UC-NRLF 
 
 SB M7 25E 
 
DOCUMENTS 
 OEPT. 
 

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 II 
 
 cwv 
 
 CONVENTION 
 
 TO 
 
 REVISE THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 DECEMBER, 1QO2. 
 
 CONCORD, N. H.: 
 
 TTbe *Kumfor& press. 
 1903. 
 
iJCCUMENW 
 
 Dtp?. 
 
JOURNAL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
 
 OK 19O2. 
 
 CONCORD, N. H., December 2, 1902. 
 
 The delegates of the Constitutional Convention assembled 
 in the hall of the House of Eepresentatives on Tuesday, De- 
 cember 2, 1902, at 11 o'clock a. m., and were called to order 
 by the Hon. Isaac N. Blodgett of Franklin. 
 
 On motion of James F. Briggs of Manchester, Henry 0. 
 Kent of Lancaster was chosen temporary chairman. 
 
 Messrs. Sanborn of Franklin and Briggs of Manchester were 
 chosen a committee to escort the temporary presiding officer 
 to the chair. 
 
 On assuming the chair, Mr. Kent addressed the Conven- 
 tion as follows: 
 
 There can no higher duty come to citizens of a state than 
 to be charged by its people with examination and revision of 
 its organic law that instrument that has unified government 
 and the elements of prosperity; that has voiced the stern in- 
 tegrity, reverence of Deity, and crowding energy that from 
 feeble beginnings have developed a prosperous common- 
 wealth. 
 
 M164838 
 
4 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 It is an instrument to be approached almost with reverence. 
 So abounding is it in the evidences, the incentives, the experi- 
 ences of the past, that it is to be considered in those points 
 only, wherein changes in the world's progress or developing 
 demands, require restriction or expansion at any point, with 
 wise care and a sense of profound responsibility. 
 
 Its consideration brings to us faces and memories from the 
 past. Patriots and soldiers of the early days of privation, 
 daring and elemental heroism look down upon us from these 
 walls. Memories of noble and worthy events come to us 
 adown the aisles of memory from Louisbourg, Bunker Hill, 
 Bennington, Yorktown, Lundy's Lane, Chapultepec, Gettys- 
 burg, and from the isles of the ocean. 
 
 We love our state! We are here to do her service. Her 
 mountains, her valleys, her clear air and alternations of shade 
 and sun upon her hillsides or lakes they are ours in memory 
 and fond recollection, wherever we are dispersed. The old 
 New Hampshire character, too, abides with us. The stern, 
 self-denying, persistent, patient, helpful lives, revering Deity 
 and sustaining law and order, have found the commonwealth 
 expanding into the life of the federal republic, embracing an 
 empire of freemen, existing by right for the advancement, 
 elevation, comfort, and content of humanity. 
 
 To have in charge the original charter and promise of this 
 result is no light or unmeaning formalism. Hasty action 
 may strike at the root of fundamental truths; untoward re- 
 sults will follow superficial conclusions. 
 
 It is natural that her people should se.nd up to such a 
 grand council as is here assembled, from among her best and 
 wisest sons. Not young men chiefly, in the heyday of youth, 
 with all the world before them from which to choose their 
 course; but grave men, who have borne the burden of life's 
 affairs, who have seen illusions fade before experiment, who 
 desire of all things to preserve as intact as changes of environ- 
 ment will permit, that grand charter of our liberties under 
 which our present well being has been secured. 
 
 I do not think it invidious to any prior convention to sug- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 5 
 
 gest that probably on no occasion since our fathers assembled 
 at the feeble colonial capitals under the shadow of the forests 
 surrounding them for purposes of statecraft, was there ever a 
 better representation of her sons, strong in brain and brawn, 
 gathered to consider great political truths than that which the 
 old commonwealth has sent up for the present purpose to 
 this assembly. 
 
 There are here representatives of the majesty of law, from 
 the pulpit, the press, the centres of trade, all men proven in 
 affairs, gathered with steady purpose to hear thoughtfully, 
 weigh prudently and act carefully in all things concerning 
 the honor, the prosperity, and the content of the state. 
 
 It is not for me to discuss pending legislation; in due 
 course, through regular channels, all matters pertinent to 
 this gathering will be presented, discussed, decided. It is 
 mine to direct your formal action until the permanent organ- 
 ization of this convention shall have been reached and then 
 to give way to your chosen agents. 
 
 It only remains to me as a member of the historic political 
 party to which I have the honor to belong, to thank the ma- 
 jority party of this non-partisan Convention for its wise and 
 generous action in according to that minority the courtesies 
 so generously extended on this occasion, and to acknowledge 
 to the members of my own party, my abiding appreciation of 
 the continued confidence and regard which has placed me in 
 this present place of responsibility; perhaps the crowning 
 honor of my career, in behalf of the Democracy of New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 I should be false to my impulses and an essential part of 
 the pleasure of this hour did I not acknowledge the courte- 
 sies extended me on all sides on this occasion, alike from old- 
 time veterans in the control of the state, and from oncoming 
 active participants who are later to direct her affairs. Es- 
 pecially do I recognize the introduction accorded me by my 
 old-time friend, one of the ablest of our sons upon a bench 
 always honored, and one of our first citizens during a long 
 and useful life, who voluntarily retires as chief justice to en- 
 
6 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 joy in private life the honors so freely accorded him Isaac 
 N. Blodgett. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Convention: Again I thank you and am 
 ready to proceed to business. 
 
 On motion of Benjamin A. Kimball of Concord, James E. 
 Dodge of Manchester was chosen temporary secretary. 
 
 On motion of Stephen S. Jewett of Laconia, 
 
 Resolved, That a committee consisting of two delegates from 
 each county be appointed by the chair to inquire who are 
 elected delegates to this Convention. 
 
 The following named gentlemen were appointed as such 
 committee: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. 
 
 True L. Norris of Portsmouth. 
 William H. C. Follansby of Exeter. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. 
 
 Charles H. Morang of Dover. 
 George W. Nutter of Eollinsford. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. 
 
 Stephen S. Jewett of Laconia. 
 Edwin C. Lewin of Laconia. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. 
 
 James L. Gibson of Conway. 
 Henry F. Dorr of Sandwich. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. 
 
 Maitland C. Lamprey of Concord. 
 George W. Stone of Andover. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 7 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 
 
 Edward E. Parker of Nashua. 
 Herbert 0. Hadley of Temple. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. 
 
 Amos J. Blake of Fitzwilliam. 
 Joseph Madden of Keene. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. 
 
 Jesse M. Barton of Newport. 
 Herbert A. Holmes of Langdon. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. 
 
 Henry C. Carbee of Bath. 
 Calvin T. Shute of Wentworth. 
 
 COOS COUNTY. 
 
 Alfred R. Evans of Gorham. 
 Jason H. Dudley of Colebrook. 
 
 On motion of John W. Sanborn of Wakefield, 
 
 Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns, it adjourn 
 to meet this afternoon at 2 o'clock. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Gilmore of Manchester, 
 
 Resolved, That the temporary secretary request the secre- 
 tary of state to furnish this Convention with 450 copies of 
 the published proceedings of the Constitutional Convention 
 of 1889, one copy for each member of this Convention and 
 its officers. 
 
 Mr. Foster of Concord presented the petition of Felix G. 
 Harbor and others, contesting the right of Herman Greager 
 and others to seats as delegates. 
 
8 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Jewett of Laconia, the petition was laid 
 on the table. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 AFTEENOOK 
 
 The Convention met at 2 o'clock, according to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 The chair called upon the Eev. David H. Evans of New 
 Hampton to open the Convention with prayer. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia, for the Committee on Credentials, 
 reported that prima facie evidence had been presented to them 
 of the election of the following named persons as delegates to 
 this Convention: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. 
 
 Atkinson, Elmer E. Conley. 
 
 Auburn, Henry C. Sanborn. 
 
 Brentwood, Ephraim G. Flanders. 
 
 Candia, George E. Eaton. 
 
 Chester, Charles H. Knowles. 
 
 Danville, Eugene F. Kimball. 
 
 Deerfield, John M. Kelsey. 
 
 Derry, Walter E. Sanders, Charles F. Gillispie, Charles W. 
 Abbott. 
 
 East Kingston, Frank E. Morrill. 
 
 Exeter, Edwin G. Eastman, William H. C. Follansby, Ar- 
 thur 0. Fuller, Albert S. Wetherell. 
 
 Epping, John Leddy. 
 
 Fremont, Lincoln F. Hooke. 
 
 Greenland, John S. H. Frink. 
 
 Hampstead, John C. Sanborn. 
 
 Hampton, John W. Towle. 
 
 Hampton Falls, Benjamin F. Weare. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 9 
 
 Kensington, Weare N. Shaw. 
 
 Kingston, Amos C. Chase. 
 
 Londonderry, Eosecrans W. Pillsbury. 
 
 Newcastle, no choice. 
 
 Newfields, Christopher A. Pollard. 
 
 Newington, Frederic W. de Rochemont. 
 
 Newmarket, Harrison G. Burley, John Walkei. 
 
 Newton, Daniel F. Battles. 
 
 North Hampton, David H. Evans. 
 
 Northwood, Charles F. Gate. 
 
 Nottingham, James H. Kelsey. 
 
 Plaistow, Daniel M. Peaslee. 
 
 Portsmouth: 
 
 Ward 1, Samuel W. Emery, Guy E. Corey. 
 
 Ward 2, Simon P. Emery, Alfred F. Howard, True L. 
 Norris. 
 
 Ward 3, Clarence H. Paul, Samuel F. Ham. 
 
 Ward 4, Edward H. Adams. 
 
 Ward 5, William A. A. Cullen. 
 Raymond, James M. Healey. 
 Eye, Horace Sawyer. 
 
 Salem, Wallace W. Cole, Benjamin E. Wheeler. 
 Sandown, Horace T. Grover. 
 Seabrook, John W. Locke. 
 South Hampton, Benjamin E. Jewell. 
 Stratham, Joseph C. A. Wingate. 
 Windham, George H. Clark. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. 
 
 Barrington, Alphonzo B. Locke. 
 Dover: 
 
 Ward 1, George I. Leighton, Charles E. Morrison. 
 Ward 2, Charles T. Moulton, William H. Eoberts, Burn- 
 ham Hanson. 
 
 Ward 3, John H. Nealley, Dwight Hall. 
 Ward 4, Charles H. Morang, Channing Folsom, John H. 
 
 Nute. 
 Ward 5, Patrick W. Murphy. 
 
10 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Durham, Daniel Chesley. 
 
 Farmington, Henry C. Nutter, Edward T. Willson. 
 
 Lee, John W. Webb. 
 
 Madbury, Fred E. Gerrish. 
 
 Middleton, James D. Moore. 
 
 Milton, Bard B. Plummer. 
 
 New Durham, Horatio G. Chamberlin. 
 
 Eochester: 
 
 Ward 1, Andrew E. Nute. 
 
 Ward 2, George P. Furbush. 
 
 Ward 3, Stephen C. Meader. 
 
 Ward 4, George H. Springfield, Gaspard A. Gelinas. 
 
 Ward 5, George E. Cochrane. 
 
 Ward 6, William T. Gunnison. 
 Eollinsford, George W. Nutter. 
 Somersworth: 
 
 Ward 1, James A. Edgerly. 
 
 Ward 2, Joseph Libby. 
 
 Ward 3, James A. Locke. 
 
 Ward 4, Michael J. Leary, Clement Eoy. 
 
 Ward 5, Oliver Morin. 
 Strafford, Frank H. Hall. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. 
 
 Alton, George H. Demeritt. 
 Barnstead, Horace N. Colbath. 
 Belmont, Fred E. Bryar. 
 Center Harbor, Allan C. Clark. 
 Gilford, James E. Morrill. 
 Gilmanton, Thomas Cogswell. 
 Laconia: 
 
 Ward 1, Charles L. Pulsifer, Edwin D. Ward. 
 
 Ward 2, Stephen S. Jewett, Horace W. Gorrell. 
 
 Ward 3, John T. Busiel. 
 
 Ward 4, Edwin P. Thompson, Edwin C. Lewis. 
 Meredith, George F. Smith. 
 New Hampton, Kenrick W. Smith. 
 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 11 
 
 Sanbornton, James E. Knox. 
 
 Tilton, Charles C. Rogers, William B. Fellows. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. 
 
 Albany, Archie Nickerson. 
 Bartlett, Henry M. Hideout. 
 Brookfield, Dudley C. Colman. 
 Chatham, William Spencer. 
 
 Conway, Sewell M. Hobson, James L. Gibson, Joel E. Mor- 
 rill. 
 
 Eaton, Luther E. Dearborn. 
 
 Effingham, Horace W. Harmon. 
 
 Freedom, Arthur P. Merrow. 
 
 Hart's Location, Merville B. Murch. 
 
 Jackson, Jonathan Meserve. 
 
 Madison, Samuel J. Gilman. 
 
 Moultonborough, Andrew J. Goodwin. 
 
 Ossipee, Levi W. Brown. 
 
 Sandwich, Henry F. Dorr. 
 
 Tamworth, Horace A. Page. 
 
 Tuftonborough, John D. Morrison. 
 
 Wakefield, John W. Sanborn. 
 
 Wolfeborough, Stephen W. Clow, Fred E. Hersey. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. 
 
 Allenstown, Frank E. Blodgett. 
 Andover, George W. Stone. 
 Boscawen, Willis G. Buxton. 
 Bow, Henry M. Baker. 
 Bradford, John E. French. 
 Canterbury, James Frame. 
 Chichester, Jeremy L. Sanborn. 
 Concord: 
 
 Ward 1, David F, Dudley, Charles E. Foote. 
 
 Ward 2, Fales P. Virgin. 
 
 Ward 3, Abijah Hollis. 
 
 Ward 4, Frank S. Streeter, James 0. Lyford, John M. 
 Mitchell. 
 
12 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Ward 5, Edward C. Mies, William A. Foster. 
 
 Ward 6, Benjamin A. Kimball, Reuben E. Walker, De- 
 Witt C. Howe. 
 
 Ward 7, Moses T. Whittier, Maitland C. Lamprey, Hor- 
 ace L. Ingalls. 
 
 Ward 8, William E. Chandler. 
 
 Ward 9, Michael Casey, John Jordan. 
 Danbury, John V. Ford. 
 Dunbarton, Horace Caldwell. 
 Epsom, John H. Dolbeer. 
 Franklin: 
 
 Ward 1, Isaac K Blodgett. 
 
 Ward 2, Edward B. S. Sanborn, George R. Stone. 
 
 Ward 3, Edward G. Leach, Omar A. Towne. 
 Henniker, Charles A. Wilkins. 
 Hill, Royal L. Wilson. 
 Hooksett, Eugene S. Head. 
 Hopkinton, George M. Putnam. 
 Loudon, Jeremiah A. Clough. 
 Newbury, George J. Messer. 
 New London, Jacob H. Todd. 
 Northfield, Otis C. Wyatt. 
 
 Pembroke, Jacob E. Chickering, Edmund E. Truesdell, 
 George E. Miller. 
 
 Pittsfield, Frank P. Greene, Edward K. Webster. 
 Salisbury, Edward N". Sawyer. 
 Sutton, no choice voted not to send. 
 Warner, Arthur Thompson. 
 Webster, Frank A. Lang. 
 Wilmot, no choice. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. 
 
 Amherst, Eugene C. Hubbard. 
 Antrim, Franklin G. Warner. 
 Bedford, Gordon Woodbury. 
 Bennington, Charles H. Kimball. 
 Brookline, Orville D. Fessenden. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 13 
 
 Deering, William F. Whitaker. 
 
 Francestown, George E. Dowries. 
 
 Goffstown, George W. Colby, David A. Paige. 
 
 Greenfield, George S. Peavey. 
 
 Greenville, Stephen H. Bacon. 
 
 Hancock, George H. Fogg. 
 
 Hillsborough, John B. Smith, Samuel W. Holman. 
 
 Hollis, Marcelhis J. Powers. 
 
 Hudson, George W. Clyde. 
 
 Litchfield, Jonathan A. Marsh. 
 
 Lyndeborough, Walter S. Tarbell. 
 
 Manchester: 
 
 Ward 1, Elliot C. Lambert, Rufus Wilkinson, Jacob J. 
 
