should undesignedly 
 suggest to some simple minded persons that such are among the pro- 
 jects of the Whig Party, the Majority of the Legislature seriously pro- 
 test that they have no such designs in view, either by means of manu- 
 facturing corporations or otherwise. 
 
 So far are Corporations of the kind alluded to, from producing 
 the injurious effects imputed to them, that they greatly increase the 
 opportunities for men of moderate property to engage in enterprises 
 beneficial to themselves and the public, which otherwise could be 
 prosecuted only by the very rich. The man of small property, by 
 means of a share in a Bank, which any one can buy, comes into the 
 market as a money lender in fair competition with the great Capitalist, 
 though he has himself but a small sum to lend ; and by means of a 
 share in a Manufacturing Company, equally accessible to all, he enters, 
 on equal terms with the richest man in the community, into the 
 business of manufacturing, from which he would otherwise be wholly 
 excluded for want of sufficient capital. In England, where large 
 properties exist, holden together by the right of primogeniture and 
 perpetuated trusts, private corporations are comparatively few, and single 
 fortunes and rich partnerships monopolize those undertakings, which 
 here, by means of these corporations, diffuse their benefits among 
 
16 
 
 numbers. Which system is most congenial with the ' democratic 
 principle,' properly understood, it is unnecessary to state. It requires 
 but very little consideration to perceive what would have been the 
 condition of Massachusetts, in prosperity and productive industry, with- 
 out these institutions — compared with that which it now exhibits. Its 
 vast water power — a great element of its natural wealth, a gigantic 
 laborer that now works day and night without food or rest in the 
 service of the State — would have spent its strength in idleness, but for 
 this mode of associating capital for its employment ; or it would have 
 been taken up at low prices by the very rich, who would thus have 
 monopolized its immense advantages. The policy that would destroy 
 these companies, by stimulating a popular prejudice against them, 
 strikes at the root of the prosperity, not only of our manufactures, but 
 of our agriculture and commerce, now so dependent upon manufactures. 
 It is a policy that would drive our population and capital into other 
 States, which would be glad to receive them, even if they brought with 
 them the formidable ' vice of transacting ordinary business by means 
 of charters of incorporation.' If any one supposes that the manufac- 
 tures of this Commonwealth could have been carried on to any thing 
 like their present extent, without these charters, it could only be 
 because enormous fortunes would have been realized by those whose 
 wealth enabled them first to embark in those enterprizes, until by 
 decrees they became engrossed in the hands of a great manufacturing 
 aristocracy, instead of being carried on by the united means of small 
 capitalists. That such an effect would have been produced, we do not 
 believe, at least for many years to come ; because to prosecute such 
 undertakings successfully by individuals, requires not only large means, 
 but a capacity for the business not always united with them; while by 
 means of these corporations, both capital and skill are associated in 
 the most advantageous and economical manner. 
 
 Your Excellency mentions with sorrow that ' our ancient and 
 venerated Commonwealth has incurred, and is subject to heavy 
 responsibilities,' by granting its credit in aid of several great works 
 of Internal Improvement ; and considers that * many objections exist 
 to this mode of embarking the credit or the resources of the State,' 
 and that the construction of such works by the State, would be unjust, 
 because the ' laws of nature ' here ' forbid a general and equal 
 distribution' of them. But notwithstanding the very unequal surface 
 of our soil, we cannot think the last remark is practically true, in any 
 decrree at all peculiar to this State. The Rail Roads completed and in 
 progress, are not confined to any particular section of the Common- 
 wealth. They branch off in every d irection from the Capital, which must 
 necessarily be the terminus of such works; and the western part of the 
 State, which is the one to which it is most difficult to conduct them, 
 
17 
 
 and which had been least benefitted by private enterprises of this 
 character, has received the largest assistance from the public. 
 
 The objections stated by your Excellency to this mode of embarking 
 the credit or the resources of the State, do not strike our minds with 
 much force. We cannot perceive that the State labors under any 
 disadvantage in these undertakings, because it is not true that it is 
 called on to ' compete with individual shrewdness and diligence.' In 
 the Western Rail Road, the only one of these works in which it holds 
 stock — a work carried on at common expense and for the common 
 benefit — it must share alike in gain or loss with the other corporators. 
 If the State were to attempt to construct one Rail Road, and individuals 
 another, in competition with it, the objection might be sound. Nor 
 can we learn either from principle or experience, that it is wise to 
 forego all great works of public improvement until individuals are able 
 to complete them. The history of public improvements in the other 
 States, appears to us not to justify so timid a policy. But the possibility 
 of the Commonwealth becoming actually liable for the $5,000,000 
 principal, and $300,000 annual interest and expenses, in which it is 
 said to be embarked for these objects, seems to weigh most heavily 
 upon your Excellency's mind : and lest this should appear like a 
 confirmation of the appeals to the fears of the people, with which 
 itinerant demagogues and factious newspapers have endeavoured to 
 alarm them, into a belief that their farms are all deeply mortgaged 
 for these extravagant undertakings, (but which statements your 
 Excellency, we are happy to perceive, qualifies by the important con- 
 dition, ' should they become fixed upon the Commonwealth,') we will 
 endeavor to show how little ground there is for such an apprehension. 
 
 The first of these appropriations was the loan of $4()(),000 of the 
 scrip of the State, made to the Norwich and Worcester Rail Road 
 Corporation. At that time, the Boston and Providence, the Boston 
 and Worcester, and the Boston and Lowell Roads were in successful 
 operation, and had satisfactorily solved all doubts of the utility and 
 productiveness of such works. Between that time, and April 1839, 
 $4,100,000 of State scrip had been loaned, to the Eastern, the 
 Western, the Boston and Portland, the Nashua and Lowell, and the 
 New Bedford and Taunton Rail Roads, in diflerent sums, all bearing 
 interest at 5 per cent. And in all these cases, the whole income of 
 the Road, and the whole Road itself, and the whole equipment of 
 engines, cars, and other property, are pledged to the State to pay the 
 interest and principal of the loans. 
 
 Now let us see what is the probability that any of these loans will 
 'become fixed on the Commonwealth,' and operate as a mortgage upon 
 every man's farm. 
 
 The Eastern Rail Road, until December last, was open only as far 
 3 
 
18 
 
 as Salem. This Corporation has received a loan of $500,000, of 
 which the annual interest is $25,000 ; the net income from that part 
 of the Road, was the last year $72,446 9S, nearly three times as much 
 as the annual interest on the loan. 
 
 The Nashua and Lowell Rail Road received a loan of $50,000 
 scrip, of which the annual interest is $2,500. The net income during 
 the last year, which was the first of its operation, and therefore 
 cannot be supposed a fair average, was $28,895 15, more than ten 
 times as much as the interest on the loan. 
 
 The Boston and Portland Rail Road received a loan of $150,000 
 scrip, of which the annual interest is $7,500. The net income of the 
 Road, during the past year, was $25,678 46, about three and a half 
 times as much as the annual interest on the loan. 
 