 Abbott. 
 Ward 2, James F. Briggs, David Cross, Nathan P. Hunt, 
 
 Oliver B. Green, James E. Dodge. 
 
 Ward 3, Henry W. Boutwell, Cyrus H. Little, Clarence 
 E. Rose, Edwin F. Jones, Edwin R. Robinson, Joseph 
 0. Tremblay. 
 
 Ward 4, Harry T. Lord, George C. Gilmore, Henry A. 
 Farrington, Warren Harvey, Bushrod W. Hill, Albert 
 J. Precourt. 
 
 Ward 5, Joseph M. McDonough, Michael Tonery, Will- 
 iam J. Starr, Timothy E. Horan, William F. Glancy, 
 Michael R. Sullivan, Dennis F. Griffin, Henry Jen- 
 nings. 
 Ward 6, Fred T. Irwin, George I. McAllister, Joseph 
 
 Quirin, Eugene E. Hildreth. 
 Ward 7, Henry W. Allen. 
 Ward 8, Frank 0. Clement, John C. Littlefield, John K. 
 
 McQuesten, William McElroy, Edward J. Powers. 
 Ward 9, Herman Greager, Joseph Richer, Frank T. Pro- 
 vost, Joseph G. Plante, Eugene Quirin, Moise Guerin, 
 Joseph A. Boivin. 
 
 Ward 10, James M. Hall, Albert Nettle, Joseph F. Trin- 
 ity, Nelson W. Paige. 
 Mason, Hermon Whitaker. 
 
14 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Merrimack, Francis A. Gordon. 
 
 Milford, Carl E. Knight, William B. Eotch, George A. Wor- 
 cester. 
 
 Mont Vernon, Charles H. Eaymond. 
 Nashua: 
 
 Ward 1, Charles J. Hamblett, John E. Spring. 
 
 Ward 2, Joseph L. Clough, Walter C. Harriman. 
 
 Ward 3, Edward H. Everett, John J. Flood, Henri T. 
 Ledoux. 
 
 Ward 4, Edward E. Parker. 
 
 Ward 5, Stephen L. Hallinan. 
 
 Ward 6, Edward H. Wason. 
 
 Ward 7, Arthur K. Woodbury, Clayton B. Proctor, Fred- 
 eric D. Eunnells. 
 
 Ward 8, William J. McKay, Albert Shedd, William J. 
 Flather. 
 
 Ward 9, Thomas Earley, Jr., Joseph T. Slattery, Leon 
 
 Desmarais, Michael McGlynn. 
 New Boston, Lendell Dodge. 
 New Ipswich, Edwin F. Blanchard. 
 Pelham, Charles L. Seavey. 
 
 Peterborough, Mortier L. Morrison, Charles Scott. 
 Sharon, Milton A. Eichardson. 
 Temple, Herbert 0. Hadley. 
 Weare, George Simons. 
 Wilton, George E. Bales. 
 Windsor, Joseph C. Chapman. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. 
 
 Alstead, Charles H. Cooke. 
 
 Chesterfield, George F. Amidon. 
 
 Dublin, Henry D. Learned. 
 
 Fitzwilliam, Amos J. Blake. 
 
 Gilsum, John S. Collins. 
 
 Harrisville, Frank C. Farwell. 
 
 Hinsdale, Fred A. Buckley, Willis D. Stearns. 
 
 Jaffrey, Joel H. Poole, Albert Annett. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 15 
 
 Keene: 
 
 Ward 1, James S. Taft, Adolph W. Pressler. 
 
 Ward 2, Charles Wright, 3d, Liberty W. Foskett. 
 
 Ward 3, William C. Hall, Hiram F. Newell. 
 
 Ward 4, Clement J. Woodward. 
 
 Ward 5, Joseph Madden. 
 Marlborough, Clinton Collins. 
 Marlow, Rockwell F. Craig. 
 Nelson, George W. Osgood. 
 Richmond, Lewis R. Cass. 
 Rlndge, Warren W. Emory. 
 Roxbury, Charles W. Buckminster. 
 Stoddard, Cummings B. McClure. 
 Sullivan, Daniel W. Rugg. 
 Surry, Stephen H. Clement. 
 Swanzey, Auburn J. Day. 
 Troy, Melvin T. Stone. 
 
 Walpole, Frank A. Spaulding, William H. Kiniry. 
 Westmoreland, Edwin J. Goodnow. 
 Winchester, Carlos C. Davis, George W. Pierce. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. 
 
 Acworth, Abraham M. Mitchell. 
 
 Charlestown, Lyman Brooks. 
 
 Claremont, Edward J. Tenney, George T. Stockwell, Os- 
 mon B. Way, George P. Rossiter, Ira G. Colby. 
 
 Cornish, George E. Fairbanks. 
 
 Croydon, Daniel Ide. 
 
 Goshen, Frank L. Hanson. 
 
 Grantham, Moses P. Burpee. 
 
 Langdon, Herbert A. Holmes. 
 
 Lempster, Loren A. Noyes. 
 
 Newport, Arthur C. Bradley, Jesse M. Barton, Seth M. 
 Richards. 
 
 Plainfield, Robert R. Penniman. 
 
 Springfield, Joseph L. Brown. 
 
 Sunapee, George H. Bartlett. 
 
 Unity, Charles A. Newton. 
 
 Washington, Willie D. Brockway. 
 
16 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. 
 
 Alexandria, Alpheus S. Bucklin. 
 
 Ashland, Henry C. Dearborn. 
 
 Bath, Henry C. Carbee. 
 
 Benton, Lebina H. Parker. 
 
 Bethlehem, Henry A. Hildreth. 
 
 Bridgewater, Henry H. Morrill. 
 
 Bristol, Ira A. Chase. 
 
 Campton, Charles W. Pulsifer. 
 
 Canaan, Warren B. Richardson. 
 
 Dorchester, Herbert H. Ashley. 
 
 Easton, Charles A. Young. 
 
 Ellsworth, Bert H. Avery. 
 
 Enfield, Henry Cumings, John Dresser. 
 
 Franconia, Wilbur F. Parker. 
 
 Grafton, Joseph E. Walker. 
 
 Groton, Daniel Kidder. 
 
 Hanover, Simon Ward, James F. Colby. 
 
 Haverhill, Tyler Westgate, Scott Sloane, Edwin B. Pike. 
 
 Hebron, Edward M. Jewell. 
 
 Holderness, Robert L. Flanders. 
 
 Landaff, Van B. Glazier. 
 
 Lebanon, Charles A. Dole, Charles B. Drake, Jesse E. 
 Dewey, Clarence E. Hibbard. 
 
 Lincoln, James E. Henry. 
 
 Lisbon, Augustus A. Woolson, George F. Morris. 
 
 Littleton, Edgar Aldrich, Henry F. Green, Harry M, 
 Morse. 
 
 Lyman, Willard A. Stoddard. 
 
 Lyme, George Melvin. 
 
 Monroe, Alexander Warden. 
 
 Orange, John H. French. 
 
 Orford, George W. Lamprey. 
 
 Piermont, Edward Ford. 
 
 Plymouth, Frank W. Russell, Alvin F. Wentworth. 
 
 Rumney, Charles C. Craig. 
 
 Thornton, Marshall A. Bowles. 
 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 17 
 
 Warren, William R. Park, Jr. 
 Waterville, George H. Green. 
 Wentworth, Calvin T. Shute. 
 Woodstock, Elmer E. Woodbury. 
 
 COOS COUNTY. 
 Berlin: 
 
 Ward 1, Joseph H. Wight, John D. Moffett, William H. 
 Paine. 
 
 Ward 2, Louis M. Laplante, George F. Rich, Daniel J. 
 Daley. 
 
 Ward 3, James A. Boudreau, Charles A. Murray. 
 Carroll, Charles S. Miles. 
 Clarksville, Willis E. Young. 
 Colebrook, Jason H. Dudley, Thomas F. Johnson. 
 Columbia, Charles C. Titus. 
 Dalton, Frank Britton. 
 Dummer, Adam W. Wight. 
 Errol, Remember B. Thurston. 
 Gorham, Alfred R. Evans. 
 Jefferson, George W. Crawford. 
 
 Lancaster, Irving W. Drew, Henry 0. Kent, William H. 
 Hartley. 
 
 Milan, Leonard K. Phipps. 
 
 Northumberland, Napoleon B. Perkins, George W. Mc- 
 Kellips. 
 
 Pittsburg, Harvey Augustus Blanchard. 
 
 Randolph, Laban M. Watson. 
 
 Shelburne, Charles E. Philbrook. 
 
 Stark, William T. Pike. 
 
 Stewartstown, Leon D. Ripley. 
 
 Stratford, Havilah B. Hinman. 
 
 Whitefield, David M. Aldrich, William F. Dodge. 
 
 The report was accepted and adopted. 
 
 The chair appointed as tellers to distribute and collect bal- 
 lots the following named gentlemen: 
 2 
 
18 JOUBNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Messrs. Pillsbury of Londonderry, Pressler of Keene, Lit- 
 tle of Manchester, Leighton of Dover, and Fairbanks of Cor- 
 nish. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lamprey of Concord, proceeded to bal- 
 lot for president of the Convention. 
 
 The chair appointed as tellers to sort and count the bal- 
 lots, Messrs. Bales of Wilton, Jones of Manchester, and Sloane 
 of Haverhill. 
 
 The ballot for president resulted as follows: 
 
 Whole number of ballots cast 398 
 
 Necessary to a choice 200 
 
 Edgar Aldrich 31 
 
 David Cross 127 
 
 Frank S. Streeter 240 
 
 and Frank S. Streeter, having received a majority of all the 
 ballots cast, was declared elected President of the Convention. 
 
 Messrs. Aldrich of Littleton and Cross of Manchester were 
 appointed to conduct the president-elect to the chair. 
 
 On assuming the chair Mr. Streeter addressed the Conven- 
 tion as follows: 
 
 Gentlemen of the Convention: 
 
 For such an expression of confidence and approbation by 
 this representative body of my fellow-citizens, I am sincerely 
 grateful. 
 
 You have come here to discuss and determine what changes 
 in the Constitution seem desirable or necessary, and you will 
 subinit your conclusions to the people for final action. 
 
 The ripe experience and eminent public service of many of 
 you, and the high character and ability of all are a sufficient 
 guaranty that your work will be well and promptly done, 
 without prejudice or partisanship. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 19 
 
 It is the duty of the chair faithfully to administer the will 
 of the Convention and, to that end, he asks the kindly sup- 
 port and cooperation of every member. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chase of Bristol, proceeded to ballot for 
 secretary of the Convention. 
 
 The President appointed as tellers the same gentlemen who 
 served before. 
 
 The ballot for secretary resulted as follows: 
 
 Whole number of ballots cast 382 
 
 Necessary to a choice , 192 
 
 George "W. Fowler 58 
 
 James R. Jackson 93 
 
 Thomas H. Madigan, Jr 231 
 
 and Thomas H. Madigan, Jr., having received a majority of 
 all the ballots cast, was declared elected secretary of the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. Madigan appeared and qualified before Judge Aldrich. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Everett of Nashua, the following reso- 
 lution was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of twenty, to consist of two 
 from each county, be appointed by the chair to select and 
 report to the Convention the names of persons to fill the 
 offices of assistant secretary, sergeant-at-arms, chaplain, three 
 doorkeepers, and a warden of the cloak-room. 
 
 The President appointed the following gentlemen as such 
 committee: 
 
 Messrs. Pillsbury of Londonderry, Norris of Portsmouth, 
 Moulton of Dover, Locke of Barrington, Demeritt of Alton, 
 Lewis of Laconia, Brown of Ossipee, Merrow of Freedom, 
 Leach of Franklin, Clough of Loudon, Hamblett of Nashua, 
 
20 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Starr of Manchester, Pressler of Keene, Collins of Marl- 
 borough, Tenney of Claremont, Brockway of Washington, 
 Greene of Littleton, Wentworth of Plymouth, Johnson of 
 Colebrook, Aldrich of Whitefield. 
 
 Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam offered the following resolution, 
 which, on motion of Mr. Baker of Bow, was laid on the table: 
 
 Resolvedy That the rules of the Constitutional Convention 
 of 1889 be adopted as the rules of this Convention, until 
 otherwise ordered. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Baker of Bow, the following resolution 
 was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of ten, one from each county, 
 be appointed by the chair to report rules for the government 
 of the Convention, and recommend methods of procedure, 
 and until the report of this committee shall have been re- 
 turned the rules of 1889 shall stand. 
 
 The President appointed the following gentlemen as such 
 committee: 
 
 Messrs. Baker of Bow, Eastman of Exeter, Cochrane of 
 Rochester, Jewett of Laconia, Morrill of Conway, Little of 
 Manchester, Madden of Keene, Colby of Claremont, Woolson 
 of Lisbon, Dudley of Colebrook. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Hamblett of Nashua, 
 
 Resolved, That the President be authorized to appoint three 
 pages, tellers for each division, chaplain, and warden of the 
 cloak-room. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Howard of Portsmouth, the following 
 resolution was adopted, by a division vote of 170 in the affirm- 
 ative to 89 in the negative: 
 
 Resolved, That the secretary be directed to procure daily 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1902. 21 
 
 four hundred and twenty-five copies of The Concord Evening 
 Monitor, and of The Manchester Union, for the use of the offi- 
 cers and members of the Convention. . 
 
 On motion of Mr. Jewett of Laconia, the petition of Felix 
 G. Harbor and others was taken from the table and referred 
 to a special committee of ten, one from each county, to be 
 appointed by the President. 
 
 The President appointed the following gentlemen as such 
 committee : 
 
 Messrs. Fuller of Exeter, Eoberts of Dover, Fellows of Til- 
 ton, Merrow of Freedom, Foster of Concord, McAllister of 
 Manchester, Collins of Gilsum, Barton of Newport, Went- 
 worth of Plymouth, Eich of Berlin. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Bales of Wilton the following resolution 
 was adopted: 
 
 WHEREAS, Philip Eiley of ward ten, in the city of Man- 
 chester, represents that he is legally entitled to a seat as dele- 
 gate m this Convention from said ward and contests the right 
 of Nelson W. Paige to a seat as delegate in this Convention. 
 Be it moved that a committee of five be appointed by the chair 
 to inspect the ballots cast for the said Paige and the said 
 Eiley and report their finding to this body. 
 
 The President appointed the following gentlemen as such 
 committee: 
 
 Messrs. Parker of Nashua, Bales of Wilton, Taft of Keene, 
 Glancey of Manchester, Spring of Nashua. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ward of Laconia, the following resolu- 
 tion was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That the drawing of seats be made a special order 
 for Wednesday, December 3, 1902, at 11 o'clock, and that 
 the method followed in the house of representatives be 
 adopted. 
 
22 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Everett of Nashua offered a resolution entitled "A 
 resolution to take God out of the Constitution/' and moved 
 that it be made a spe.cial order December 3, at 11 o'clock in 
 the forenoon. 
 
 Said resolution being as follows: 
 
 In view of the surprising forethought and the thoroughly 
 demonstrated good judgment of the framers of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, in omitting any reference to a 
 personal God and believing that the people of New Hamp- 
 shire have reached an age of intelligence when it is safe to 
 discard superstition and that the proper place to start should 
 be and is with our State Constitution; be it resolved, that the 
 following proposition be submitted to the people: 
 
 " Shall all reference or inference to God, Deity, or Protes- 
 tant Christians be stricken from the Constitution. 1 ' 
 
 On motion of Mr. Pressler of Keene, the resolution was 
 laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry, for Committee on Perma- 
 nent Organization, reported, recommending the following 
 named gentlemen for the several offices, and the report was 
 accepted and adopted: 
 
 Assistant secretary, L. Ashton Thorpe of Manchester; ser- 
 geant-at-arms, John K. Law of New London; chaplain, Eev. 
 Burton W. Lockhart' of Manchester; doorkeepers, Charles "W. 
 Torr of Dover, George W. Allen of Stewartstown, W. W. 
 Lovejoy of Littleton; warden of cloak-room, George H. 
 Brigham. 
 