 The Western Rail Road received a loan of $3,300,000 scrip, of 
 which the annual interest is $165,000. This Road has been open only 
 a few months between Worcester and Springfield ; and under the dis- 
 advantages of a winter in which the snow has been peculiarly heavy, 
 of a great stagnation of business, and of the Road not having yet 
 reached any great line of communication towards the West, it has 
 more than paid its current expenses by twenty-two per cent. No 
 computation can be made from that of its probable receipts, when 
 finished so as to meet the Hudson and Albany Rail Roads ; thus 
 opening a communication between the Capital of New England, — the 
 whole lines of the Erie and Northern Canals, — and the various Rail 
 Roads leading from the Hudson westward to the great chain of 
 Western Lakes. We may however approximate it thus: — It is a 
 continuation of the Boston and Worcester Rail Road, and will be 
 about three times as long, with advantages not greatly inferior to 
 those at present enjoyed by that Road ; and if its net income be as 
 great per mile, it Avill amount to about $316,000, which will not fall 
 much below twice the annual interest on the loan. Besides which, 
 there is a sinking fund provided by the Act creating the loan, con- 
 sisting of the premium on sale of the scrip, which on the $1,228,000 
 of scrip already sold is $137,605 30, and will be, when the whole is 
 sold, $364,265 09, which is to be kept at compound interest for the 
 thirty years, towards paying the principal loan ; and at the rate at 
 which the $137,608 already received has been loaned, this fund, with 
 an addition of 1 per cent, on the whole loan, to be annually paid from 
 the income of the Road, ($33,000,) will entirely discharge the whole 
 principal of the loan when it falls due. 
 
 The foregoing are all the Rail Roads, that have received loans, 
 which are now opened for travel. — The others, the New Bedford and 
 Taunton, and the Norwich and Worcester, will be opened, the former 
 in the summer, and the latter in the spring of the present year ; and 
 
19 
 
 that they will be so productive as to make the Commonwealth perfectly 
 safe in its responsibilities for them, seems not less certain, than in the 
 cases already stated. So far therefore as the $4,500,000 of scrip 
 loaned to these Rail Roads is concerned, it seems preposterous to 
 attempt to alarm the fears of the community. While the business 
 of the State continues to be such as to give the ' immoveable property' 
 within it any value, which will make it worth the keeping, these great 
 lines, communicating between the Metropolis and the neighboring 
 States, cannot fail to produce an income, and be worth a capital which 
 reduce all apprehensions of these loans becoming fixed on the Common- 
 wealth, to a political absurdity. 
 
 Besides these loans, the State has subscribed for $1,000,000 of 
 stock in the Western Rail Road. Upon this it must take its chance 
 with the other stockholders, of gain and loss; but 'individual shrewd- 
 ness and diligence' has already subscribed and paid in nearly $000,000, 
 and must before the whole scrip is issued pay in $200,000 more, and 
 it can hardly be imagined that any considerable loss can in any event 
 be sustained by the Commonwealth upon its subscription. But even 
 if half the entire subscription were sunk, what would be the loss of 
 the sum of even $500,000, compared with the opening of a rapid and 
 constant line of communication between the Capital of the State 
 and the great Western waters ? How inconsiderable would such 
 a loss appear, when compared with the incidental advantages to be 
 derived by the whole line of country through which it passes, from the 
 easy communication between the distant parts of our own Common- 
 wealth, now divided by chains of mountains that have heretofore 
 turned the business of our western counties to the city of New York? 
 This view of the case, however, is one that goes far beyond the extent 
 of the State's actual liability to loss. Only forty per cent, of the 
 whole State subscription, that is $400,000. is ever to be paid in. Both 
 State and individual stockholders are to pay in forty per cent, of their 
 subscriptions, and the State loan does all the rest. The amount therefore 
 put at risk by the State, upon the success of this enterprise, is merely 
 the loss that may be sustained upon the depreciation of $400,000 of 
 stock ; and this cannot be stated at so large a sum as not to be amply 
 repaid, in the increase of productive industry and taxable property, 
 by this great improvement. 
 
 But when we look back to the gradual steps by which this policy 
 has been introduced, it is with some surprise that we now read your 
 Excellency's disapproval of it. It is believed to have been first recom- 
 mended by Gov. Eustis, who though he made less use of the word 
 ' Democracy,' has been esteemed a consistent friend of popular rights. 
 In his Message of Jan. 6, 1825, he strongly presented this subject to 
 the Legislature. He observed that ' while other States are leading 
 
20 
 
 the way in improvements within their territorial limits, on a great 
 scah and at a great erpense, the citizens of Massachusetts cannot be 
 indifferent spectators of their progress, or of the benefits to be derived 
 from them.' After enumerating the projects which had been then 
 cotitein|)lated, viz. : canals to unite Buzzard's Bay and Narragansett 
 Bay with Massachusetts Bay, he remarks that ' a water communication 
 froui Boston to and through the western parts of the State, would tend 
 greatly to advance the interests of agriculture, and of the numerous 
 manufactories established in the interior. The present state of the 
 Treasury will not, I am sensible, admit of the application of funds to 
 any considerable amount to objects of this nature. T/ie time may, it 
 is hiiprcl , not be distant, when the State may he able to assist enter- 
 prizing and public spirited individuals who may engage in them.' 
 Such was the 'democratic principle' of that day ; and in pursuance 
 of this recommendation, the Legislature passed a Resolve appointing a 
 Board of Commissioners, to survey the route of a Canal from Boston 
 Harbor to Connecticut River, and from Connecticut River to the 
 Hudson. That Resolve was approved by your Excellency, then 
 acting Governor ; and under it, that unquestionable Democrat, the 
 Hon. Nathan Willis, was appointed by your Excellency, and acted as 
 Commissioner. Had the numerous and alarming objections to this 
 policy which are set forth in the Address, then occurred to your Ex- 
 cellency's mind, it would have been in your power to avert the passage 
 of the Resolve, and thus prevent the Commonwealth from embarking 
 in a system, which your Excellency now contemplates with unavail- 
 ing ' sorrow and regret.' 
 
 When the time foreseen by Gov. Eustis as not far distant had 
 arrived, this policy was adopted by the I^egislature without distinction 
 of party, and on the principle that it was safe and salutary. The very 
 first step in the cause, was the granting of the credit of the Common- 
 wealth to the Norwich and Worcester Rail Road, for the sum of 
 $400,000. That measure was thus urged upon the Legislature in 
 an editorial article of the newspaper, which claims and is supposed 
 more peculiarly to represent your Excellency's political sentiments, 
 and to enjoy your Excellency's patronage and confidence. — ' If the 
 State is made secure, as we think it may be, we can see no possible 
 objection to granting the necessary aid. It is the part of wisdom 
 and sound policy for the Government to give all reasonable encour- 
 agement to these great works of public enterprise ; and the mode 
 proposed by the Company seems to be free from objection.' — 
 Such may be presumed to have been the opinion of the Party at that 
 time; and the Report in favor of the loan was made unanimously by a 
 Committee composed of both political parties, and was adopted with a 
 very inconsiderable opposition in the Legislature. Again, the motion 
 
21 
 
 for the original subscription for $1,000,000 of stock in the Western 
 Rail Road Corporation, made and urged by prominent members of 
 your Excellency's party, prevailed in the Legislature by a vote almost 
 unanimous. The same remark might be made of all the subsequent 
 Acts granting the use of the Commonwealth's credit to this and similar 
 undertakings. They were all sustained by a large majority of your Ex- 
 cellency's party. It was only when the policy had proceeded too far to 
 be retraced, that it was discovered by the organs of that party, that some 
 selfish purposes might be served by bringing the subject within the range 
 of political warfare. From that time they began to change their tone. 
 The objects themselves were not denied to be of public utility; but the 
 only practicable method of accomplishing them, was assailed. Repre- 
 sentations of the amount of principal and annual interest for which the 
 faith of the State was pledged, were artfully drawn up, so as to lead 
 those unacquainted with the subject to believe, that they were really t6 
 be a charge upon the Treasury. The emissaries of party throughout 
 the Commonwealth, alarmed the agricultural interest with portentous 
 calculations of the extent to which each farmer's property, as they 
 pretended, was mortgaged, for the payment of the cost of these works. 
 And thus a system of internal improvement, absolutely necessary to 
 preserve the value of the whole property of the Commonwealth from 
 being ruinously reduced, by the superior natural and artificial advan- 
 tages of other States in the means of communication — a system origi- 
 nally urged and promoted by the same party, that now for its own 
 miserable purposes condemns it — has been most mischievously in- 
 volved in some degree of unpopularity. 
 