 The committee also recommended that Harry B. Jackson 
 of Littleton be elected page to the President, to serve during 
 the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lord of Manchester, this recommenda- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 23 
 
 tion was referred to a committee of one, consisting of the 
 President. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Gilmore of Manchester, the following 
 resolution was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That the secretary have printed an alphabetical 
 roll of members,, for the use of the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Corey of Portsmouth, 
 
 Resolved, That when the Convention adjourns, it adjourn 
 to meet to-morrow at 10 o'clock. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Little of Manchester, 
 
 Resolved, That Fremont E. Shurtleff of Concord be ap- 
 pointed official stenographer of the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Stockwell of Claremont, the following 
 resolution was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That until otherwise ordered, the hours of meet- 
 ing of the Convention be 10:30 o'clock in the forenoon and 
 2 o'clock in the afternoon. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Jewett of Laconia, 
 
 Resolved, That the President be added to the Committee on 
 Eules. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua, the Convention ad- 
 journed. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1903. 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered by Eev. David H. Evans of New Hamp- 
 
 ton. 
 
24 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Stockwell of Claremont, the rules were 
 so far suspended that the reading of the journal was dispensed 
 with. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the following resolution 
 was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That the President shall appoint one assistant 
 warden for the cloak-room. 
 
 Under the general resolution adopted Tuesday^ December 
 2, the chair announced the appointment of the following 
 named gentlemen as pages: 
 
 Walter H. Harriman of Nashua, Harry J. Pelren of Con- 
 cord, and George C. Stone of Dover. 
 
 Under a special resolution adopted later, the chair ap- 
 pointed as page to the President, Harry Bingham Jackson of 
 Littleton. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow, for the Committee on Eules and Method 
 of Procedure, submitted the following report: 
 
 1. The President shall take the chair at precisely the hour 
 to which the Convention shall have adjourned, shall imme- 
 diately call the members to order, and at the commencement 
 of each day's session shall cause the journal of the preceding 
 day to be read. He shall preserve decorum and order, and 
 may speak on points of order in preference to other mem- 
 bers, and may substitute any member to perform the duties 
 of the chair, such substitution not to extend beyond an ad- 
 journment. 
 
 2. A majority of all the members of the Convention shall 
 constitute a quorum. 
 
 3. All committees shall be appointed by the President, un- 
 less otherwise directed by the Convention; and the first 
 named member of any committee appointed by the President 
 shall be chairman. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 25 
 
 4. No person but the members and officers of the Conven- 
 tion shall be admitted within the chamber unless by invi- 
 tation of the President or order of the Convention. 
 
 5. No member shall speak more than twice to the same 
 question without leave of the Convention. 
 
 6. When any question is under debate, no motion shall be 
 received but, 1st, to adjourn; 2d, to lay on the table; 3d, to 
 postpone to a day certain; 4th, to commit; 5th, to amend 
 which several motions shall take precedence in the order in 
 which they are arranged. Motions to adjourn and lay on 
 the table shall be decided without debate. 
 
 7. Any member may call for a division of the question, 
 when the sense will admit of it; but a motion to strike out 
 and insert shall not be divided. 
 
 8. A motion for commitment, until it is decided, shall pre- 
 cede all amendments to the main question; and all motions 
 and reports may be committed at the pleasure of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 9. No vote shall be reconsidered unless the motion for re- 
 consideration be made by a member who voted with the ma- 
 jority. 
 
 10. Every question shall be decided by yeas and nays, 
 whenever a demand for the same shall be made and sustained 
 by at least ten members. 
 
 11. The Convention may resolve itself into a Committee 
 of the Whole at any time on the motion of a member; and, in 
 forming a Committee of the Whole, the President shall leave 
 the chair and appoint a chairman to preside in committee; 
 and the rules of proceeding in Convention shall be observed 
 in Committee of the Whole, except the rule limiting the 
 times of speaking and the rule relating to calls for the yeas 
 and nays. 
 
 12. After the journal has been read and corrected, the or- 
 
26 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 der of business shall be as follows: First, the presentation 
 of resolutions and petitions; second, the reports of commit- 
 tees; third, any special order for the hour; fourth, the unfin- 
 ished business of the preceding day. 
 
 13. All motions and resolutions proposing any amendment 
 to the Constitution shall be offered in writing, and be read 
 by the secretary for the information of the Convention, when, 
 unless rejected or otherwise disposed of, shall be referred to 
 an appropriate committee, who shall examine and report 
 thereon to the Convention, with such recommendations as 
 they may deem advisable. No proposition for an amend- 
 ment shall be received after Tuesday of the second week, un- 
 less by unanimous consent of the Convention or upon the 
 recommendation of the committee. 
 
 14. There shall be appointed by the President five com- 
 mittees, consisting of twenty members each, and each county 
 shall be represented thereon. Said committees shall be on 
 the following subjects, viz.: 
 
 (1) On Bill of Eights and executive department. 
 
 (2) On legislative department. 
 
 (3) On judicial department. 
 
 (4) On future mode of amending the Constitution, and 
 other proposed amendments. 
 
 (5) On time and mode of submitting to the people the 
 amendments agreed to by the Convention. 
 
 It was moved by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, that 
 the report be accepted and the rules adopted as the rules of 
 the Convention. 
 
 The President Gentlemen, you have heard the report of 
 the chairman of the Committee on Rules. It is moved that 
 these rules as read be adopted as the rules of our Convention. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I should be glad if the chair- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 27 
 
 man of the committee would explain to us in what respects 
 these rules differ from the rules of the Convention of 1889. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow There are very few changes in these 
 rules. 
 
 No. 2, a rule in regard to a quorum, is inserted. It prob- 
 ahly was not absolutely necessary to insert that rule, as under 
 general parliamentary law a majority of all the members 
 would constitute a quorum, but it was thought by your com- 
 mittee advisable to have it incorporated in the rules. 
 
 The other resolutions are exactly as found in the rules of 
 1889, until we come to the order of business. In 1889 it 
 read: "After the journal has been read and corrected, the 
 order of business shall be as follows: First, the presentation 
 of resolutions and petitions; second, the reports of commit- 
 tees; third, the unfinished business of the preceding day." 
 Your committee recognized that there might be a conflict of 
 authority at this point, the Convention having made some 
 special order of the day and hour of the day, so the commit- 
 tee has inserted as the third order, "Any special order for 
 the hour as unfinished business." That is the only change 
 there. There is no change in the order in which the resolu- 
 tions are to be presented, namely, they must be in writing, 
 and unless they are rejected or otherwise disposed of they 
 shall go immediately to the appropriate committee. 
 
 The practice in 1876 was that they should be considered 
 immediately by the Convention in a Committee of the Whole. 
 The resolution as reported does not prevent that method of 
 considering the questions. If the Convention so elects, un- 
 der these rules, any amendment may be considered imme- 
 diately in the Committee of the Whole. So it does not seem 
 to your committee that there is any objection on account of 
 the difference upon this point between the rules of 1889 and 
 the rules here reported, because the whole matter rests in 
 the hands of the Convention itself. 
 
 There is one other change. That is, in connection with 
 the appointment of committees. Tinder the old system the 
 
28 JOURNAL OP CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 committees consisted of twenty members each, there being 
 two from each county, and it was the custom that there 
 should be one Eepublican and one Democrat from each coun- 
 ty. We are laboring under some disadvantage in that con- 
 nection in this Convention. There is one county in which 
 there are only two Democrats; one in which there are only 
 three; and one in which there are only five; and so there 
 would not be Democrats enough to go around among these 
 different committees. 
 
 Consequently, your committee thought it well to leave the 
 matter in the discretion of the President, where the Demo- 
 crats may rest assured that they will be fairly treated. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I only wished the chairman of 
 the committee to make it plainly understood that when a 
 proposition is made for an amendment of the Constitution, 
 the Convention, if it chooses to do, may consider the propo- 
 sition in the Committee of the Whole, as was done in the 
 Conventions of 1876 and 1889, without referring it to a com- 
 mittee of the Convention. If, after it is so considered, the 
 Convention wishes it sent to a committee they can do so. 
 They can, however, if they choose, adopt the amendment or 
 express an opinion on it in the first instance and send it to 
 the committee afterwards. That is as I understand to have 
 been the practice under the rules of 1876 and the practice 
 of 1889, under a rule substantially like the one here. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Mr. President and Gentlemen of the 
 Convention, I think if I have not succeeded in making that 
 point plain to you, the gentleman from Concord has. The 
 one point is, that if the Convention does not reject any pro- 
 posed amendment or it is not otherwise disposed of, then it 
 will go to the appropriate committee when appointed, but 
 the whole matter is under the control of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord When a proposition is intro- 
 duced it is competent then for the person introducing the 
 amendment to move to have it referred to a committee, under 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 29 
 
 this rule, or the house can take it up and consider it in a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord If the gentleman will pardon me, 
 let me inquire if an amendment is offered here by a member, 
 will it then be in order, under the rules, for him to proceed 
 to discuss it and have the Convention consider it unless a mo- 
 tion is made to refer it to a committee? 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow It would be referred to a committee in 
 the absence of any different motion; but if any gentleman 
 wishes it to be considered by the Convention in a Committee 
 of the Whole, it can be done upon his motion. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord As I understand it, when a 
 proposition is introduced a motion is made to refer it to a 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow No; under the rule it goes as a matter 
 of course to the committee, unless it is rejected or otherwise 
 disposed of. A motion to have it considered by the Conven- 
 tion at once must be an affirmative one. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord In accordance with the prac- 
 tice heretofore and under these proposed rules, a reference 
 would be made to the appropriate committee, unless the gen- 
 tleman who introduces a resolution or amendment moves, 
 when he presents it, that the Convention consider it in a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole at some fixed time. If he does not 
 make that motion, then as a matter of course the President 
 will refer that to the appropriate committee. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow That is correct. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I see no objection to that. If 
 there is no motion made asking to have an amendment re- 
 ferred to the Committee of the Whole, and fixing the time 
 when it should be considered by such committee, of course it 
 
SO JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ought to go to one of the standing committees of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Your committee has reported exactly 
 what was the rule and practice of the Convention in 1889. 
 
 The question being stated, shall the rules reported from 
 the committee be adopted, the same were unanimously adopt- 
 ed as the rules of the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Fuller of Exeter, the Committee on Con- 
 tested Seats in the ward nine delegation, Manchester, was 
 allowed to sit during the drawing of seats and the secretary 
 was authorized to draw seats for its members. 
 
 F. E. Shurtleff of Concord was qualified as official steno- 
 grapher for the Convention. 
 
 The chair read a communication from The People and 
 Patriot company, asking permission of the Convention to dis- 
 tribute without charge, copies of The Daily Patriot among 
 the delegates each evening. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, the request was 
 granted. 
 
 A resolution was adopted that the secretary be authorized 
 to draw a seat for the Hon. J. S. H. Frink of Portsmouth, 
 unavoidably prevented by illness from being present. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kent of Lancaster, it was ordered that 
 during the drawing of seats the secretary be instructed to 
 draw seats for each absent member as his name was called, 
 including the members of the Committee on the Eecount in 
 ward ten, Manchester. 
 
 Mr. Shaw of Kensington offered the following resolution: 
 Resolved, That Judge Cross and Judge Aldrich be per- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 31 
 
 mitted to choose their seats before the Convention proceeds 
 to draw for seats. 
 
 Amendments were offered on motion of various delegates 
 and accepted by Mr. Shaw so as to include the names of the 
 following gentlemen: 
 
 Messrs. Blodgett of Franklin, Sanborn of Wakefield, Kent 
 of Lancaster, Cogswell of Gilmanton, Briggs of Manchester, 
 Lewis of Laconia, Kimball of Concord, and Chandler of Con- 
 cord. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord asked that his name be with- 
 drawn, but Mr. Parks of Warren, who made the motion, re- 
 iused to withdraw Mr. Chandler's name. 
 
 The question upon the adoption of the resolution as amend- 
 ed being stated, the resolution was rejected. 
 
 Mr. Ward of Laconia called for the special order of the day, 
 which was the drawing of seats. 
 
 The Convention having attended to the special order, on 
 motion of Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth, the Convention ad- 
 journed. 
 
 AFTERNOON. 
 
 The Convention niet according to adjournment. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 By virtue of a resolution passed at the morning session, the 
 chair appointed George W. Johnson of Concord as assistant 
 warden of the cloak-room. 
 
 Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam introduced the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 Resolved, That 600 copies of the rules adopted by the Con- 
 vention be printed for the use of members. 
 
32 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 WMch resolution was then stated and passed. 
 
 Mr. Holman of Hillsborough introduced the following 
 resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by adding at 
 the end of article five of part second, the following: " And 
 further, full power and authority are hereby given and grant- 
 ed to the said general court to impose and levy assessments, 
 rates and taxes upon the estates of deceased persons, or upon 
 bequests, devises or inheritances, which said rates and taxes 
 may be graded or proportioned in such way or manner as 
 said general court may direct, but said rates and taxes shall 
 never exceed ten per cent, .of said estates, bequests, devises or 
 inheritances." 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 upon the table to be printed, pending the appointment of 
 committees. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article ninety-eight, part two, of the Consti- 
 tution, be so amended that all future amendments to the Con- 
 stitution shall be submitted to the people by the general 
 court. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, the resolution was 
 laid upon the table to be printed, pending the appointment 
 of committees. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow offered the following amendment to the 
 Constitution: 
 
 In all elections of state, county, municipal and town offi- 
 cers by the people of this state, the person having the highest 
 number of votes shall be deemed and declared to be elected. 
 All provisions of the Constitution in<o~ jistent herewith are 
 hereby annulled. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 33 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 upon the table to be printed and to be referred to the appro- 
 priate committee when announced. 
 
 The same gentleman offered the following amendment to 
 the Constitution: 
 
 The legislature shall have full power and authority to es- 
 tablish more than one place of public meeting within the lim- 
 its of each town or ward in the state for the casting of votes, 
 and the election of officers under the Constitution; to pre- 
 scribe the manner of warning, holding, and conducting such 
 meetings and for that purpose may divide any town or ward 
 into voting precincts. 
 
 Any provision of the Constitution of this state inconsistent 
 herewith is amended to conform hereto. 
 
 Upon motion of the same gentleman, the amendment was 
 laid upon the table to be printed and to be referred to the 
 proper committee when appointed. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Woodstock offered the following proposed 
 amendment to part second, sections nine and ten of the Con- 
 stitution: 
 
 Resolved, To strike out part of clause beginning in the fifth 
 line of said section nine and reading as follows: " And wards 
 of cities having six hundred inhabitants by the last general 
 census of the state, taken by authority of the United States, 
 or of this state, may elect one representative; if eighteen hun- 
 dred such inhabitants, may elect two representatives; and so 
 proceeding in that proportion, making twelve hundred such 
 inhabitants the mean increasing number for an additional 
 representative," and insert the following: "And wards of 
 cities having one hundred and sixty-five legal voters at the 
 preceding biennial election, may elect one representative; if 
 six hundred and ninety such voters, may elect two represen- 
 tatives; and so proceeding in that proportion, making five 
 3 
 
34 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 hundred and twenty-five such, voters the mean increasing 
 number for an additional representative." 
 
 In the fourteenth and fifteenth lines strike out the word 
 "census " and insert " biennial election." 
 
 In article ten, in the second and fifth lines, strike out the 
 words " six " and " inhabitants " and insert the words " one 
 hundred and sixty-five " and " voters." 
 
 So that said sections will read as follows: 
 
 ART. 9. There shall be, in the legislature of this state, a 
 representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded 
 upon principles of equality, and, in order that such repre- 
 sentation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, every 
 town or place entitled to town privileges, and wards of cities 
 having one hundred and sixty-five legal voters at the preced- 
 ing biennial election, may elect one representative; if six hun- 
 dred and ninety such voters, may elect two representatives; 
 and so proceeding in that proportion, making five hundred 
 and twenty-five such voters the mean increasing number for 
 an additional; provided, that no town shall be divided or the 
 boundaries of the wards of any city so altered as to increase 
 the number of representatives to which such town or city 
 may be entitled by the next preceding biennial election; and 
 provided, further, that, to those towns and cities which since 
 the last biennial election have been divided or had their 
 boundaries or ward lines changed, the general court in ses- 
 sion next before these amendments shall take effect shall 
 equitably apportion representation in such manner that the 
 number shall not be greater than it would have been had no 
 such division or alteration been made. 
 