 Your Excellency passes to the consideration of the finances of the 
 Commonwealth, and observes, that ' We present the extraordinary 
 spectacle of a State, rich in its internal resources, in the treasures it 
 draws from the ocean, in the accumulated capital of many years of 
 labor and economy, in the habitual industry and frugality of its 
 inhabitants, and in the export of the surplus of its fisheries and manu- 
 factures — narrow and compact in its territory, dense in its population, 
 advanced in civilization and in moral and intellectual refinement, 
 with the most facile and convenient means of interconmiunication — 
 in short, so surrounded with natural and artificial advantages, as to be 
 capable of the best possible government at the least possible expense — 
 during a period of peace and productiveness, annually incurring debts 
 to meet its current expenses.' It is believed that if the mode be ex- 
 amined, in which the existing debt of less than f 300,000 has been 
 accumulated, it will not be regarded as a 'very extraordinary specta- 
 cle.' A solitary one it certainly is not; for there are very few States 
 in the Union, whose financial condition is near as prosperous as that of 
 Massachusetts. But why is it so extraordinary, that a people with all 
 
22 
 
 the resources your Excellency describes, should not have a revenue 
 sufficient to defray the expenses of Government without any taxation? 
 Of what avail are the 'rich internal resources of the State' — 'the 
 treasures it draws from the ocean ' — ' its accumulated capital ' — its 
 * habitual industry, and the amount of its exports ' 1 These, indeed, 
 indicate the ability of the people, not only to maintain the mere ma- 
 chinery of Government, but to aid in the promotion of those great 
 interests of benevolence, education, and public improvement, which 
 deserve the countenance of an enlightened Government. But this 
 ability cannot be made available without taxation, direct or indirect. 
 For twelve of the last fifteen years, all direct taxation has been dis- 
 pensed with ; and the expenses of the Government have been paid 
 almost wholly by the revenue raised from Banks and Auctions, with- 
 out any burden to the people at large. Your Excellency is aware also, 
 that if the amount of several items of expenditure of a permanent char- 
 acter be deducted from the amount of the debt, it would leave but a 
 small sum fairly chargeable to the excess of expenditure for ' current 
 expenses' over the income. And this excess is owing in a much 
 greater degree to the decrease of the income, in consequence of the 
 downfall of the Banks, than to any increase of the expenses. 
 
 Thus it appears, from the Report of the Treasurer, that the Bank 
 Tax, the principal resource of the State, has, during the last three 
 years, fallen off from $379,175, to §341,308 — a difference in this item 
 of $37,867, in the revenue of the past year as compared with that of 
 1837. But it is manifestly impossible in all cases to make an instan- 
 taneous curtailment in the expenses of the Commonwealth to meet a 
 sudden decline of this description in the finances. Had one half of 
 every salary paid from the Treasury, been retrenched, it would not 
 have much more than sufficed to counteract the effect of this reduction 
 in the Bank Tax. 
 
 Although your Excellency cautiously deals in generalities, there is 
 a strong implication in the Address, that the excess in the expen- 
 diture is owing to 'supernumerary officers,' ' agencies or commissions,' 
 or too high a compensation paid to the public officers. If this be the 
 case, we join in the sentiment that the supernumeraries should be 
 discharged, and the excess of compensation retrenched. But is there 
 any reason to suppose that such is a fact? A most respectable and 
 competent Committee of the last Plouse of Representatives reported, 
 that a reduction of between six and seven thousand dollars, was all 
 that could possibly be made in this way, which constitutes but about 
 one tenth part of the excess of the last year's expenses over the income 
 of the State. 
 
 We believe it a sound republican policy, that salaries should be 
 moderate; and it may not be very easy in all cases to fix a fair standard 
 
23 
 
 of compensation. Those paid to the highest State officers in Mas- 
 sachusetts, are considerably lower than the salaries paid to the officers 
 of the General Government residing here. The officer who fills the 
 place of Collector of the Port of Boston and Superintendent of light 
 houses, is paid a much larger sum than the Chief Magistrate of 
 Massachusetts. The salary of the Postmaster of Boston, (whose 
 duties are almost wholly discharged by his clerks,) with his per- 
 quisites, is probably twice the compensation of the Chief Justice 
 of the Commonwealth. We have never understood that the salaries 
 paid to the officers of the General Government in Massachusetts, were 
 deemed too large by those who receive them, or by their political 
 friends : they could be easily reduced by an Act of Congress, if your 
 Excellency's party desired it. The State salaries have been and are 
 a favorite subject on which your Excellency's supporters have chosen 
 to exhibit their zeal for retrenchment and economy. It strikes us as 
 somewhat singular, that they should not employ their influence in the 
 General Government, in reducing the salaries of the United States' 
 officers, at least to the State standard. So far is this from being done, 
 that the political friends of your Excellency at Washington, have within 
 a few weeks been employed in raising instead of lowering the federal 
 salaries. Before the bill for establishing the independent treasury 
 was urged through the Senate, a considerable increase of the salaries 
 provided by it, for the receivers of the Public Monies, was moved by 
 Mr. Benton, and advocated by Mr. Wright of New York. It was 
 opposed by Mr. Davis of Massachusetts, one of your Excellency's 
 predecessors, and a consistent advocate of reform, on the ground that 
 the salaries already provided by the bill, were fully equal to those of 
 the State officers. 
 
 Your Excellency recommends, on this topic, that ' nothing be 
 added to salaries for vain show or ostentatious display — nothing on 
 account of familif or friends' We are not aware that there exists, in 
 the past legislation of the Commonwealth, any ground for this covert 
 reproach of 'family influence;' but inasmuch as Mr. Senator Benton,, 
 in moving the increase of salaries just alluded to, expressly put it on 
 the ground that ' the officers engaged under the bill ought to be men 
 o^ fatnily and respectability,' your Excellency's admonition, instead of 
 being addressed to the Legislature of Massachusetts, where it is wholly 
 uncalled for, might perhaps be better applied to your friends in 
 Congress, before this portion of the Sub-treasury Bill passes beyond 
 the reach of amendment. Should it fail to be respected there, it could 
 hardly strengthen the suspicion already existing, that retrenchment and 
 reform, as recently inculcated, are words without a meaning, designed 
 to raise a prejudice against political opponents, and never intended to 
 be put in practice. The country has not forgotten the professions of 
 
24 
 
 economy with which the late President of the United States entered 
 into office, nor the unexampled profusion which marked his ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 Your Excellency states that the expenses of the Government can be 
 brought within its present income; but has not been pleased to 
 intimate the items of expenditure on which the retrenchment can be 
 made. On the contrary, a reduction in nearly all those particulars 
 where it might most easily be affected, is directly, or by implication, 
 discountenanced in the Address. It is stated there, that the ex- 
 penses of administering the Government have doubled in the last fifteen 
 years. In nothing has the increase been more rapid than in the 
 county balances. These in 1825 amounted to but $l7,fil7. The 
 sum of $69,000 was appropriated for this object the past year, and 
 will, it is understood, prove insufficient to settle all the accounts. 
 Your Excellency intimates that any attempts to diminish this burden- 
 some and growing charge, by transferring it to the Counties, * would 
 operate unrighteously and oppressively.' 
 