 ART. 10. Whenever any town, place, or city ward shall 
 have less than one hundred and sixty-five such voters, the 
 general court shall authorize such town, place, or ward to 
 elect and send to the general court a representative such pro- 
 portionate part of the time as the number of its voters shall 
 bear to one hundred and sixty-five; but the general court shall 
 not authorize any such town, place, or ward to elect and send 
 euch representative, except as herein provided. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 35 
 
 The same gentleman moved that the resolution be laid up- 
 on the table to be printed and referred to the appropriate 
 committee when appointed. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord moved that the above resolution 
 be referred to Committee of the Whole and made a special or- 
 der for Thursday, December 4, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, 
 and Mr. Woodbury, withdrawing his motion to lay upon the 
 table, the motion of Mr. Chandler was stated and prevailed. 
 
 The following communication was presented by Mr. 
 Thompson of Warner: 
 
 CONCOKD, K H., December 3, 1902. 
 To the Constitutional Convention of New Hampshire: 
 
 We, the undersigned, general officers of the Woman's Suf- 
 frage association of New Hampshire, respectfully request your 
 honorable body to confer the privilege of suffrage upon wom- 
 en by striking from article twenty-seven of the existing Con- 
 stitution the word " male," and by such other amendment 
 thereof declaratory of this purpose as may be necessary. 
 
 We further request that the Convention, at the close of its 
 session Tuesday afternoon, December 9, grant us a hear- 
 ing in Representatives' hall at the state house; provided, that 
 this request does not interfere with the work of the Conven- 
 tion. If it does conflict with the afternoon session, then we 
 request that a hearing be given us on the evening of Tuesday, 
 December 9, in the same hall. 
 
 MAEY K CHASE, President, 
 MAKY E. QUIMBY, Secretary, 
 ANGELO HALL, 
 
 Treasurer, N. H. W. S. A. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Thompson, a hearing was granted to the 
 Woman's Suffrage association of New Hampshire, to be held 
 in Representatives' hall on Tuesday, December 9, at 4 
 o'clock in the afternoon. 
 
36 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord offered the following amendment 
 to the Constitution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that the 
 house of representatives shall consist of 300 members, which 
 shall be apportioned by the legislature, at the first session af- 
 ter a United States census, to the several counties of the state, 
 equally, as nearly as may be, according to their population 
 as ascertained at the next preceding United States census. 
 The county commissioners in each county, or in lieu of the 
 county commissioners in each county, such board of special 
 commissioners in each county, to be elected by the people of 
 the county, as may for that purpose be provided by law, 
 shall on the first Tuesday of June next after each assignment 
 of representatives to each county, assemble at a shire town of 
 their respective counties and proceed, as soon as may be, to 
 divide the same into representative districts of contiguous ter- 
 ritory, so as to apportion the representatives assigned to each 
 county, equally, as nearly as may be, according to the relative 
 population in the several districts of each county, and such 
 districts shall be so formed that no town or ward shall be 
 divided therefor. Districts may be formed for one or more 
 representatives as the contiguity of territory or the physical 
 and social relations of the towns or wards may warrant. The 
 legislature at the next session after such division of the coun- 
 ties into representative districts may, upon appeal by a town 
 or ward, examine the classification of that town or ward and 
 change the district lines of that county, in accordance with 
 the provisions of this article, if it shall appear that injustice 
 has been done. 
 
 The same gentleman moved that this amendment be con- 
 sidered at the time of the special order for Thursday morn- 
 ing, December 4. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I desire to make one explanation: 
 If you will read this resolution, it will correct in the minds of 
 a number of the delegates of the Convention an impression 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 37 
 
 that has gone abroad. There appeared in The Manchester 
 Union recently a classification of tl\3 towns into districts, and 
 following that was the map showing this classification. As I 
 understand, that classification and the purpose for which it 
 was prepared was educational, and to show that districts 
 could be formed of nearly equal population. That was pre- 
 pared by a representative of The Manchester Union and has 
 no connection with the resolution I have offered to-day, or 
 with the opinions I have expressed in the press on this sub- 
 ject. The impression has gone abroad that that classification 
 in The Manchester Union represented in detail the plan fav- 
 ored by me in districting the state. That is not the case. 
 The detail of the district plan I propose to leave to be worked 
 out by the county commissioners, or by a special commission 
 authorized by the legislature in lieu of that. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the two last 
 amendments were ordered to be considered a part of the spe- 
 cial order for Thursday, December 4, and also any others 
 on the same subject that might thereafter be introduced. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kent of Lancaster, Mr. Kidder of Gro- 
 ton was given leave of absence from Wednesday to Monday 
 forenoon next, on account of sickness in his family. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord introduced the following pro- 
 posed amendment to the Constitution: 
 
 ARTICLE 82, at the end thereof add: 
 
 (Individual enterprise and competition in trade should be 
 protected against monopolies which tend to hinder or de- 
 stroy them.) It shall be the duty of the legislature to limit 
 the size and functions of all corporations, to prohibit fictitious 
 capitalization therein, and to so provide for their supervision 
 and government that they will be the servants and not the 
 masters of the people. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the foregoing amend- 
 
38 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ment and all others relating to trusts, which should be pre- 
 sented, were made a special order for Tuesday, December 10, 
 at 11 o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
 Mr. Holman of Hillsborough introduced the following pro- 
 posed amendment to the Constitution, to be made a part of 
 the special order for 11 o'clock, December 4. 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended as to pro- 
 vide for the election biennially of one representative, and one 
 representative only from each and every town and city in the 
 state. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow offered the following proposed amend- 
 ment to article six, Bill of Rights: 
 
 Strike out article six of the Bill of Eights and insert in 
 lieu thereof as follows: 
 
 AET. 6. As morality and piety will give the best and 
 greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts 
 of men the strongest obligations to right conduct, and as the 
 knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through 
 the public worship of Deity and public instruction in moral- 
 ity and religion, therefore, to promote these important pur- 
 poses the people of this state have a right to empower and do 
 hereby fully empower the legislature to authorize from time 
 to time the people in their individual capacity to form bodies 
 corporate, or religious societies within this state, with power 
 to provide at their own expense for the support and mainte- 
 nance of teachers of piety, religion, and morality. They may 
 elect their own teachers and contract with them for their 
 support and maintenance, but no person of any one sect or 
 denomination shall ever be compelled to pay toward the sup- 
 port of the religious teachers of another persuasion, sect, or 
 denomination, except in pursuance of his own voluntary con- 
 tract. 
 
 No public money or property shall be appropriated for or 
 applied to the uses of any religious society, sect, or denomina- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 39 
 
 tion, or the support of any religious establishment, nor shall 
 any preference be given by law to any religious organization 
 or mode of worship, or any religious test be required as a 
 qualification for any office or trust, or any one be rendered 
 incompetent to be a witness or juror on account of his opin- 
 ions on matters of religious belief, but every denomination, 
 sect, or belief, not inconsistent with the peace and safety of 
 the state, shall be equally under the protection of the law. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I will delay the matter that I propose 
 to bring before the Convention if anyone has any amendment 
 which he wishes to offer. 
 
 I bring forward this matter at this time that the Conven- 
 tion may proceed to consider it, if it wish, and that the time 
 of the Convention may not be lost. 
 
 I have here a proposed amendment to article six of the BiJl 
 of Eights, or a substitute for article six, and I hope you gen- 
 tlemen will examine article six of the Bill of Eights and com- 
 pare it with the reading of this. I ask the secretary to read 
 the proposed amendment. (Secretary reads.) 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Gentlemen, I do not need, probably, 
 to say anything in support of this resolution. If it does not, 
 upon its reading, commend itself to you, I should not hope 
 to enforce it by argument. I take it, if anyone is in doubt 
 about the propriety of the changes suggested it will be thor- 
 oughly discussed. 
 
 The principal object of this amendment is to get rid of two 
 words which exist in article six the word " evangelical " as 
 applied to religion, and the word " Protestant," and in that 
 form, I think, the article breathes the broadest catholicity to- 
 wards all denominations I cannot see how there can be any 
 objection to it, but if there is, it ought to be made known now, 
 and I wish to ask although I have no sympathy with the 
 views which he represents that we give to our brother dele- 
 gate from Nashua our kindly consideration of his views in 
 this connection, that he may now be heard, and being so heard 
 at the present time, we shall not be compelled to consider the 
 
40 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 matter subsequently when we have greater and more impor- 
 tant business on hand. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Baker, the Convention resolved itself in- 
 to a Committee of the Whole to consider the Bill of Eights, 
 and especially to take into consideration the amendment pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, on article six 
 of the Bill of Rights. 
 
 (In Committee of the Whole.) 
 (Mr. Cross of Manchester in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Would it not be well to have the 
 clerk read the Bill of Rights, section by section, and if there 
 is no amendment to these sections as read, then we will con- 
 sider them as passed. I suggest that to the gentleman from 
 Bow. 
 
 The Chairman Unless there is objection we will take that 
 course. The clerk will proceed. (The clerk read articles 
 one, two, three, four, five, when Mr. Everett of Nashua ad- 
 dressed the convention.) 
 
 Mr. Everett of Nashua In asking this Convention to sub- 
 mit to the people the question of discarding all reference to 
 a personal God, we do so as one who disbelieves in any and 
 all personal Gods, in the sense that there ever was or is any 
 personal God that has or can create anything, or that has 
 anything to do with regulating the affairs of people or things 
 on this earth or anywhere else, and in order to make this ad- 
 dress of any effect, or even interesting to listen to, it is neces- 
 sary for us to agree upon the meaning of four words. 
 
 All of us have attended lectures which have been spoiled 
 by the lecturer using words and expressions we could not 
 follow. Many a magazine and newspaper discussion has been 
 made worthless by the disputants insisting on different mean- 
 ings to the same words, and to-day we desire in particular to 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 41 
 
 use only language understandable by any one with an ordi- 
 nary knowledge of the English language. In using quota- 
 tions, we shall use only standard authorities; books written 
 by men of ability and honesty of purpose, who had only one 
 object in view, the truth. We will not waste your time in 
 quoting sidelights, although many of them are undoubtedly 
 able, but the life of most of us is too short to devote it to 
 visionary theories. What Atheists want is facts, and having 
 found a fact, they admit it, and if a mistake or falsehood has 
 stood for centuries and the error found out, they expose it, 
 while churches use every power, social, political, and religious, 
 to maintain errors, even after their position is the laughing- 
 stock of all the world. Several notable instances of this will 
 be given farther along. 
 
 The four words whose meaning we wish to have clearly un- 
 derstood are God, Theism, Atheism, and Christianity. We 
 shall speak in a general way, only, of the thousand and one 
 Gods of Europe, Asia, and Africa, the most of them having 
 had their day and are known only in history. 
 
 The God which interests us, and by all odds the greatest 
 imposition of them all, because outwardly believed in by the 
 most intelligent people on this earth, is the Bible God, or, 
 discarding the Jewish element, the Christian God. A per- 
 fectly fair definition of this God is: The Creator of all 
 things; a Being without a beginning or an end; all knowing, 
 all powerful, and one that directly looks after everybody and 
 everything at all times. By Theism is meant a belief in a 
 God like the above, the creator and ruler of all things. All 
 Christians are Theists, although at the present time there are 
 many Theists who are not Christians. The Jews, in particu- 
 lar, reject Christ, but believe in a personal God. By Athe- 
 ism is meant a disbelief in any of the personal Gods that 
 fanatical or designing men have imposed on the world. The 
 great bulk of these Gods have existed for a more or less 
 length of time; had more or less followers; became discredit- 
 ed and finally disappeared. But men out of a job will manu- 
 facture new ones as fast as they can create a demand. No 
 
42 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Atheist ever claims to know the unknowable, but accepts a 
 fact wherever or by whomever demonstrated. Every Athe- 
 ist is ready to accept a lona fide God at any time, whether he 
 starts in business in Central Africa or in Concord, N. H. 
 But we certainly expect that when a God claims to have 
 created the universe, he will know this earth of ours is round 
 and not flat; that he will know that the sun does not move 
 around the earth daily. 
 
 Atheists claim to be able to prove that the knowledge and 
 attributes of all Gods, past and present, have been exactly in 
 proportion to the intelligence of the people who invent them. 
 Our present God has been remodeled so many times that one 
 must keep close watch of church conventions to know just 
 what to expect of God from day to day. All Gods have been 
 endowed with certain attributes, and the first and most im- 
 portant point for common people to understand is that these 
 attributes can only be worked successfully, if at all, by priests 
 or ministers. With the older Gods, after a few centuries, 
 their country was either conquered by some other nation and 
 the people forced to give up their old Gods, or, quite often, 
 there appeared Gods with more attractive promises, and after 
 a desperate struggle by the clergy, who have never hesitated 
 to use every dishonest and dishonorable means, each particu- 
 lar God or Gods have been laid away with other myths. 
 None of the men or combinations of men have been able to 
 look far enough into the future to build up a God that could 
 stand criticism. Many generations before science made the 
 Bible God as ridiculous as others before him, there were men 
 of courage and independence who saw and pointed out glar- 
 ing errors of the Bible until many concluded that God and 
 Robinson Crusoe were cast adrift on the same island, and that 
 when God inspired the Bible he had never been outside the 
 island. 
 
 By Christianity is meant the religion which takes its name 
 from a man who lived about 1900 years ago, and about whom 
 very little is known. He was born in what is now Asiatic 
 Turkey, near the coast of the extreme eastern end of the 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 4& 
 
 Mediterranean sea, not very far from Africa, his parents be- 
 ing Jews of the poorer class. He was called Jesus, which 
 means a carpenter, and afterwards took or was given the title 
 of Christ, " The Anointed One" commonly understood to 
 mean the only begotten son of the Bible God. He collected 
 more or less followers to whom he preached, and as proof of 
 his Godship, performed miracles. That is, he performed, it 
 is claimed, feats such as no one has been able to do before or 
 since in a natural way. Christians believe this Christ was 
 executed by the authorities; buried in a sepulchre, and after 
 three days was restored to life, remained on earth forty days, 
 then ascended to His Father to a place called Heaven. The 
 one and only object of his visit to earth was on account of the 
 sinfulness of the earth's inhabitants; that a belief in him 
 meant and means an eternity in a place called Heaven, and 
 that he permitted himself to suffer physical death as the 
 only possible way to pacify his Father, and the only condi- 
 tion by which God would forgive the wicked. After return- 
 ing to Heaven, Christ is supposed to have devoted his time 
 to arranging the many mansions for the faithful as they died 
 and showed up in Heaven, properly certified to by the Chris- 
 tian fathers. Had this address been prepared ten years ago, 
 our definition of Christianity would have included the Chris- 
 tian belief in hell, or punishment after death for unbelievers, 
 and while these threats are in just the same place in the New 
 Testament as they always were, and the supposed personal 
 saying of Christ in Matthew 25:41 still reads, "Then shall 
 he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye 
 cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his- 
 angels. And these shall go away into everlasting punish- 
 ment." But within ten years, the Protestant churches say 
 hell does not mean hell, but a place for the dead, and have 
 tried to change the word hell to hades; but, as a matter of 
 fact, hades is a Greek word and means exactly the same as the 
 Saxon word hell, and no matter what churches may do, that 
 rugged old Saxon word, hell, is a fixture in the English lan- 
 guage. Hades may do for milk-and-water men, but the old 
 
44 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 expressive word is essential to positive, aggressive people, and 
 at times no one can fully express himself without its use. 
 There are places in the New Testament where translators use 
 the word " Gehenna," and Gehenna in the Bible and in all 
 other Hebrew writings is never used except as a place of pun- 
 ishment. But, excluding the Catholic belief, at this time, we 
 shall not insist on hell as being a part of Christianity, it being 
 understood that our definition of Christianity is for the day 
 and hour. The Protestant church has made so many somer- 
 saults in the past few years that we may awake any morning 
 to find that it has given up God and Christ, in fact everything 
 except the bed-rock of all religions, the contribution box. 
 
 Having defined the four words so important to our argu- 
 ment, our first position is to deal with all personal Gods in 
 the abstract. The Bible God will be considered here only as 
 one of the countless other Gods, past and present. It deals 
 with Theism proper; that there is a personal creator and 
 ruler of the universe. This subject has been largely ignored 
 by the church. There are very few books on the subject. 
 Occasionally prominent churchmen have discussed this, but 
 always briefly. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Tillotson, 
 uses the word " fool," and says any man is a fool who believes 
 that the universe, with all its regularity and order, could have 
 got into place or for a moment remain in place without a per- 
 sonal God. At the Congress of Eeligions at Chicago, the 
 Very Eev. Augustine F. Hewitt, C. S. P., of New York, dis- 
 cussed the " Kational Demonstration of the Being of God." 
 It is a profound article and worth reading, and we think 
 covers about all that can be said by those who believe in a 
 God. The marginal notes lead one to hope that he is going 
 to say something tangible, but one reads the text in vain. It 
 is full of assertions that are as applicable to the God Jo-Jo of 
 Central Africa as to the Bible God, with no evidence for 
 either. He says : " In case of a train of cars in motion, if we 
 ask what moves the last car, the answer may be the car be- 
 fore it, and so on, until we reach the other end; but we have 
 as yet only motion received and transmitted and no sufficient 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 45 
 
 reason for the movement of the first car by an adequate cause; 
 and how did this vast mass of matter, the universe, and the 
 mighty forces acting upon it, come to be started on their 
 course. It is necessary to go back to a first cause, a first mov- 
 er, a being self-existing, whose essence is pure act and the 
 source of all actuality." This is his argument, and in the 
 very next paragraph he says: "The only alternative is to 
 fall back on the doctrine of chance, an absurdity long since 
 exploded and abandoned, a renunciation of all reason." The 
 last passage is more thoughtful and much fairer than it seems 
 at first glance. He says that at some time in the past there 
 was a doctrine of chance, but that " long since that was aban- 
 doned." He does not lay it to the present or nearby genera- 
 tions, but to long ago. As a matter of fact, we are unable to 
 find a writer of good or poor standing who ever advocated 
 chance as the origin of things. Confucius and Buddha, the 
 philosophers of Asia, would not say what they thought was 
 the first cause, and of all things, they did say it was not 
 chance. 
 
 There is another argument that puzzles the Theist proper, 
 those that do not belong to any church but still believe in 
 a personal God. They say that science has demonstrated be- 
 yond a reasonable doubt that this earth of ours was once a 
 molten mass; a ball of fire, and of course, no life, as we know 
 it, could exist on it; but they say life is here, and to get here 
 must have had a creator. It will be noted that Archbishop 
 Tillotson, Father Hewitt, and the Theists proper present the 
 same argument, the impossibility of things without a crea- 
 tor. It can be fairly said that people who reason as above 
 do not possess logical minds. They try to cross the bridge 
 before they reach it. At the first suggestion of mystery or 
 anything unexplainable, they satisfy their minds with saying, 
 this can be explained only as being the work of some per- 
 sonal God, the easy refuge of the non-intellectual. They 
 ignore the real question. They look at the covers of the 
 book, and seem to care nothing for what is inside. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, if this universe is an impossibility, and 
 
46 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 can be kept running only by a creator and ruler, ask your- 
 selves the only real question: Who, or what, created this 
 creator? Who made this God? What made this God? How 
 much more vast, more grand, more intellectual this God must 
 be than anything He created. The universe no human mind 
 can grasp, nor even a small part of its vastness. Its number- 
 less systems of suns; its countless stars, some growing, some 
 dying, some dead. If it is any satisfaction to Theists to as- 
 sert that anybody and everybody believes in chance when 
 they ask the only real question, Who made God? let them 
 make the most of it. But, if it temporarily deceives some 
 people, it does not conceal the real question of who made this 
 God. Churches have never met this all-important issue. 
 They have delivered a lot of twaddle, and twaddle is the 
 right word, about God being infinite and we being finite, and 
 that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. But in all re- 
 ligious services, we are told just what God has done in the past, 
 is doing now, and how He will deal with us in future; but 
 when you have satisfied yourself where and how this God 
 was made, then it may not be necessary to ask an Atheist how 
 life began on this earth. If Atheism does not know, it says 
 so, and never guesses. 
 
 Which belief do you think will stand through coming ages? 
 The belief that says to one's family or neighbors, we have 
 studied this question and we find unexplainable things sur- 
 rounding Us on all sides. We are willing to spend time and 
 means to solve these mysteries, but so long as they are unex- 
 plainable we say what we ought to say, we do not know. 
 Again we ask, which will last, this belief or the belief that 
 says of every mystery, this is easily explained; it is the 
 work of a personal God? 
 
 Before starting on our direct argument for Atheism, we 
 are not going to ignore the last hope and refuge of a decaying 
 religion. We refer to what is known as the spiritual side of 
 human nature; not the question of immortality, but the ac- 
 tions and impulses that govern our every-day life. It is now 
 and always has been an important part of the stock in trade 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 47 
 
 of all the clergy to claim that all impulses and acts that, in 
 their opinion, were good, and especially those that were favor- 
 able to their particular church, were directly inspired by a 
 God. No believer was allowed to doubt this, and no prayer 
 is ever made that omits to return thanks for it, because the 
 minister says it is so. The truth is that this so-called " God- 
 given spiritual side " always has been the sentimental side of 
 mankind and animals, the subjective side, working more 
 slowly in Asia than with the sentimental school girl. This 
 sentiment is magnified in men by surroundings, disposition, 
 teachings and by, not the least important, what they eat. It 
 is recognized by all who have studied the subject that human 
 beings, and at least the more intelligent animals, have an ob- 
 jective and subjective mind or brain. By objective brain, we 
 mean that part of the intellect that demands actual or reason- 
 able proof of what we are told or read. For instance, if we 
 read that the New Hampshire state house is in Concord, we 
 have only to come to Concord to demonstrate the fact, and our 
 objective mind is satisfied by actual proof that what we had 
 heard and read was true. Again, if inconvenient to come to 
 Concord, we could find many neighbors who had seen the 
 state house; many books; many histories, where writers had 
 personally been in our state house, and, although never hav- 
 ing seen it, we would be very unreasonable to consider it any- 
 thing but an objective truth. On the other hand, should we 
 meet some one on the street who should say he had just come 
 from the state house, and that he had helped examine a dun- 
 geon under the state house, and one hundred skeletons had 
 been taken out, our objective mind would rebel and demand 
 more than the statement of one man. One case illustrates 
 the point as well as the other. The idea is that the objective 
 mind or brain demands outward, logical, and reasonable proof, 
 and will not believe anything until it has such proof. Now, 
 the subjective mind or brain is governed by impulses, by im- 
 pressions. It never asks for a reason, and in most cases does 
 not want a reason. The impression they receive agrees with 
 their condition of mind, and they revolt at any proof that will 
 
48 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 change the conditions, whether they be good or bad. We at* 
 tend a theater. The play is good; the acting good. We fol- 
 low it with great interest as though it were real, and go to 
 see the same play, perhaps, twice, perhaps a dozen times. We 
 do not stop for a moment to think that the whole play is 
 largely the imagination of some fertile brain, and we do not 
 know or care what the private life of the actors may be. We 
 only know that we enjoy it, and our subjective mind drifts 
 with the play. We attend some comic opera time and again, 
 and enjoy it every time. Somebody says, " That opera is 
 senseless," but we do not care what somebody says. The mu- 
 sic suits us. We do not go to please our neighbors, but our 
 own subjective brain. All of the sentiments expressing love, 
 fear, and hope affect the subjective brain. Mesmerism and 
 hypnotism depend on the subjective mind. The stronger 
 minded a person is the easier he controls the subjective brain 
 of a weaker-willed person, after once gaining his or her confi- 
 dence. A timid person having trouble with one of whom he 
 is afraid allows his subjective mind to imagine a thousand 
 things, none of which ever occur. We meet very often men 
 who have the most sanguine hopes of success in some under- 
 taking, but we know from the men, themselves, and their 
 surroundings, that they are bound to fail; but they, yielding 
 to their subjective brain, use no reason whatever; and it is 
 here that all religions accomplish their most successful work. 
 When a man or woman is under the influence of good diges- 
 tion, or good music, or of people they like and wish to please, 
 or of stronger minded people who have gained their confi- 
 dence, their subjective mind is given up to impressions which 
 they accept as facts. And when the fanatical or designing 
 minister tells them that these impressions, if good and pleas- 
 ant, are spiritual and come only from a personal God, they 
 say, " That is good enough for me," and readily accept the 
 God which comes handiest; in other words, the God that pre- 
 vails in the country in which they live. On the other hand, 
 if the impressions on the subjective brain are bad and make 
 the person unhappy or lead to injury to person or the com- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 49 
 
 munity, all religions have provided an evil power. Until very 
 lately the Protestant church has had the devil to fall back 
 upon,, but at present the Greek and Koman Catholic churches 
 have a monopoly of Satan. 
 
 It ought not to be necessary to stop long to think over the 
 claims of the church on the subjective mind, or to realize how 
 weak its position is. If there is anything in the claim that 
 the subjective brain is spiritual and controlled by a God, we 
 cannot ignore the vicious and bad elements that are found in 
 the same mind. No religion can hold itself together that de- 
 pends for its existence on the claim that all that is good is a 
 gift, an inspiration from an all powerful and perfect God, and 
 all that is bad comes from some other source. 
 
 And this brings us to our direct argument for Atheism. A 
 statement of what Atheists think they know about this so- 
 called first cause or origin of things. We think we know that 
 there was no beginning to time. That no matter how far 
 back we go, be it millions or billions of years, time existed be- 
 fore. We also think we know that there is no limit to space. 
 No matter how far we go or in what direction, there is room 
 beyond. Now, if we are right about time and space, we feel 
 equally sure that this vast space has always been filled with 
 some kind of matter, if nothing more than air, and as it is 
 impossible to conceive of even air without some pressure,, 
 our conceptions are supported by every possible scientific 
 test, saying that it is impossible to separate force or energy 
 from any kind of matter. Therefore, we think we know that 
 matter and force had no beginning as well as time and space. 
 For some years scientific men have been unhampered. We 
 are not aware of a single college that has attempted to conceal 
 a single fact in geology, chemistry, or astronomy, and one of 
 the subjects to which scientists have devoted years of experi- 
 ence, and are still ready to experiment on, is to destroy any 
 kind of ponderable matter, and the reverse, to make some- 
 thing out of nothing. Next summer say to your minister, 
 Take double your usual vacation; go to the laboratories of the 
 university from which you graduated, and show the world how 
 4 
 
50 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 to make something from nothing, or how to destroy any kind 
 of matter, and while he is gone you want to pray early and 
 often for God to help him. If he succeeds, the personal God 
 idea will receive a boom it so sadly needs. If he succeeds, 
 those of you who hold any stock in the God scheme, hold on 
 to it, as it will certainly increase in value. Science has di- 
 vided all matter into elements. By an element is meant a 
 division of things we see, feel, or hear of around us into the 
 different things that compose them, and those parts that can- 
 not be sub-divided into simpler parts are called elements. 
 Eain water can be divided into hydrogen and oxygen, but 
 neither hydrogen nor oxygen can be divided, as far as known. 
 We burn a piece of wood, whether it be hard or soft, and re- 
 gardless of degree of heat, with a proper collection of the ashes 
 and gases, every particle of matter is there. Nothing is de- 
 stroyed. Heat, pressure, cold, is no more able to destroy 
 anything, the one than the other. Equally impossible have 
 feeen ail attempts to create something out of nothing. 
 
 An-d now comes our second great question. With time, 
 space, force, and matter eternal, and, therefore, without a 
 creator, and the demonstrated impossibility of creating any- 
 thing, where does this personal God, the maker of all things, 
 conre in; this creative God, so essential to all religions? Gen- 
 tlemen, this God comes in with Santa Glaus, but not under 
 such pleasant conditions. This God comes in with ghosts, 
 with witches. This Bible God is laid away with Bel, the crea- 
 tor, and Baal, the ruler of all things in Assyrian civilization; 
 laid away with Osiris and Isis, the Gods of civilized Egypt; 
 laid away with the mythological Gods of Greece, to which we 
 owe so much; laid away with Odin and Wodin of the Norse- 
 men, all dead and all very powerful in their day. 
 
 I<n an ordinary discussion, after showing the impossibility 
 of any 'creative Gods, it would be superfluous to go back and 
 destroy any particular God; and it is superfluous. Our only 
 excuse is that if our position as an Atheist could be shown to 
 be a mistake, we could still show the Bible God, the God in 
 the New Hampshire Constitution, to be a myth, and by far 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 51 
 
 a, greater humbug than all the others; it being understood that 
 we are not trying to convince those who have a selfish interest 
 in the Christian religion. So long as the Protestant and the 
 Catholic churches own two billions of dollars' worth of proper- 
 ty, and support so many people, there will be supporters, no 
 matter what the proofs against it, and I wish to call your at- 
 tention to some of the proofs. Those of you who are over for- 
 ty will distinctly recall Adam Clarke's Commentaries on the 
 Bible. Until a very few years ago they were rated as the 
 highest authority. While claimed by the Methodist church, 
 they were so far ahead of other commentaries that all Chris- 
 tian writers quoted them more or less. Clarke was an Eng- 
 lish minister, a Greek and Hebrew scholar, and devoted twen- 
 ty years to the preparation of his books. In his commentary 
 he devotes a great deal of space to the age of this earth we live 
 on. He goes into the most minute details, and, while the 
 practical result is about the same as Ussher's, he asserts, 
 backed up by Bible figures, that God created our earth 4004 
 years before Christ, and as Christ was born four years before 
 our system of dates began, makes our earth 5910 years old at 
 present. That the Bible writers intended to fix the age of 
 the earth is certain, as they speak, after all but one creative 
 day, of the morning and the evening of that particular day, 
 and devote whole chapters of Genesis to the ages of the pa- 
 triarchs, tracing their offspring down to Noah, and later, be- 
 yond. There is another account in Genesis that speaks of 
 " the day " in which " the Lord God made the earth and the 
 heavens." But these little discrepancies made but little trou- 
 ble for the church leaders. That really great leader, Martin 
 Luther, settled the matter for a time in the usual clear-as-mud 
 way of trying to explain the unexplainable, by saying: " Moses 
 spoke properly and plainly, and neither allegorically nor fig- 
 uratively, that the world with all its creatures was created in 
 six days." And then goes on to show how, by a great mira- 
 cle, the whole creation was also instantaneous, and in his 
 great and standard work, Dr. John Lightfoot, vice-chancellor 
 of the University of Cambridge, and the great Hebrew schol- 
 
52 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ar, declared^ as the result of his most profound and exhaustive- 
 study of the Scriptures, that " Heaven and earth, center and 
 circumference, were created all together, in the same instant^ 
 and clouds full of water, and that this work took place, and 
 man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B. C., at 
 9 o'clock in the morning." 
 