 In like manner the Address intimates that it would be ' unrighteous 
 and oppressive' to charge upon the towns the support of the State 
 paupers; consequently there should, in your Excellency's opinion, be 
 no reduction in the sum of $48,000 paid from the treasury of the 
 Commonwealth the past year for this object. 
 
 By far the heaviest item of the State expenditure, is the pay of the 
 Members of the Legislature, It is here that the great increase has 
 taken place in the last fifteen years, and not in ' salaries, agencies and 
 commissions.' In the year 1825, the pay of the Legislature was 
 $;}6,608; in the year 1837, it was $104,583; — a difference more than 
 exceeding, in a single year, all that has been paid in the whole fifteen 
 years, for all the agencies and commissions alluded to by your 
 Excellency, and all the scientific surveys and expenses for the pro- 
 motion of education, which have formed so prominent a topic of 
 accusation against your Excellency's predecessors. It would have 
 seemed the part of candor, in descanting on the subject of the 
 increased expense of administering the Government, to employ, amidst 
 the generalities with which it is treated, a language including at least, 
 if it did not place in strong light, the real cause of by far the greatest 
 increase ; and to have avoided a phraseology, which would lead the 
 uninformed to the impression that ' supernumerary officers,' and ex- 
 travagant compensations, are the chief cause of an effect, mainly 
 produced by the enormous growth of the House of Representatives. — 
 It appears also that in placing the present state of the finances in 
 contrast with their condition ' fifteen years' ago, when your Excellency 
 for a few months occupied the chair of State, it would have con- 
 tributed to a fair perception of the merits of the question, as one of 
 
25 
 
 comparative economy, to mention the fact that fifteen years ago a 
 State Tax was paid, and the towns were obliged to reimburse to the 
 State treasury the pay advanced to their Representatives. If, as your 
 Excellency emphatically states, 'the cost of administering the Govern- 
 ment has been more than doubled within the last fifteen years,' it is 
 not less true, though not mentioned by your Excellency, that in this 
 same period, the Representatives have been paid, not as before by the 
 towns, but out of the State treasury, and the people have been relieved 
 for the first time, it is believed since the settlement of the country, 
 from a direct annual tax. In the year 1825, the sum of $94,447 was 
 received into the State treasury from the direct tax, and the reimburse- 
 ment of the pay of the Representatives. Had a like sum been so 
 raised for the twelve of the next fifteen years in which no tax was 
 laid, it would have exceeded $1,100,000, which would have been 
 drawn from the people in the last 'fifteen years,' by direct taxation, to 
 meet the increased expenditure. Besides all this, it will be remembered 
 that within the period mentioned by your Excellency, the compensation 
 of various judicial and other officers, to a great amount, has been paid 
 by salaries from the Treasury, instead of larger sums before drawn in 
 fees from the citizens. 
 
 The Majority of the Legislature are happy to agree with your 
 Excellency in most of the remarks contained in the Address on the 
 subject of Education. But while your Excellency very justly dilates 
 upon the importance of the free schools, we are surprised to learn 
 from your Excellency, that ' recently great labor has been bestowed 
 upon and great improvements made in some departments of educa- 
 tion ; ' but that 'the very improvements in the higher branches, and 
 in the more elevated seminaries, excite the ambition and engross the 
 attention of those most active in the cause of education, and thus 
 expose the common schools to fall into neglect and disrepute,' The 
 very reverse of all this seems to us to be true, at least so far as concerns 
 the action of the Legislature, to whom this admonition is addressed. 
 Your Excellency must be aware, that of late years the Legislature has 
 omitted all appropriations for the encouragement of the 'more elevated 
 seminaries,' and has established a Board of Education, whose labors 
 are required by law to be exclusively devoted to the improvement of 
 the common schools. We are quite at a loss to comprehend what 
 changes, in this particular, your Excellency would recommend. It is 
 new to us if the ' children of the poor — the weak — depressed — and 
 the neglected,' have not, so far as the Legislature can provide it, 
 ' suitable means of instruction,' or that the ' town schools are not 
 open to all.' 
 
 We now approach a portion of the Address, which affects us 
 with more serious concern than the misapprehensions of your Ex- 
 4 
 
26 
 
 cellency to which we have already adverted. The sanction by 
 your Excellency of the catch-words of party excitement, though it 
 seems to us not to accord with the dignity of the station from which 
 your Excellency has been removed, or of that to which you have been 
 called, we readily admit is in some degree a matter of taste merely ; 
 and the endeavor to create a popular dissatisfaction with the measures 
 of your Excellency's predecessor, however mistaken the grounds of it, 
 might not have been entirely unexpected under existing circumstances. 
 But that your Excellency's accession to the chief magistracy should 
 have been made the occasion of such attacks upon the Constitution 
 of the Commonwealth, as are contained in the Address, has moved 
 the astonishment even of your Excellency's most decided opponents. 
 To these attacks, which seem calculated to undermine the very 
 foundation of our constitutional liberties, it is impossible for us to 
 reply with that official blandness v/hich might perhaps be required in 
 an answer from the body of the Legislature. We approach your 
 Excellency on this point, with the feelings of citizens, whose great 
 charter of freedom is assailed from the quarter where it should find 
 support against the lawless attempts of faction. Your Excellency 
 declares the Constitution of Massachusetts to be deficient and in- 
 consistent, and to leave a portion of the citizens ' in a state of political 
 servitude,' because paupers and spendthrifts are not admitted to the im- 
 portant rights of suffrage, and of making laws to bind the other citizens 
 of the Commonwealth. Because it declares that ' all men are born 
 free and equal,' your Excellency reproaches the Constitution with 
 inconsistency and injustice, in refusing to give the highest rights of 
 citizens to those, whose idleness, intemperance, or profligacy, have 
 reduced them to the condition of dependents on public charity, or so 
 far deprived them of the right exercise of reason, that they are adjudged 
 incapable of conducting their own private affairs. The provision of 
 the Constitution thus assailed by your Excellency is this : That every 
 citizen of twenty-one years and upwards, (excepting paupers and 
 persons under guardianship,) who shall have paid any tax within 
 two years, and all persons exempted by law from taxation, but other- 
 wise qualified, shall have a right to vote. This is the clause termed 
 by your Excellency a provision reducing a portion of the citizens 
 to ' a state of political servitude.' And who are these oppressed 
 persons, for whose relief your Excellency would amend 'our excellent 
 Constitution ?' Adults under guardianship are excluded from the list 
 of voters, — these are composed, besides the insane, (whom we do not 
 suppose your Excellency would include,) wholly of adjudged spend- 
 thrifts and common drunkards. Would your Excellency have those 
 enlisted among the supporters of the new ' Democratic principle' at the 
 polls? The only other class excepted, is that of persons not exempted 
 
27 
 
 by law from taxation, but who do not even pay a Poll Tax, which can in 
 no case, by the present law, exceed a dollar and a half, and is ordinarily 
 fixed at a dollar only. Of this class — far more numerous than is com- 
 monly supposed — the most obvious individuals are public paupers, but 
 the greater number are the idle and profligate who prey at large upon 
 society. These your Excellency clearly demands should be allowed, 
 not only to vote, in the election of all officers, but to sit in the Legis- 
 lature, making laws to affect the property of every industrious citizen 
 in the Commonwealth. 
 