 But whether we take the six-days' scheme or the instan- 
 taneous theory makes no practical difference. The Bible age 
 of the earth and the heavens is not far from 5900 years, and 
 no specious argument made necessary by the occasion can al- 
 ter it. As we discuss the flood, we shall say something of 
 the real age of the earth, but here only of facts actually 
 proven. During the last part of the eighteenth century, univer- 
 sities and scientific men of England and France began to open 
 up the mounds and graves of Egypt in a small way, but not 
 until a very few years ago was much done in a systematic way. 
 And what have they found? They have found inscriptions 
 on slate, on stone, on bricks, on wood, that give authentic 
 proofs of an advanced civilization 8100 years old; a nation 
 with government, laws, kings, priests, and soldiers. And no- 
 scholar, Christian or not, supposes this civilization sprang 
 into existence in a moment, but was the usual slow growth 
 of centuries. This little matter of 2,200 years is only a trifle 
 for a minister to overcome, especially if he has a good salary. 
 But, gentlemen, listen again: In digging in what was Chal- 
 dea and Babylon, in Asia, they find not only records older 
 than the Bible, but that the Bible account of creation was 
 borrowed bodily from the Chaldeans. This ought to strike 
 some of us that the God who imposed this old story on Jews 
 ought to have another chance to reinspire another Bible. Of 
 course, if the creation is borrowed from an older religion, 
 whether from Chaldea or India, there can be no truth in the 
 fall-of-man theory, commonly known as the Adam and Eve 
 story. This story, on which the Jewish and the Christian re- 
 ligions depend so much, is that after God had made the earth 
 ready for man to inhabit, he made a man " after his own 
 image " and called him Adam, and shortly after took one of 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 53 
 
 Adam's ribs and made therefrom a woman. This man and 
 woman were perfect in form and mind. They were placed in 
 a most beautiful and productive garden; starting life with 
 best of prospects, and Eve's relatives must have thought that 
 she had married well. But Eve had hardly finished sewing 
 together a few fig leaves, when a serpent came into the gar- 
 den. It is not material here whether this serpent had organs 
 of speech or not, or whether he sailed in on the end of his tail 
 or not, or whether the word " serpent " is translated right or 
 not. The point is that the serpent represented sin and evil. 
 He is supposed to have said to Eve, " You and Adam are not 
 getting all that is coming to you; help yourselves to the for- 
 Tndden fruit, and if there is any trouble, send for me." Eve 
 found Adam, and said, " If we are going to run this garden, 
 let us run the whole of it; the tree of knowledge is none too 
 good for us; let us eat." Adam requires but little urging, 
 and both do eat. About this time God shows up. The man 
 ;and woman show signs of guilt; some of the forbidden fruit 
 Is missing, and God says, " This is bad business. I gave you 
 a great start in life; set you up in housekeeping with all the 
 modern improvements; provided you with everything in the 
 line of eatables and livestock, and now you have given me a 
 cold-blooded throw-down." Then this perfect man, Adam, 
 shows his manliness by trying to lay all the blame upon Eve, 
 with the baby cry of " the woman is to blame, she tempted 
 me." This shows what the old Hebrews thought of women. 
 As a matter of fact, while our original ancestors were un- 
 doubtedly brutes and savages, they were not sneaks, and it 
 is only Bible believers that would have us believe our first 
 man hid himself under the bedclothes and whined out, 
 -" Don't blame me, my wife alone is guilty." There is every 
 evidence that one of the ingrained instincts of mankind is to 
 protect the wife when anyone attacks her, and to-day, at no 
 time in a man's life does he feel himself more a man than 
 when he can step in front of his wife and family and say to 
 the whole world, " If there is any blame coming, I will take 
 the whole of it." Every man, when he thinks or speaks of 
 
54 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 women has, or ought to have, an ideal, and that ideal should 
 be his mother and his wife. Again, as we have said repeated- 
 ly, the whole story is imaginary. When God was letting sin 
 and evil into the world, in Africa was an advanced civiliza- 
 tion, with magnificent temples and comforts and luxuries of 
 financial wealth. Sixteen hundred and fifty-six years after 
 this, says the Bible, came what we call the flood, or, correct- 
 ly speaking, the deluge. By deluge is meant the submersion 
 of all the land of the earth. That is, that enough water came 
 from somewhere to cover every particle of land at the same 
 time. The Bible states that the world had become so wicked, 
 and if there were any truth in the story we have a right 
 to infer that animals as well as human beings were sinful, too; 
 at any rate, God says every living thing must die by drowning,, 
 except Noah and his family, and two or seven of the animal 
 kingdom, and the deluge took place as per schedule, accord- 
 ing to the Bible. Now, if this flood account were true, it 
 shows a most powerful miracle. It would require twenty- 
 seven times as much water as thene is in all our oceans, and 
 any power that could produce water enough and take it away 
 in a few days would have quite a claim to be called a God or 
 any other name it might prefer. This flood story was for 
 many centuries the backbone of all miracle stories. Jews and 
 Christians clung to this with perfect faith until very recent- 
 ly; how recently we shall show, remarking here that scien- 
 tists have unearthed well-ordered villages in the Valley of 
 the Nile that furnish connected evidence of having been in 
 existence years before and years after the time when the Bi- 
 ble says the flood took place. But, between 1600 and 1800,. 
 geologists and astronomers began to doubt this big rain story, 
 and while the world was completely under religious control 
 and these men largely beholden to churches, they were guard- 
 ed in what they said; but as they began to dig into the secrets 
 of Nature, and improved on magnifying glasses, they found' 
 innumerable fossils all over the world. In the cold countries 
 was found fossil remains of fishes and animals; they found' 
 them on hills, in valleys, at the bottom of lakes and marshes^ 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 55 
 
 and they found that most of them could exist only in warm 
 countries when alive. Here was a life-saver for the church. 
 In all its trouble with science, it had always been beaten, but 
 here science, itself, was furnishing indisputable evidence of 
 the flood. The fossils were too many and too widely scat- 
 tered to even suggest trickery, and the church said, proudly 
 and boldly, that the only way remains of hot countries could 
 get into cold countries was by being floated there by the del- 
 uge. This claim of the truthfulness of the flood has been on^ 
 of the very latest and hardest for the church to give up. 
 Archbishop Colenso, archbishop of South Africa, was excom- 
 municated from the English church about 1860 for writing a 
 book saying that the flood story was not true. 
 
 Watson's Biblical Dictionary, printed in England and 
 America in 1848, devotes eight columns to proving the del- 
 uge to be true, and uses the fossil argument as its strongest 
 point. 
 
 But geology had not yet begun. In the opening of coal 
 mines it found similar fossils many feet below the surface, 
 embedded in rocks and in slate that no water could put there*. 
 That these when living required a warm climate could be and 
 is explained, not by a flood or by an earth 6,000 years old, 
 but that many millions of years ago this cold country was 
 very warm; and when geologists studied the rocks, the dif- 
 ferent stratas of earth, by observation, by the application of 
 advanced knowledge of heat and cold, they found the age of 
 our earth to be measured, not by thousands of years, but by 
 millions, how many millions is guesswork. 
 
 About 1830, Keill and others showed that it would require 
 twenty-seven times as much water as exists in all oceans to 
 drown the earth, and in 1862, Sir Charles Lyell, then 65 years 
 old, the celebrated geologist, a college professor, knighted in 
 1848, for years president of the English Geological society, a 
 lifelong Christian, a traveler, lecturer, and author, who in his 
 younger days had defended the Bible account, came out and 
 said that the deluge could no longer be defended, and this, 
 bear in mind, was only forty years ago. Since then Chris- 
 tians have given up the struggle. 
 
56 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 This brings us to the body blow, the blow that almost 
 killed father, the blow that both Protestant and Catholic 
 churches fought so hard, not only with priestly influence, 
 but by torture and persecution, covering three centuries, and 
 that even to this day the church is apologizing for, denying 
 and explaining what cannot be denied or explained. About 
 150 an Egyptian mathematician and astronomer, named 
 Ptolomy, announced a system or theory with details that the 
 earth was a fixture and that the earth was the center of the 
 system; that the sun moved around the earth, and this is 
 what we know as the Ptolomaic theory. It was readily ac- 
 cepted by churches, as it agreed with the Bible. The Bible 
 tells of the earth standing fast, and relates at length that 
 Joshua asked God to have the sun stand still, that he might 
 pursue and kill more of the enemy; that God did as requested, 
 and of Joshua's success while the sun was at standstill. 
 There had been objections before this by Pythagoras and 
 others to this Bible theory, but the Christian world accepted 
 it without a doubt for over 1,400 years. Some of the Chris- 
 tian scholars added some details, but the main idea that the 
 earth was immovable and the center of our system, and that 
 the sun, moon, and planets moved round the earth; that God 
 could and did stop the sun, was unquestioned in schools, 
 churches, and by the people. 
 
 In the } r ear 1500 there appeared in Rome a professor of 
 astronomy named Nicholas Copernicus, a devout Christian, 
 and who died so, believing himself to be an agent of God, 
 always protesting that the truth could not harm religion. He 
 had not been long in Eome when he became convinced that 
 the earth and planets moved on an axis of their own, and 
 that they moved around the sun, and not the sun around 
 them. It is not known that he taught this to students, but 
 he did give up his professorship and returned to his native 
 country (Poland) and commenced writing his book on the 
 " Heavenly Bodies," firmly convinced that he was inspired 
 by God. After writing the book and dedicating it to the 
 pope, the question was how and where to get it printed. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 57 
 
 No printer in Rome dare touch it. His own section was Pro- 
 testant, and the printers there as fearful as those of Rome. 
 After some delay, and when on his death-bed, his Protestant 
 friend, Oseander, printed the book, but in doing so Oseander, 
 himself, writes a degrading apology as a preface, saying this 
 theory was only a supposition. There is some doubt about 
 Oopernicus ever seeing this apology, as he was certainly dying 
 at the time. With this untruthful preface, the book was not 
 much noticed by the Catholic church, but more so by the 
 Protestant. Martin Luther says: "People give ear to an 
 upstart astrologer who strives to show that the earth revolves, 
 not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. 
 This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; 
 but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun 
 to stand still, and not the earth." For several years this 
 made but little trouble for either church. 
 
 In 1609 came Galileo with his newly discovered telescope. 
 Galileo was an Italian, a professor of mathematics in Rome, 
 and his rude telescope took the theories of Copernicus out of 
 the list of suppositions and placed them before the world as 
 demonstrated truths, and here began that long and bitter 
 war against Galileo and his discoveries that lasted for genera- 
 tions, and is not yet over, against him, personally. The sup- 
 porters of what was called " sound learning/' declared his 
 discoveries deceptions, and his announcements blasphemy. 
 Semi-scientific professors attacked him with sham science. 
 Protestant preachers, more talkative of the two, united with 
 Catholics in accusing him of perverting Scripture. Theolo- 
 gians, inquisitors, congregations of cardinals, and at last, and 
 most important of all, two popes dealt with him, and, it was 
 hoped, silenced his impious doctrine forever, Father Clavius 
 declaring that " to see these things, men had to make an in- 
 strument which would create them/' The details of what 
 we are about to say have been known only a short time. The 
 outline of the persecution of Galileo and his friends are not 
 new, but the personal part taken by Pope Urban has been 
 covered up until eight or ten years ago. Not until the trial 
 
58 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 documents in the Vatican library were honestly printed by 
 L'Epnois and since by Gebler and others, has the whole truth 
 come to light. In 1610 Galileo's telescope showed the moons 
 of the planet Jupiter. To admit this was to admit all of the 
 Copernican theory claimed, and dispute the plain reading of 
 the Bible. Shortly after, the telescope found the valleys of 
 our own moon, and that our moon shines only by light re- 
 flected from the sun, notwithstanding the Bible says the moon 
 is a " great light/' Then Galileo found spots on the sun, and 
 their motion indicated the sun's rotation. Nearly all of the 
 great names in church history are now found opposing him. 
 The universities are forbidden to teach or discuss the new 
 theory, and some excuse is sought to bring Galileo before the 
 inquisition. Even personal friends were asked to give up pri- 
 vate letters that the inquisition might get him as a heretic, 
 and these friends, refusing, were afterwards severely pun- 
 ished. After waiting two years for a reasonable excuse, and 
 finding none, excuse or no excuse, he was, in 1615, summoned 
 before that dreaded tribunal, the inquisition of Eome. A 
 committee of theologians of the inquisition were ordered to 
 examine two propositions of Galileo's on the sun's spots, and 
 after solemnly considering these points for a month, rendered 
 their unanimous decision as follows: "The first proposition 
 that the sun is the center and does not revolve about the earth 
 is foolish, absurd, false in theology and heretical, because ex- 
 pressly contrary to holy Scriptures; and the second proposi- 
 tion, that the earth is not the center, but revolves about the 
 sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological 
 point of view, at least, opposed to the true faith." Cardinal 
 Bellarmin shows Galileo the error of his opinion and orders 
 him to renounce it. DeLanda, fortified by a letter from the 
 pope himself, gives orders that the astronomer be placed in 
 the dungeons of the inquisition should he refuse to yield, and 
 Bellarmin commands Galileo, as follows: "In the name of 
 His Holiness, the Pope, and the whole Congregation of the 
 Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the opinion that the sun 
 is the center of the World and immovable, and that the earth 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 50 
 
 moves; nor henceforth to hold, teach or defend it in any way 
 whatsoever verbally or in writing." This injunction Galileo* 
 agrees to, and promises to obey. Some writers of note deny 
 that the great astronomer agreed to this, but the probabilities 
 are that he did, as he well knew the power of the inquisition, 
 and that even then it was burying men and burning their 
 writings for heresy. This was the 26th of February, and 
 fourteen days after, Pope Paul V solemnly rendered this de- 
 cree: " The doctrine of the double motion of the earth about 
 its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to* 
 holy Scripture." With this decree science had apparently 
 lost, forever, a decisive battle. For several years Galileo re- 
 tired to Florence, still working, but publishing nothing except 
 letters to personal friends. In 1623 Urban VIII became pope. 
 As a cardinal, Urban seemed liberal and fair, and evidently 
 was so at first. From Galileo's personal knowledge of the new 
 pope, he let his views become known again. The pope in- 
 vited him to Rome and personally tried to show him that he^ 
 was in error. That he remained friendly for a while is shown 
 by the pope's permission for Galileo to print his new book, 
 " The Dialogue," with the provision that the preface be 
 written by the master of the sacred palace, in which Galileo's 
 theory was exhibited as a play of the imagination, and not 
 at all opposed to the Bible. The new book was a great suc- 
 cess. The pious preface was laughed at by every one not 
 owned by the church, and here occurred one of those events 
 whose far-reaching effects cannot be foreseen. From a 
 friend, Pope Urban became a most bitter enemy, and took 
 personal charge of suppressing Galileo and his works. The 
 pope was not only pope, but a prince of blood, and Galileo in 
 his book repeats the arguments used by Urban, and puts 
 their refutation into the mouth of another. This touched 
 the personal vanity of the pope, who completely lost his tem- 
 per. Had he controlled his temper enough to cover up hi& 
 personal feelings, or allowed the Protestant church to carry 
 on the fight, as it was only too willing to do, the Catholic 
 Church would not be apologizing, disputing, and denying- 
 
60 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 -even up to this day for the greatest of all scandals. To fully 
 xealize this scandal, we must bear in mind always that the 
 supreme authority in the Catholic church is the church, 
 not the Bible, not Christ, not the Virgin Mary, but always the 
 <church, and as its prime mouthpiece, the infallibility of the 
 pope is as essential as Christ is to the Protestant religion. 
 For saying publicly, " Nothing that can be done now can 
 binder the truth." Cardinal Castilli was dismissed in dis- 
 grace, and Galileo once more summoned before the inquisi- 
 tion without a defender or adviser. There, as is now fully 
 revealed, he was menaced with torture again and again by 
 the express order of Pope Urban, and, as now thoroughly es- 
 tablished by the trial documents, themselves, forced to ab- 
 jure under threats, and subjected to actual imprisonment by 
 popish orders, the inquisition deferring the whole matter of 
 the papal authority, and Galileo, with threats equivalent to 
 torture, was at last forced to pronounce publicly and on his 
 knees his recantation as follows: "I, Galileo, being in my 
 seventieth year, being a prisoner, and on my knees, and be- 
 fore your Eminences, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel 
 which I touch with my hands, abjure, curse and detest the er- 
 ror and heresy of the movement of the earth." Christian writ- 
 ers would belittle Galileo because he perjured himself but only 
 a short time before Brono was publicly burned alive for defy- 
 ing the church with philosophical heresies; and eight years 
 before Archbishop of Spalatro died in a dungeon, his body 
 and writings burned in public. As it was, even after the re- 
 cantation, Galileo was kept in exile from his family and 
 friends. When, with old age, disease and mental suffering, 
 he asked for some little liberty, he was threatened with com- 
 mittal to a dungeon. At last he became blind, and although 
 wasted by disease and sorrow, he was closely watched to his 
 dying day. And this was the great church victory over a 
 demonstrated truth, and what a victory! It is worth more 
 than a passing thought. In those days the church ruled the 
 world, and contained pretty much all the brains, but it 
 thought it could crush out a fact, the main points being as 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 61 
 
 well demonstrated as they are to-day. From that day to this 
 the church has denied and explained, but if one single in- 
 stance can be found for one hundred years after, where a 
 school, a college, or a university taught this theory, it would 
 be a boon to both churches and an important addition to 
 history. 
 