 There is no mistaking or otherwise explaining your Excellency's lan- 
 guage. In speaking of the Constitution, your Excellency remarks, that 
 ' while in one section it declares that " all men are born free and equal," 
 and that the " body politic" is a voluntary " social compact," to which 
 the whole people and each citizen are parties : in another, it excludes 
 a portion of them from any participation in the election of officers or 
 the making of laws. He who is governed by laws, in the formation of 
 which he had no voice, is in a state of political servitude. To make 
 the right of suffrage and civil liberty depend upon the accident of 
 property or taxation seems to me to be inconsistent with the " natural, 
 essential, and inalienable rights of man." ' ' If the right of self-govern- 
 ment, the right of suffrage be a natural one, belonging to every 
 rational being, there can be no just cause for depriving any citizen of 
 it, except perhaps as a punishment for crime.' — Here is the doctrine 
 plainly avowed, of universal suffrage, to be exercised upon the highest 
 occasions, by every vagrant and vagabond in the State, not in a condi- 
 tion of absolute lunacy, — no matter how idle or profligate he may be. 
 The lowest receptacles of vice are to be ransacked by party zeal to 
 drag from their obscurity, that they may exercise the highest rights of 
 man, creatures who have just enough of humanity left to be recognized 
 as ' rational beings.' Town paupers are to be marched to the polls 
 under their keepers, and it is even left hypothetical by your Excel- 
 lency, whether convicted criminals should not be released from con- 
 finement, that they may assist by their votes in repealing the laws for 
 the violation of which they have forfeited all other rights of citizens. 
 
 For the virtuous and unfortunate poor, we feel as much respect and 
 compassion as your Excellency expresses; but for those who are too idle 
 and vicious to contribute even the value of a day's labor to qualify 
 them for the high privileges of an elector, we cannot join in your Ex- 
 cellency's sympathy. Were it possible to distinguish between the two 
 classes by law, there would be no question, but that the former might 
 safely be permitted to vote ; though without any thing at stake in the 
 well-being of society, but their security from personal injury. But 
 that those whom the widest philanthropy can consider only as burdens 
 upon the community — injurious to its morals as well as to its prosperity — 
 
28 
 
 should possess the same right with the industrious poor, is absurd in 
 theory, and a gross injustice to those who feel and discharge the mu- 
 tual oblio-ations which alone can preserve man in a state of civilized 
 society. We feel well assured that the people of Massachusetts will 
 not recognize this breaking down of all distinction between the virtu- 
 ous and the vicious, between the industrious frugal citizen and the 
 mere vagrant, as one of the elements of the ' democratic principle.' 
 We do not believe that empty declamations about equal rights, have 
 yet so far deluded them, that they are willing to be classed with the 
 most degraded of their species, to carry out such a theory of absolute 
 equality. — We hold with your Excellency and with the Constitution? 
 that ' all men are born free and equal,' but we understand, as our 
 Fathers did, who framed that Constitution, that men may fall from 
 that high equality, and forfeit natural rights by their own misconduct. 
 We agree that all men enter the world with equal rights, though not 
 with ei\\\?i\ poivers, and that one of those rights is, to be admitted to a 
 share in the government of society by contributing to its wants. 
 
 Political rights and duties are reciprocal ; and when the last are 
 neglected, it is just that the first should be forfeited. The Constitu- 
 tion has established as a test of the citizen's willingness to perform his 
 civil duties, that he shall pay the lowest tax that can be assessed upon 
 any one — that he shall do some little for the support of the com- 
 mon burden — that if he cannot or will not accumulate any property 
 liable to taxation, he shall at least give to the community the value of 
 one day's labor, which, in our country, every man can earn at pleasure, 
 unless he is disabled by infirmity. To require this as the condition 
 upon which all political rights, beyond that of personal protection, 
 which is equally extended to all without exception, rights even over the 
 property and persons of others, should be claimed, appears not only 
 reasonable, but extremely liberal. Beyond this line it seems to us, lies 
 not liberty, but licentiousness — not democracy, but absolute anarchy. 
 
 That the ' right of suffrage ' is a ' natural one, belonging to every 
 rational being,' seems to us a singular proposition. In a state of 
 nature no such right could be exercised. Election — representation 
 — and suff'rage, are the creatures and contrivances of society. The 
 natural right of man is to be governed by himself alone ; but this 
 natural right is to be abandoned the moment he enters into a state of 
 civilized society. It is a part of the contract by which he receives 
 protection from the majority, that he shall yield to the majority this 
 natural right of individual self-government : this is the very founda- 
 tion of the * social compact.' Your Excellency, therefore, in using 
 the ' right of self-government,' and the ' right of suffrage,' as synony- 
 mous terms, confounds things essentially different. We should be glad 
 to believe, that to this confusion of ideas, rather than to any design to 
 
29 
 
 overturn the defences of civilized society, and to abolish all law but 
 that of the strongest, this portion of your Excellency's Address is to 
 be traced. 
 
 Equally unnecessary and uncalled for, appears to us your Excel- 
 lency's remark, that ' further provision seems to be needed to protect 
 the laboring classes and poorer portion of the community from unjust 
 and oppressive influences, and to secure to them more perfect inde- 
 pendence and freedom of political action.' The fear which your Ex- 
 cellency speaks of, ' that men of wealth and extensive business' inter- 
 fere with and control ' the suffrages of those dependent upon them for 
 employment,' appears to us destitute of any rational foundation, if it 
 really exists in the mind of any one. But if such a practice has hap- 
 pened to fall within your Excellency's peculiar sphere of observation, 
 though it has escaped our own means of knowledge, we rejoice that it 
 has received a rebuke from a quarter that will command the respect of 
 the delinquents. 
 
 It is necessary, however, to proceed with caution in drawing our 
 inferences on this subject. It by no means follows, that because 
 employers and employed act together on political subjects, that an 
 oppressive or corrupt influence has been exerted. There is no 
 distinction in their interests properly understood. What then should 
 lead to difference of action at the polls 1 When the honest laborer is 
 found voting with his employer, it would argue more respect for him, 
 and would be more consonant with a spirit of fairness to believe, that 
 he does so from his own honest conviction, rather than because he has 
 suffered himself to be bribed or coerced. It would better become us 
 to suppose, that he does so, because he has the intelligence to per- 
 ceive that the interests of all classes are in harmony, and has the virtue 
 to resist the suggestions of artful demagogues, who would persuade 
 him that there is a natural hostility between the rich and the poor. 
 
 There is however one example of this evil, of notorious existence, 
 and of the first magnitude, which your Excellency has left untouched; 
 it is that of a corrupt and unwarrantable interference with the elective 
 franchise on the part of the officers of the General Government. It is 
 perhaps familiar to your Excellency, that this interference has here- 
 tofore assumed the character of absolute domination in the Custom 
 House over its dependants ; and probably has existed in other offices 
 of the General Government. Not only was it required of the incum- 
 bent to vote according to the dictation of the presiding Oflicer, but 
 every subordinate's salary was forced to contribute money to carry 
 forward the purposes of the party. This evil has attracted attention 
 in Congress, and a bill to provide a remedy was brought forward in 
 the Senate of the United States. The strongest argument then used 
 against it was, that the State Governments are competent for the 
 
30 
 
 protection of their Citizens against such abuses. Perhaps the evil 
 may recently have diminished in magnitude, but it still exists in a very 
 great degree. And while your Excellency was upon the subject, it is 
 a matter of some surprise, that this very striking, if not the only 
 example of it within our Commonwealth, should have escaped notice, 
 or not been deemed to require a remedy. 
 
 There are other topics in the Address, on which we would remark 
 at large, but that this Answer has extended already to so great a length. 
 The Address is pregnant with appeals to the apprehensions of the 
 citizens. The 'secrecy of the ballot' is represented as insufficiently 
 secured. But if the heavy penalties already provided by law for any 
 attempt to examine the ballot of a voter, and his acknowledged power 
 of placing it in the ballot box so as only to be read in open violation 
 of that law, are not, as now first intimated, a sufficient protection 
 against this danger, it is again to be regretted that some better remedy 
 had not been suggested by your Excellency. We are aware that it is 
 not the province of the Executive, in general, to propose the details of 
 laws ; but when evils unknown to the rest of the community are thus 
 darkly intimated from the Chair of State, the suggestion can only be 
 made useful by showing how those evils may be prevented. 
 
 In your Excellency's remarks on the ' fundamental defect in the 
 frame of Government ' in relation to the basis of the Senate, and on 
 the ' strong objections to the constitution of the House of Representa- 
 tives,' we do not perceive any novelty which calls for further reply, 
 than to say that both those supposed defects had been already provided 
 for, by an amendment of the Constitution passed by both branches of 
 the last and since the delivery of your Excellency's Address, by 
 the present Legislature. 
 
 But the Majority have read one paragraph of your Excellency's 
 Address on this subject, with sentiments which a just regard to the 
 dignity and rights of the Legislature will not permit them to pass 
 without special remark. Your Excellency states, that in proposing 
 amendments of the Constitution, ' the members of the Legislature act 
 as the agents of the people ; ' to this we assent, and we quote the 
 language only that there may be no mistake as to the persons intended 
 by your Excellency as ' the agents,' in the following quotation : — 
 
 ' To connect two amendments so that they cannot be voted upon 
 separately, limits the citizen's freedom of action, indicates an attempt 
 by the agents to impose restraints upon their principals, and manifests 
 a want of confidence in the people.' 
 
 We understand, necessarily, that your Excellency refers in this to the 
 proposed amendment of the Constitution which unites a change in the 
 basis of the Senate, with a new ratio of representation in the House. 
 This amendment was adopted by the last Legislature by a vote of 279 
 
31 
 
 to 42, in the House, and by a vote of 22 to 9 in the Senate, and has 
 passed both Houses of the present Legislature, by very large majorities. 
 — When your Excellency delivered the Address, this was a matter 
 pending before the Legislature. In such a case, any interference on 
 the part of the Executive, is holden to be a high breach of privilege. 
 The Parliament of England will not suffer it from the Crown, and we 
 trust that the right of the Legislature, under a popular government, is 
 not less clear, to protect itself from Executive interference. Bui with- 
 out insisting upon this established right in every case, we are com- 
 pelled to say, that in the present instance your Excellency's language 
 sounds equally strange and offensive in our ears, as coming from 
 a Governor of Massachusetts to the Representatives of the People. 
 To say to the Legislature, at any time, that they are attempting to 
 limit the citizen's freedom of action, and to impose restraints upon 
 their principals, and that they are manifesting a want of confidence in 
 the people, is little short of a deliberate insult. But this attempt of 
 your Excellency to dictate to the Legislature, assumes a remarkable 
 character, when it is considered that not only was the measure then 
 pending before them, but that it was one in which your Excellency is 
 not authorised in any event to interfere. The power of proposing 
 amendments to the Constitution is vested by that instrument in the 
 Senate and House of Representatives alone. It is a subject upon 
 which the Governor can never be called on to revise the result of their 
 deliberations : the Constitution has made it the business of the Legis- 
 lature, and not that of your Excellency. 
 
 'Agents' we undoubtedly are, though your Excellency uses the 
 word with less of courtesy than is usual on such occasions. But while 
 we acknowledge our allegiance and accountability to our ' principals,' 
 we hold ourselves in no manner responsible to your Excellency — who 
 is but another ' Agent,' and for a different purpose — for the discharge 
 of our duties : and to be thus admonished how we shall perform them, 
 in a matter actually pending before us, your Excellency must hold us 
 justified in saying, is not to be endured by the Representatives of a 
 free People. 
 
 Your Excellency's own party have presumed in this matter to think 
 and act for themselves, and have voted for the amendment without any 
 attempt to enforce your Excellency's dictation to divide its two pro- 
 visions. If the Majority of the Legislature had entertained the least 
 apprehension that this interference with the Constitutional powers of 
 the Legislature would produce any effect upon the vote, they would 
 have felt it their duty immediately to move an inquiry, which would 
 have given your Excellency an opportunity of disclaiming the disre- 
 spectful intention manifested by this language ; but as it gave them no 
 uneasiness to hear so powerless an attempt to restrain the freedom of 
 
32 
 
 action by the Legislature upon one of their highest duties, so it would 
 have given them no pleasure to place your Excellency in the disagree- 
 able predicament of disavowing its obvious meaning. 
 
 Having thus noticed the principal subjects of your Excellency's 
 Address, we cannot close this Answer without adverting to its remark- 
 able omissions. Long, elaborate and diffusive — it covers all the topics 
 of Party — but it forgets the great interests of the State. Not a word 
 could be found in it to be referred to the Committee on Agriculture — 
 not a word to be referred to that on the Fisheries. It would seem to 
 have been forgotten by your Excellency, in your haste to take up the de- 
 fence of the new ' Democratic principle' in all its popular phases, that a 
 farm, or a farmer, exists in Massachusetts. And the Fisheries, so vital 
 an interest to the State, and endangered as that interest is by propo- 
 sitions now pending before Congress, seem equally to have escaped 
 your Excellency's recollection. 
 
 Our Public Lands are not mentioned by your Excellency; neither 
 those in the East, which are threatened by the claims of the British 
 Government ; nor those vast territories in the West, to which our 
 unquestionable rights, as tenants in common with the other States, 
 are proposed by your Excellency's friends at Washington, to be ceded 
 without consideration to the States in which they happen to lie. 
 
 The Massachusetts Claim too, so prominent a topic in former 
 Executive Addresses, on which the people feel so sensitively, and of 
 which the payment, long and unjustly delayed, would come so oppor- 
 tunely now, to relieve our present embarrassments, is quite forgotten 
 by your Excellency, in the anticipated glories of the Independent 
 Treasury. 
 
 The Executive Address reminds us throughout, we say it with a 
 sorrowful sincerity, that for the first time for many years past, we 
 have a Chief Magistrate, who feels himself more the head of a Party, 
 than the head of the State. 
 