 In leaving the Old Testament, we have considered the four 
 most important questions of evidence. It makes no differ- 
 ence that the churches now assist each other in showing their 
 falsity. They never admitted it until they were obliged to; 
 but what interests us is that they have been proven, beyond 
 a doubt, to be untrue. It shows that Bible makers borrowed 
 or guessed at things older than themselves, and it shows that 
 no all-knowing being or God could inspire such a book. These, 
 and numberless other mistakes, have come so rapidly that one 
 cannot predict for a day what the next startling blow will be. 
 The childish excuses of religious papers and magazines is a 
 reflection on a bright child of fifteen years of age. The Pro- 
 testant church really is dead, but is outwardly held together 
 by its immense wealth. So long as there is any money left, 
 it will find ministers and followers. The New York Sun, one 
 of the few dailies to open its columns to all sides of this dis- 
 cussion, says editorially that the day is not far distant when 
 it must be decided whether the Bible is inspired or not. Of 
 the Bible itself, it is not worth reading. It is made up of 
 untruthful ancient history, of a more or less connected and 
 more or less correct history of the Jews. The authorship of 
 nearly all of it is unknown. The Catholic Bible has more 
 books than the Protestant. There are many very good say- 
 ings; many very bad; many very childish; far too many that 
 are very cruel, and still more that are senseless. It is quite 
 a strain on our confidence when our fellow-men say they be- 
 lieve in the God Moses is supposed to tell about in the four- 
 teenth chapter of Numbers. The Christian world should 
 start at once and dig up the soul of Moses, and say to him, 
 "You old rascal, re-write this chapter, and do it quick, or,, 
 regardless of the price of coal and wood, we will start a real 
 hell and in it your soul shall toast forever and a day." 
 
62 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 This brings us to the New Testament,, or, what interests us, 
 to the discussion of Christ and him crucified. Of course, if 
 it can be shown that this man Christ was born of a virgin, 
 performed miracles, arose bodily from the dead, then it is not 
 necessary for us to admit that he was a great power, and no 
 matter how many Gods had come and gone before him, he 
 would show a power by which his followers could- justly claim 
 that he can control our lives and destinies, that would entitle 
 him to be called a God. We say if these can reasonably be 
 be proven, but we shall show that every one of the points of 
 proof, not a part of them, but every single one, were manu- 
 factured by designing men at least one hundred years after 
 Christ was dead, and we believe this to be worth close atten- 
 tion. The actual knowledge of Jesus Christ; of his move- 
 ments, and of what he said is very meager. He was born in 
 Syria, of very poor and very low grade, of Jewish parents, 
 and followed the trade of a carpenter until about thirty years 
 of age. At that time he started out as a religious reformer. 
 From what little is known of his preaching, he and his 
 followers catered only to the poorest and most degraded ele- 
 ments of society. The rich were denounced because they 
 were rich. The slaves in bondage, then so numerous, were 
 catered to, promised an eternal life, and socially recognized 
 at all their meetings. After less than four years of preaching 
 he had so large a following that the authorities thought him 
 dangerous, and he was killed, but they could not kill his fol- 
 lowing; he had promised too many good things to those who 
 accepted the meek and lowly Jesus. The most ignorant and 
 vicious of human beings became church leaders, with titles 
 of bishops and archbishops. In the three or four years of 
 talking, Christ must have said something his followers would 
 remember, and shortly after his death different Christians and 
 church authorities started in to write up Christ and his say- 
 ings. Many of these writings are lost altogether, and we 
 know of them only by other writers referring to them. Nearly 
 all are incomplete, but there are extant a part or the whole of 
 about ninety of these gospels or epistles. Most of these were 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 63 
 
 written not long after the death of Christ, and doubtless con- 
 tain considerable truth; but none of them are in the New 
 Testament as we have it, although all of them have been rec- 
 ognized at different times. St. Paul, a Jew, a few years af- 
 ter the death of Christ, became a Christian, and wrote and 
 talked a great deal. Paul wrote some epistles and they are 
 in the New Testament. They were written somewhere be- 
 tween the years forty and sixty-seven, as he died in that year. 
 These epistles are considered genuine by scholars, and are the 
 only things in the New Testament that are handed down to 
 us as they were originally prepared. How important it is to 
 bear in mind that Paul's writings were really his, and must 
 have been written not long after the death of Christ, will be 
 understood directly when we show what he did not say. St. 
 Paul lived and wrote shortly after the death of Christ, and he 
 would be certain to know and speak of the great events in the 
 earthly life of a Son of God. We shall see whether he did or 
 not. For 150 years after Christ, the church drifted, one 
 neighborhood using one gospel, another another, until, not 
 earlier than the year 125, somebody, somewhere, got together 
 and compiled what we know as the four synoptic gospels, 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. By synoptic is meant the 
 part of the New Testament that is authority for all the rest, 
 the other books being for reading and instruction, but the 
 first four are the basis of faith in all cases. The claim of the 
 dying church is that because the four gospels contain many 
 things copied from older books, the whole are genuine. This 
 would be a fair and legitimate claim if the books were a copy, 
 but they are not. All of the essential points were added 100 
 or more years after the man said to have performed them 
 was dead and buried. For here, for the first time, we hear 
 that Christ was born of a virgin; for here, for the first time, 
 we hear that Christ performed miracles; for the first time, 
 we hear that Christ was resurrected bodily from the dead; 
 and here comes the crushing statement that Paul, Paul who 
 talked and preached for years, Paul, who discussed everything 
 and everybody, never knew that Mary, the mother of Jesus, 
 
64 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 was a virgin. Paul never heard that Christ fed a multitude 
 with a few loaves and a few fish. Paul never heard that 
 Christ came forth from his grave a live, walking body. But,, 
 gentlemen, Paul wrote at the time, and no matter how anx- 
 ious he was to serve his Lord, he dare not manufacture mira- 
 cles so near the time and so near home. But these New Tes- 
 tament falsehoods our parents and our grandparents lived 
 and died believing to be sacred truths. Let the Christian 
 world produce one proof, not manufactured one hundred year& 
 after it is said to have occurred, that Christ walked on water,, 
 or raised the dead, or performed any other miracles. Let it 
 produce one proof -that the mother of Christ was a virgin. 
 Let it produce one proof that his body was restored to life. 
 The church has not done it, and without the proof what is 
 there left of Christ that should lead us to believe that he was 
 an all-powerful God. There isn't a minister, there isn't a 
 priest, that would not sacrifice years of time and research to 
 be able to produce evidence that would establish even one of 
 these things, and without them, immaculate conception, mira- 
 cles and bodily resurrection, Christ becomes what he really 
 was, a religious agitator. There were many before him claim- 
 ing to be divinely inspired, and there have been many since. 
 All frauds and mostly short-lived. 
 
 Now, for SL moment, let us consider the situation, as men 
 capable of using our reason. We can dimly realize the vast- 
 ness of the universe, very faintly, it is true, but enough to 
 know that it is beyond our comprehension, and we grasp 
 something of what a creator, or power, or God, had to do- 
 when he made all this universe out of nothing. A few weeks 
 ago Astronomer Elkin announced to the world that the star 
 or sun Arcturus is twelve million times as far from the earth 
 as our sun. Our sun's mean distance from the earth is nine- 
 ty-three millions of miles. If our sun were as far away as is 
 Arcturus, it would not be visible at all with an opera glass. 
 He says, therefore, that Arcturus is 6,000 times as bright as 
 our sun, and he assumes the same density and brightness of 
 surface as our sun, making the diameter of Arcturus seventy- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 65 
 
 nine times our sun's diameter, or over sixty-eight million 
 miles, and its mass about five hundred thousand times the 
 mass of our sun. Nobody thinks for a moment that Arc- 
 turus is the end of space, but the figures stagger our imagina- 
 tion. From things immensely great, science is unable, with 
 its present magnifying glasses, to say how minutely small na- 
 ture has divided matter. We all know something of the abil- 
 ity of machine shops to test a machine within one ten-thou- 
 sandth of an inch, but science can take a globule and sub- 
 divide not only into thousands and millions of parts, but into 
 billions of distinct formations, and a globule is a small drop, 
 smaller than a sugur-coated pill, and we are asked to believe 
 that a God with power to create a universe of the immense 
 things and equally minute things, first revealed himself to a 
 very small part of mankind 6,000 years ago, that his whole 
 career was one of childishness, of extreme jealousy, of con- 
 stant fear that people would worship some other God. He 
 devotes his time to following the fortunes of a few wander- 
 ing people, encouraging war, and directly advising and as- 
 sisting in those wars, and then, with all this vast universe to 
 look after, overshadows an extremely ordinary Jewish girl, 
 who produces a son; this son, reared among the lowest people 
 of Syria, remains thirty years in obscurity, then preaches from 
 one to four years. This God allows this Son to believe that 
 the devil owns the earth, as it is said he talked seriously with 
 Satan as to whether he should follow him or God. After 
 this Son is crucified, he is in a few days taken to a place called 
 Heaven, and from that time out is the only mediator through 
 which human beings can hope for mercy. For many cen- 
 turies this God and his Son are heard of only in countries 
 within a few hundred miles of the Mediterranean sea. Bil- 
 lions live and die in Northern Europe, Eastern Asia, South- 
 ern Africa, and the whole of America without ever hearing of 
 Jehovah or Christ. Since 1500 this Bible God has lost all 
 foothold in Asia and in Africa. In the promised land there 
 is no longer fighting between the Crescent and the Cross. 
 The cross has been lowered to the earth, never to rise again. 
 5 
 
66 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 In its place waves the Crescent of Mohammed, and six times 
 every day the faithful say: " There is but one God and Al- 
 lah is his prophet." But we are asked to believe in this Bible 
 God, and no doubt many of you do believe in him, and 
 your children may believe in him, but your children's chil- 
 dren will not believe in him. 
 
 In discussing the Bible, we have left by far the most im- 
 portant issue to be considered last. There must have been an 
 " exceeding glad " feeling come over the ordinary Christian 
 when, only eight or ten years ago, the Protestant churches 
 began to give up hell. Now all have given it up. They 
 say hell does not mean a place of torture and endless punish- 
 ment, but means simply a final stopping place for the dead. 
 We, here in New Hampshire, recall the ridicule that sprang 
 up among the Protestant churches when a society came be- 
 fore the public under the name of Universalists, claiming that 
 everybody would eventually be saved. The other churches 
 attempted to crush them by hurling at them such passages 
 as Matthew, 18th chapter, " It is better for thee to enter into 
 life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two 
 feet to be cast into everlasting fire." "See Mark 9:43, and 
 Luke 3:7, "0 generation of vipers, who hath warned you 
 to flee from the wrath to come." Or, "Who shall be pun- 
 ished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
 Lord, and from the glory of his power." In church history, 
 in the bitter controversies between the eastern and western 
 churches, they fully agreed on the subject of future punish- 
 ment in hell; in the belief that the punishment was end- 
 less, and this belief, in the strict sense of the word, was al- 
 ways recognized as a common doctrine of both. There is 
 another word translated Gehenna (See Math. 5:22, 29, 30), 
 that is never found in any other significance than that of a 
 place of punishment of the sinner after death. The above 
 extract is taken almost bodily from Chambers' Encyclopedia. 
 Jonathan Edwards, of whom the Encyclopedia Britannica 
 speaks of as being one of the greatest of theologians and en- 
 cyclopedias do not use the word "greatest" without some 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 67 
 
 reason has this cheerful message (taken from a sermon by 
 Jonathan Edwards on " The sinner in the hands of an angry 
 God."): "There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any 
 one moment out of hell but the mere pleasure of God. By 
 the mere pleasure of God, I mean His sovereign pleasure, His 
 arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no 
 manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God's 
 mere will, had in the least degree, or in any respect whatso- 
 ever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment. 
 
 " The pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace 
 is now hot, ready to receive the wicked; the flames do now 
 rage and glow. The glittering sword is whetted and held 
 over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them. 
 The great part of those who heretofore have 
 lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are 
 undoubtedly gone to hell. 
 
 " The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made 
 ready on the string; and justice directs the arrow to your 
 heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere 
 pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any 
 premise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one mo- 
 ment from being made drunk with your blood. 
 
 " The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much in the 
 same way that one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect 
 over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his 
 wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as 
 worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire; he is of 
 purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten 
 thousand times more abominable in his eyes than the most 
 hateful venomous serpent is in ours. . . . You hang by a 
 slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about 
 it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder. 
 
 " If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pity- 
 ing you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard 
 or favor, that, instead of that, he will only tread you under 
 foot; and though he will know that you cannot bear the 
 weight of Omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not re- 
 
68 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 gard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mer- 
 cy; he will crush out your blood and make it fly, and it shall 
 be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. 
 He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the ut- 
 most contempt; no place shall be thought fit for you but un- 
 der his feet, to be trodden down as the mire of the streets." 
 
 Just what has been done or will be done with the many 
 billions of human beings who have roasted all these years 
 in hell, the church has not yet decided, but you Christians 
 ought to contribute twice to every contribution box, and hug 
 yourselves with thankfulness that you lived beyond 1890, 
 when hell was abandoned, although it is probable that most 
 of your ancestors are still wheeling brimstone over red hot 
 fire-coals, all because they w^ere born a few years too soon. 
 This closes our review of the Bible God and His reputed Son, 
 and we wish to speak briefly of immortality and then of 
 the churches of the present day. But "brief as we may 
 be on immortality, or conscious life after death, it will 
 be much longer than any immortality you will ever real- 
 ize. Immortality has been the dream of sentimental peo- 
 ple, of disappointed people, and of disordered brains. The 
 words, "immortal soul," like Heaven and hell, are very 
 useful in religion, but are in fact pure imagination. Im- 
 mortality has been promised by all the later-day religions 
 to those only too willing to believe it, but there is not the 
 slightest evidence or probability that it is true. The prob- 
 abilities are all against it. The seat of intelligence, the 
 brain, depends wholly on life in the body. Through all 
 these years of speculation, no evidence appears that there is 
 the slightest consciousness after death. The Christian rises 
 up and, pointing to an Edison or a Darwin, says, " Is that 
 great intellect to die, to decay, and disapppear?" We should 
 say it would. If we listen to a special plea like this, we must 
 consider the whole human race, and, considering only what 
 are now living, taking everybody, from hot climates to cold, 
 we find the general intelligence very low. The great bulk in 
 habits and in intellect are not much above what we call ani- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 69 
 
 mals, inferior in many things, and superior only because they 
 have organs of speech. If it seems wrong to bury in the 
 grave the intellect of Webster, what is there worth saving 
 about the common herd? Science explains to us that the 
 formation of the brains of animals is the same as that of hu- 
 man beings; that at death both decay, separate into their ele- 
 ments, dissipate in the air, and help to form the brains of 
 some other human being or animal. Were there truth in im- 
 mortality, it seems to force the conclusion that animals, too, 
 have an immortal life. 
 
 But there is no conscious life beyond the grave. If our 
 death be natural, it will come without hope or fear. Death 
 is but the wasting away of our vitality. As it approaches our 
 desire will be for sleep. We will not know just when it 
 comes, but it will be welcome just the same, and as the real 
 Goddess, the Goddess of endless sleep, extends her arms for 
 the last time, our thoughts will be, not on immortality, not 
 on future punishment, but on an eternal rest. 
 
 In discussing our last subject, the churches of the present 
 day, we regret to note that many infidels and atheists can see 
 no good in churches, because the ground-work has been 
 shown to be a humbug. But, in taking this position, infidels 
 and atheists only belittle themselves. In the church is found 
 most of our best people! It would be foolish to deny it, and 
 it would not make a particle of difference with the fact, if we 
 did deny it. As young people grow up, they are told that all 
 that is good, all that is upright, all that is honest, comes from 
 or is connected with religion, and those that are naturally 
 good are drawn toward church society and influence, and the 
 influence to-day is certainly uplifting, and their ambitions in 
 life take a higher level. We do not agree with infidels that 
 note with glee that some minister or prominent church mem- 
 ber has gone wrong. The few black sheep do not count. 
 The average minister has a sincere desire to make people bet- 
 ter and happier. There is more to a minister's life than 
 drawing his salary and taking vacations, and the church is 
 evoluting as fast as desirable. It has given up almost every- 
 
70 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 thing objectionable. It has doubts of the usefulness of pray- 
 er. It has discarded hell. The Unitarian church, which 
 has been on all sides of these great questions, does not now 
 hamper its ministers or its members with any sort of belief. 
 Its services are mostly lectures, many of them instructive 
 and entertaining. All of the Protestant churches are to-day, 
 not religious orders, but social societies, and the social fea- 
 tures are most commendable. Here women meet and ob- 
 serve their friends and acquaintances. They learn how oth- 
 ers do and act, and if they are pleasant people themselves, 
 they always find plenty of other pleasant people. We trust 
 there are no infidels or atheists who deny their family the 
 society of churches. If there are any such, no matter what 
 their education may be, they are narrow-minded, and evolu- 
 tion has not yet done its work. 
 