 In conclusion, we regret that a document should go forth to the 
 people of this country, and to the world, with the imposing authority 
 of an official Address from the Governor of Massachusetts, in which 
 such a general and comprehensive dissatisfaction is proclaimed with 
 the state of things here existing. Our venerable Commonwealth has 
 generally been regarded as exhibiting one of the most perfect examples 
 of a well constituted and well governed Republic. Your Excellency, 
 after having been long honored with an eminent station in its magistracy, 
 now succeeds to its highest official trust, with an Inaugural Address, 
 which speaks of little in its institutions with approbation, and con- 
 demns many of their most important features. What will be thought 
 by the friends of liberty in other nations, who are struggling for the 
 reform of real abuses, when they shall see from its Chief Magistrate, 
 
33 
 
 an Address that finds nothing as it should be in a State like 
 Massachusetts ? 
 
 Your Excellency finds the Constitution, by its imperfect security 
 of the right of suffrage, to leave a large potion of its citizens in 
 'state of political servitude.' Your Excellency finds 'the secrecy 
 of ballot ' to be ' frequently infringed,' that its ' peculiar province 
 is not sufficiently understood or regarded,' and * that men of wealth 
 and extensive business,' ' infringe the right of choice ' and ' con- 
 trol the suffrages of those who may be dependent upon them for 
 employment.' Your Excellency declares that in our legislation, a 
 'small proportion of our labor is given to the public,' and 'much to 
 individuals' — that a large portion of it has been devoted to the pro- 
 motion of 'monopolies' and private speculations — that our systems of 
 currency are ' unjust and unequal ' in their action — that the ' habits ' 
 of our people are those of 'individual extravagance, Avhich wastefully 
 consume the common stock, while they produce private proflio-acy 
 and wretchedness. Your Excellency ' mentions with sorrow ' that 
 'our ancient and venerated Commonwealth' has incurred heavy 
 responsibilities for the construction of works of internal improve- 
 ment, which ' impose unequal and unjust burdens.' Your Excellency 
 declares that the disorder of our finances is ' an extraordinary spectacle ' 
 — and strongly intimates that extravagant compensations are paid to 
 ' supernumerary officers,' and for ' agencies and commissions,' not for 
 the public good, but for 'vain show or ostentatious display,' 'on 
 account of family or friends,' or ' for political services or partisan 
 efforts.' Your Excellency, in proposing a change in the Judicial 
 system, finds existing a ' delay and expense of litigation, which now, 
 to poorer parties, amounts to a denial of justice.' Your Excellency 
 finds, with ' deep regret and mortification,' that the ' state and or- 
 ganization of our militia are so imperfect,' that 'for some time its 
 progress has been that of deterioration instead of improvement.' Your 
 Excellency finds our 'common schools' exposed 'to fall into neglect 
 and disrepute.' Your Excellency apprehends that entails and the 
 right of primogeniture will be reestablished, and finds ' factitious 
 distinctions in society,' 'from education, from family, from social 
 relations, and from wealth, are multiplying and becoming more clearly 
 defined and regarded.' And finally, your Excellency finds the Sena- 
 tors and Representatives of the State, regardless of duty in the ex- 
 ercise of the highest powers committed to them, attempting to ' limit 
 the citizen's freedom of action, to impose restraints upon their prin- 
 cipals, and manifesting a want of confidence in the people.' 
 
 That such an exposition of the condition of our beloved Common- 
 wealth should have been proclaimed from its Chair of State, must be a 
 source of deep mortification and regret to all. But there is consola- 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 tion in the reflection, that the very length of this catalogue of evils 
 will prevent its being received without large allowance for the fact, 
 that it is the judgment of one just elevated to office upon the admin- 
 istration of a long successful competitor. Discouraging as it may 
 appear to the friends of republican institutions elsewhere, we are in 
 no wise alarmed by a list of grievances of which so many are purely 
 imaginary. On the other hand, we see in our political condition some 
 evils and dangers which your Excellency's Address seems only adapted 
 to foment and aggravate, and which we shall feel it our duty to 
 endeavor to correct and avert ; and more especially shall we consider 
 it among the first of our obligations to our country, to restore the 
 Government of Massachusetts to the guidance of correct political 
 principles in the Executive Department. 
 
 DANIEL P. KING. 
 GEORGE MOREY. 
 JARED WHITMAN. 
 WILLIAM J. HUBBARD. 
 DAVID CHOATE. 
 GEORGE B. UPTON. 
 TIMOTHY A. PHELPS. 
 JOHN S. WILLIAMS, 
 AMOS ABBOTT. 
 SAMUEL LANE. 
 CHARLES C. P. HASTINGS. 
 
 FRANKLIN DEXTER. 
 NATHAN DUKFEE. 
 ELIPHALET WILLIAMS. 
 J. E. HOWARD. 
 JOHN GARDNER. 
 NAHUM MITCHELL. 
 GEORGE T. CURTIS. 
 FRANCIS BROWN. 
 JOSEPH LEWIS. 
 JAMES W. GATES. 
 ALLEN PUTNAM. 
 SILVANUS CROWELL. 
 WILLIAM CLAP. 
 SILAS JONES. 
 
 GEORGE TYLER BIGELOW. 
 CALEB WHEELER. 
 ELI B. LAMSON. 
 CHARLES HILLS. 
 OZIAS GOODWIN. 
 HORACE HANDERSON. 
 SPENCER MOODY. 
 ROSWELL ALLEN. 
 MARTIN HAGER. 
 JOSEPH PARK. 
 JOHN B. READ. 
 BENJAMIN ALDEN. 
 CYRUS ALDEN. 
 
 JAMES SAVAGE. 
 SAMUEL WOOD. 
 ISAAC HARRIS. 
 WILLIAM BOWDOIN. 
 SETH SPRAGUE, Jr. 
 GEORGE T. DAVIS. 
 CHARLES MARSTON. 
 JOSIAH UUINCY, Jr. 
 SIDNEY WILLARD. 
 JOSIAH LITTLE. 
 
 EDWARD T. NASH. 
 SAMUEL H. WALLEY, Jr. 
 JOHN EDDY. 
 JESSE WINSLOW. 
 EZEKIEL HAYDEN. 
 GAD O. BLISS. 
 CHARLES P. PHELPS. 
 GEORGE BRADBURN. 
 CHARLES HALE. 
 PEREZ MASON. 
 CYRUS FAULKNER. 
 ENOCH FRENCH. 
 MINOTT THAYER. 
 WILLARD PIERCE. 
 FREEMAN ATKINS. 
 THEODORE JONES. 
 CYRUS DAVIS. 
 CHARLES ALLEN. 
 ALFRED KITTREDGE. 
 JOHN THURSTON. 
 MOSES LELAND. 
 CHARLES ADA3IS. 
 FRANCIS A. FABENS. 
 JAMES BENTON. 
 GEORGE W. CARR. 
 STEPHEN P. WEBB. 
 J. GILES. 
 
35 
 
 JONATHAN CROWELL. 
 
 ROBERT STUART. 
 
 ZACCHEUS PARKER. 
 
 JAMES C. STARKWEATHER. 
 
 JA31ES M. WHITON. 
 
 LUKE FISKE. 
 
 THOMAS LORING. 
 
 SAMUEL GREELE. 
 
 SAMUEL QUINCY. 
 
 S. HAYNES JENKS. 
 
 ISAAC SOUTHGATE. 
 
 WILLIAM LAWRENCE. 
 
 HENRY POOR. 
 
 THOMAS A. DAVIS. 
 
 WILLIAM LINCOLN. 
 
 SETH CROWELL. 
 
 E. D. VVHITAKER. 
 
 ROBERT HOOPER, Jr. 
 
 PHINEHAS HARMON. 
 
 FREEMAN TAYLOR. 
 
 THOMAS A. GREENE. 
 
 J. THOMAS STEVENSON. 
 
 CHARLES W. PALFRAY. 
 
 J. P. HEALY. 
 
 E. J. BISPHAM. 
 
 JAMES H. CLAPP. 
 
 JOSIAH BACON. 
 
 ANDREW DODGE. 
 
 ADDISON BROWN. 
 
 COMFORT B. PLATT. 
 
 SAMUEL ROGERS. 
 
 STEPHEN SALISBURY, 
 
 JUSTIN WAIT. 
 
 J. C. BRIGGS. 
 
 LEONARD CHURCH. 
 
 S. P. FOWLER. 
 
 WILLIAM GOSS. 
 
 RICHARD BAKER, Jr. 
 
 WILLIAM LAMSON. 
 
 CYRUS WEEKS. 
 
 JABEZ PECK. 
 
 LORENZO RICE. 
 
 DAVID FEARING. 
 
 ELIHU HOBART. 
 
 JOHN BOWDOIN. 
 
 CALVIN STRONG. 
 
 JOSEPH BARROWS. 
 
 THOMAS SAVERY. 
 
 DAVIS THAYER. 
 
 ALPHEUS CLARK. 
 
 WARD ADAMS. 
 
 SAMUEL SrURTEVANT, Jb, 
 
 ELI BRADLEY. 
 
 J. F. WADSWORTH, 
 
 JAMES HARRIS. 
 
 SILAS FLAGG. 
 
 LABAN CUSHING. 
 
 JONATHAN BLISS. 
 
 TILLA CHAFFIN. 
 
 WILLIAM HINSDALE. 
 
 WILLIAM EARNED. 
 
 T. R. MARVIN. 
 
 E. SWIFT. 
 
 JOSEPH TRIPP. 
 
 ROBERT GOULD. 
 
 HENRY GRANT. 
 
 CRANSTON HOWE. 
 
 JOSEPH W. REVERE. 
 
 HENRY M. BROWN. 
 
 DANIEL NOYES. 
 
 MOSES HOYT, Jr. 
 
 H. M. WILLIS. 
 
 E. D. HAMILTON. 
 
 EBENEZER MATTOON, Jr. 
 
 I. P. DAVIS. 
 
 SNELL BABBITT. 
 
 SEWALL MIRICK. 
 
 JOSIAH FOSTER. 
 
 LEWIS G. PRAY. 
 
 BENSON LEAVITT. 
 
 J. A. SHAW. 
 
 JOHN I. BAKER. 
 
 THOMAS B. WALES. 
 
 THEOPHILUS PARSONS. 
 
 GEORGE II. SMITH. 
 
 BENJAMIN GARDNER. 
 
 FREDERIC EMERSON. 
 
 SILAS STETSON, 
 
 JOHN BOLES. 
 
 ROBERT CHARLES WINTHROP. 
 
 WILLIAM W. PARROTT. 
 
 WILLIAM JAMES. 
 
 WILLIAM HARRIS. 
 
 JOSHUA FALLS. 
 
 OLIVER SMITH. 
 
 DAVID PULSIFER, Jr. 
 
 E. W. LEACH. 
 
 ALLEN W. DODGE. 
 
 GEORGE WILLIAM PHILLIPS. 
 
 NATHAN GURNEY. 
 
 JOHN C. GRAY. 
 
 NICHOLAS TOWER. 
 
 THOMAS HUNTING. 
 
 WILLIAM WILLETT. 
 
 AMOS BINNEY. 
 
 DANIEL SAFFORD. 
 
 DAVID FRANCIS. 
 
 THOMAS PATTEN. 
 
 GEORGE DARRACOTT. 
 
 JOHN RAYNER. 
 
 ICHABOD POPE. 
 
 NOAH BROOKS. 
 
 JOHN SHIFMAN. 
 
 SAMUEL W. HALL. 
 
36 
 
 JAMES FRANCIS. 
 FREDERICK GOULD. 
 WOODBRIDGE STRONG. 
 FRANCIS J. OLIVER. 
 WILLIAM B. MITCHELL. 
 SAMUEL JOHNSON. 
 CHARLES V. CARD. 
 TAMERLANE BURT. 
 CARLOS BARROWS. 
 BENJAMIN BOURNE. 
 WILLIAM CLARK, Jr. 
 ASAHEL BILLINGS. 
 PHILIP BARNES. 
 ELI MOODY. 
 JOHN LUDDEN. 
 NELSON PALMER. 
 JARED BARTLETT. 
 JOSEPH ORCUTT. 
 STEPHEN GLOYD. 
 JOHN GREEN, Jr. 
 JOHN B. WELLS. 
 JEFFREY RICHARDSON. 
 ELIAB WHITMAN. 
 JOSIAH VINTON, Jr. 
 J. W. ROGERS. 
 WILLIAM D. WATERS. 
 LUTHER SNOW. 
 DANIEL DENNY. 
 BARNABAS FREEMAN. 
 ELIPHALET P. HARTSHORN. 
 ROBERT KEITH. 
 JOSEPH B. MORSS. 
 DAVID COOK. 
 JESSE PERKINS. 
 THOMAS B. SMITH. 
 JEFFERSON BANCROFT. 
 ISAAC SCRIPTURE. 
 SAMUEL W. CARTER. 
 ALVAH MANSUR. 
 HIRAM NEWTON. 
 JONATHAN B. BANCROFT. 
 PENUEL PARKER. 
 WALTER BAKER. 
 ALFRED GIBBS. 
 NATHANIEL WRIGHT. 
 JOSEPH A. MOORE. 
 FREEMAN WALKER. 
 
 H. B. WHEELER. 
 ROYAL SOUTH WICK. 
 CALVIN COOLEY. 
 FRIEND KNOWLTON. 
 LATHROP CLARK. 
 JOHN ATKINS. 
 BENJAMIN FRY. 
 MOSES KIMBALL. 
 SILAS THURSTON, Jr. 
 JOEL BARTLETT. 
 CHARLES W. MORGAN. 
 JOHN PERKINS. 
 JOHN F. EMERSON. 
 JOHN EDDY. 
 JAMES RICHARDSON. 
 NATHAN HEARD. 
 CHARLES ELLIS. 
 S. WILLIAMS. 
 PLINY WETHERBEE. 
 JESSE PHELPS. 
 J. H. WARD. 
 NAHUM STETSON. 
 NAHUM FISHER. 
 OTIS BRIGHAM. 
 SILAS WALKER. 
 BENJAMIN F. KEYES. 
 GEORGE PEABODY. 
 ELIJAH WARREN. 
 SAMUEL T. SAWYER. 
 DAVID JOY. 
 CALVIN ROCKWOOD. 
 LEWIS CHAPIN. 
 FRANCIS DEANE, Jr. 
 NAHUM W. HOLBROOK. 
 ELEAZER B. DRAPER. 
 FRANCIS PERKINS. 
 P. D. WHITMORE. 
 STEPHEN FAY. 
 EBENEZER STETSON. 
 E. P. THAYER. 
 JOSEPH CLEVERLY. 
 JOHN WRIGHT. 
 CHARLES NYE. 
 JOSIAH HOLMES. 
 EMORY GREENLEAF. 
 RUFUS KENDALL. 
 
 State House, Boston, March 14, 1840. 
 
 LEFe '10 
 

 
 ^-.^r^i^ 
 
 = \/ r 
 
 ' > 
 
 , ■" V.