 The great nuisance of the Protestant church is its profes- 
 sional begging. Its constant whine is " Money, money, mon- 
 ey." The contribution box is everywhere and at all times. 
 The condition of a family is seldom considered. If a family 
 can keep away from the poor house and attend church, it 
 must give and give. But these matters will adjust them- 
 selves. The Protestant church will shortly combine and be- 
 come one huge social society. Praying will cease altogether. 
 Sermons will be practical lectures, and the name of God sel- 
 dom heard. The Catholic church is still a great power, and 
 will be long after the very name of Protestant has been for- 
 gotten. Its military discipline, its great wisdom in its abso- 
 lute refusal to argue disputed points, its insistence that the 
 church and not the Bible is the real authority, hold it to- 
 gether with a generalship that Protestants now admit, but 
 saw too late. When a Catholic thinks his church is wrong he 
 does not kick or start another church, but gives up churches 
 altogether. The church ignores him and devotes itself to 
 suckers that never kick. The great wrong of the Catholic 
 church to-day is its nunneries, but they are happily growing 
 less and their inmates fewer. The nunnery buries for life 
 the brightest and healthiest of its young women. Before 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 71 
 
 they are old enough to know or realize what they are doing, 
 they accept a life of sacrifice,, believing that their sacrifice is 
 preparing them for a life of endless happiness. As one meets 
 these nuns on the street, and notes their white faces and ema- 
 ciated forms,, he feels a weakness in his legs, as though he 
 would like to lean against a fence, all the time thinking to 
 himself what a God-damned humbug this whole religion is. 
 
 And this ends our story. It is only proper to say that our 
 argument for Atheism is taken from Buchner's " Force and 
 Matter." Our facts about Christ from Judge C. B. Waite's 
 " History of the Christian Religion to the year 200;" and our 
 account of Galileo, much of it bodily, from Andrew D. 
 "White's " History of the Warfare of Science with Theology." 
 Andrew D. White was for years president of Cornell univer- 
 sity. At the time of writing this book, he was our minister 
 to Russia, and has only within a few weeks resigned from the 
 position of United States minister to Germany. These, with 
 our gratefulness to the Century Dictionary and the encyclo- 
 pedias, are authorities that are so far unimpeached. 
 
 Those of you who are so full of superstition that you be- 
 lieve that any new undertaking begun on Friday will be a 
 failure will profit little by this address, and we assure you, 
 and we say it kindly, Atheism does not want you. Atheism 
 is progressing fully as fast as intelligence is progressing. Af- 
 ter all superstition is dead it will be popular, but until that 
 time, the only converts it wants, or will tolerate, are those 
 who study the question and draw their conclusions from facts 
 and not from faith. 
 
 With Atheism comes a perfect contentment. A perfect 
 happiness that we believe no religion can ever furnish. It 
 teaches us to live one life at a time. It is the only complete 
 and permanent cure for nervousness and it teaches us that 
 every man owes his success and happiness in life largely to 
 himself, and that no supernatural agency can help him or 
 harm him. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham Before the fifth article is dis- 
 
72 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 posed of, and while acting upon it, I wish to make a motion; 
 that the word " subject " should be stricken out and the word 
 " citizen " should be substituted in its place. 
 
 The Chairman Article six is now in order. Mr. Everett 
 of Nashua began his remarks prematurely. 
 
 (Article six read by the clerk.) 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I suggest that the proposed amend- 
 ment be now read, in order that the delegates may compare 
 the two and have them thoroughly in their minds. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Will the gentleman from Bow 
 yield for a question? I think it would be useful if the gen- 
 tleman stated in a general way how far he changes the gen- 
 eral phraseology of section six, as the members have not had 
 the opportunity to compare the proposed amendment with 
 section six. I suppose the substantial thing in the amend- 
 ment is to strike out the word " evangelical " in the first part 
 of article six, and the word " Protestant " in the last line 
 of the same paragraph. While all concede that these expres- 
 sions are objectionable many feel that we should adhere as far 
 as possible to the general phraseology of our forefathers, 
 and I think it would be convenient to the members of the 
 convention if the gentleman should state how far he departs 
 from the general phraseology of article six. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow In response to the request of the gen- 
 tleman from Littleton, I have to say, that the substance of 
 article six, with the exceptions which he has detailed, are re- 
 tained; very much of the language is retained. The word 
 <e evangelical " and the word " Protestant " are entirely 
 dropped out. I think it is now the general wish of the peo- 
 ple of the state of New Hampshire that there should be no 
 suggestion of partiality in our Constitution. As article six 
 now reads, the several towns are authorized, or rather the leg- 
 islature may authorize the several towns, to employ clergymen 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 73 
 
 or teachers of piety, as termed in article six, and taxes may 
 be assessed to pay the salaries of these clergymen; but it also 
 provides that they shall not compel anybody to pay towards 
 the support of such teachers of any religion in which they do 
 not believe. 
 
 That part has been entirely omitted in my proposed substi- 
 tute because I apprehend that there is no desire on the part 
 of anybody at this time that there should be any taxation 
 whatever in regard to religious matters. That is the only 
 change at that point. 
 
 I have added one or two clauses here, which are not in the 
 Constitution at all as it stands. One of those is, that no pub- 
 lic money or property shall be appropriated for the use of any 
 religious society, sect, or denomination, or the support of any 
 religious establishment. I think you are all agreed on that. 
 The other provision is with reference to religious test as a 
 qualification for office. 
 
 (Reads proposed amendment.) 
 
 My purpose has been, gentlemen, to divest the government 
 of the state of New Hampshire from any suspicion of favor- 
 ing one denomination more than any other, or leaving the 
 legislature any authority whatever to favor one society rather 
 than another. I am ready to answer any question. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton "Will the gentleman permit me 
 again? I do not wish to have it understood that my query 
 involved any objection to the draft which the gentleman from 
 Bow has proposed. The only object of my rising to the 
 question was to enable the gentleman from Bow to state to 
 the Convention precisely what changes he proposed. His 
 explanation has been quite satisfactory to me and I am in 
 favor of the adoption of the draft as presented. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster I am very generally and per- 
 haps I am wholly in favor of the ideas suggested in this 
 proposed amendment. I think the time has come when there 
 
74 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 should be no reference in this fundamental document of our 
 state to any special religious society or religious questions. 
 In that regard I think it should be changed and shall vote for 
 that. 
 
 I desire, however, to retain in this article so much of the 
 language and the spirit of our fathers as may be retained in 
 order to bring about these changes. 
 
 For one, it seems to me that it would be better to have this 
 amendment in full type and put into the hands of every mem- 
 ber of this Convention who may be called upon to pass upon 
 its adoption, and so I am in favor of letting this matter lie 
 over so that the amendment may be printed and we may have 
 a full opportunity of comparing the changes with the original 
 article before voting definitely with reference to any change, 
 and I move that we pass this over and that the amendment 
 be printed. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Mr. Chairman, I understand that the 
 wish of the gentleman from Lancaster is that the amend- 
 ment be printed and lie on the table for further consideration, 
 and that we proceed with the reading of the Bill of Rights at 
 this time. To that I have no objection whatever. 
 
 (Motion of Mr. Kent is carried. Clerk reads articles seven, 
 eight, nine, ten and eleven.) 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth I would like to inquire if 
 in the Committee of the Whole amendments can be offered 
 to these articles as they are read, or, should the amendments 
 be offered in the Convention and then be referred to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole? 
 
 The Chairman The chair will state that as the chair un- 
 derstands, this amendment of the gentleman from Bow is 
 committed to the Committee of the Whole and nothing but 
 that should be considered by this committee. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth Then I wish to give notice 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 75 
 
 that I have an amendment that I desire to offer to article 
 eleven. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord My impression is that the amend- 
 ment can be offered in the Committee of the Whole. I think 
 that is the practice in bodies where Committees of the "Whole 
 are more in vogue than in the legislature of New Hampshire. 
 I would ask the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, how 
 that is. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I suppose that this Convention 
 may do as it likes. I supposed that this Bill of Eights was- 
 being read in order that amendments might be offered. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham If amendments can be offered 
 in the Committee of the Whole, I have an amendment to- 
 propose that the word "subject" be stricken out wherever 
 it occurs in the Constitution, and the word " citizen " be sub- 
 stituted in place thereof. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Will the gentleman accept the 
 suggestion that the word " citizen " is too narrow? It would 
 not include an unnaturalized foreigner or children. I would 
 suggest the word "inhabitant." 
 
 The Chairman Upon the suggestions made by the differ- 
 ent gentlemen we will proceed, if there is no objection, to re- 
 ceive amendments. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth offers the following amend- 
 ment to article eleven: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution of this state be amended 
 by adding at the end of article eleven of the Bill of Rights 
 the following: 
 
 " But no person shall have the right to vote, or be eligible 
 to office under the Constitution of this state, who shall not 
 be able to read the Constitution in the English language, and 
 
76 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 write his name; provided, however, that this provision shall 
 not apply to any person prevented by a physical disability 
 from complying with its requisitions, nor to any person who 
 now has the right to vote, nor to any person who shall be 
 sixty years of age or upwards on the first day of January, 
 A. D. 1904." 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth Mr. President, I have offered 
 this resolution at this time for the purpose of getting it before 
 the Convention, but I am not aware that all parties interested 
 therein are prepared to discuss it now. I believe it is a 
 matter of importance to us all that this amendment should 
 be adopted. It will be seen by reading the resolution, that 
 it does not affect the right of any party to vote, who is now a 
 voter; but it is for the purpose of preventing men who are 
 unable to read or write from voting in the future, provided 
 they are not of the age of sixty years, and provided further 
 that they are not disabled by any physical disability from 
 complying with its terms. 
 
 I would move for the purpose of allowing the Bill of Eights 
 to be read through, that this amendment lie upon the table, 
 and be printed, and be taken up and discussed at some other 
 meeting of the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. Streeter of Concord I rise to a question of order. I 
 may be wrong, but I think there must be some misapprehen- 
 sion about the parliamentary situation. I believe that the 
 records will show that the only question referred to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole was the resolution offered by the gentle- 
 man from Bow, Mr. Baker. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord The motion made by the gentle- 
 man from Bow, Mr. Baker, to my recollection was that the 
 Convention resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on 
 the Bill of Eights, part first; and then I either made the sug- 
 gestion or a motion that the Bill of Eights be read section 
 by section and considered. If I am correct, amendments 
 would be in order. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 77 
 
 I think the proper motion would be to lay this amendment 
 on the table for the purpose of printing, and that this article 
 be passed over for the present. 
 
 Mr. Streeter of Concord I yield, of course, to the very 
 much wider experience of the gentleman with reference to 
 the rules and parliamentary law, but I do not quite see how 
 under any logical interpretation of those rules an amendment 
 to the Constitution can be proposed in a committee, and I 
 should expect, in order to get our records right, that we 
 should have to have the amendment proposed by the gentle- 
 man from Somersworth re-offered in the Convention. This 
 is a committee and not the Constitutional Convention. I do 
 not desire to discuss it because I care about it, but only be- 
 cause I wish to keep our records so that we can pursue our 
 course in a logical way. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Why is the Bill of Eights being 
 read in the Committee of the Whole? 
 
 Mr. Streeter of Concord I will answer that I did not un- 
 derstand the Bill of Eights was referred to the Committee 
 of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord The gentleman from Bow of- 
 fered his amendment and it was suggested that the Conven- 
 tion resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and the Bill 
 of Eights should be considered. Now if there is any purpose 
 in the consideration of a document either in part or in whole, 
 it is that it may be amended, and it facilitates business to 
 have this done in a Committee of the Whole, inasmuch as 
 there cannot be any call for the yeas and nays. 
 
 (The motion upon which the house resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole was read.) 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I would suggest that the motion 
 of the gentleman from Somersworth, as well as the motions 
 
78 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 previously made by the gentlemen from Bow and Stratham, 
 that the amendments proposed be laid upon the table to be 
 printed and that the section be passed over for the present. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth I accept the suggestion of 
 the gentleman from Concord and the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester I would like to inquire where 
 the table is in the Committee of the Whole where these are 
 to lie. It seems to me that the Convention is the body and 
 the table is the place where the Convention refers things to 
 that it desires to take up later, but when we come into the 
 Committee of the Whole I am not aware that laying matters 
 upon the table is the proper mode of procedure. The mo- 
 tion should be, as I think, to pass and print. 
 
 The Chairman It is a mere question of words, I suppose. 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord I should like to return to the ques- 
 tion of whether this committee is in order in taking up amend- 
 ments to the Constitution proposed here. Is it proper for 
 new business before the Convention to be introduced in one 
 of its committees? It does not seem to me it is. I think we 
 are confused over the term "amendments." Amendments 
 may be undoubtedly made in the committee to a motion or 
 resolution that has been referred to it, but new business in 
 the form of amendments to the Constitution I think is en- 
 tirely out of place in being introduced before the committee. 
 But if that is the course to be pursued and we should be 
 barred from offering amendments to articles of the Bill of 
 Eights, that have been read and passed, then there is an 
 amendment that I desire to make to the Bill of Eights. I 
 therefore want to know what the practice will be with refer- 
 ence to these amendments; whether we are barred from offer- 
 ing amendments after an article has been passed. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord In reply to the gentleman from 
 Concord, I would say that the offering of an amendment to 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 79 
 
 the Bill of Eights, which is the subject under consideration, 
 by the motion of the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, is not 
 new business. 
 
 Mr. Chase of Bristol It seems to me that we are in this 
 situation; that these votes we are passing in the Committee 
 of the Whole are matters which must be reported by the 
 Committee of the Whole to the Convention, to be finally act- 
 ed upon by the Convention later. It does not seem to me 
 that it is anything more than a recommendation which the 
 Committee of the Whole decides to present to the Convention 
 at some time. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord The gentleman is exactly right. 
 All of this work will have to go before the Convention sit- 
 ting as a Convention, and these amendments will be acted 
 upon there. 
 
 The Chairman The motion is to lay upon the table. If 
 there is no table, we will pass that. The motion will then 
 be, that the amendments proposed be printed and the sec- 
 tions to which there are amendments be passed for the pres- 
 ent. 
 
 (Resolution adopted.) 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham I desire to make another sug- 
 gestion with reference to my motion to strike out " subject " 
 and insert " citizen." I made the motion thinking that if I 
 did not make it at the time it would be too late to make it 
 later. Since it was forwarded to the desk I have received a 
 suggestion from Judge Aldrich that the word "citizen " ought 
 to be " inhabitant." 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton On reflection, I should prefer 
 the word " one." 
 
 The Chairman The gentleman will put his motion in 
 writing. 
 
80 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham I did so and gave it to a page to 
 be taken to the desk. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord For the purpose of making our 
 records so they will be correct, I move that we return to ar- 
 ticle five of the Bill of Rights, for the purpose of amendment. 
 
 The Chairman If there is no objection on the part of any 
 member of the committee,, we will return to the consideration 
 of article five. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I think that I have been somewhat 
 instrumental in leading this committee into what I appre- 
 hend to be really an error of practice. 
 
 I think that when the resolution or amendment, which I 
 had the honor to offer, was passed upon I should have made 
 the motion that the committee do now rise and report to the 
 Convention, and then in the Convention I should have made 
 the motion that my resolution lie upon the table and be 
 printed. 
 
 I ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent that the action 
 taken may be considered as naught, and if that unanimous 
 consent is given I will make the other motion. 
 
 The Chairman Will you please state your request again? 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I ask the unanimous consent of the 
 committee that the action taken by the committee in rela- 
 tion to the resolution which I had the honor to propose, be 
 null and void or be reconsidered. 
 
 The Chairman As I understand the motion that the gen- 
 tleman proposes, it is, that the action of the committee 
 which was that his amendment to article six of the Bill of 
 Rights lie upon the table to be printed be reconsidered. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Where does that leave us as to all 
 the other work of the committee? Does the gentleman pro- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 81 
 
 pose to strike out all the work of the committee from tho 
 time his resolution was acted upon to the present time ? 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow My proposition is that the motion 
 which was made to lay my amendment upon the tahle to bo 
 printed, be reconsidered. Then I would withdraw my mo- 
 tion and move that the Committee of the Whole do now rise 
 and report. I presume that if that were done it would ren- 
 der null anything that has been done since then. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth I do not know what situa- 
 tion this would leave my amendment in, but it strikes me that 
 the proper thing to have done would be to consider all the 
 amendments before the Committee of the Whole and then to 
 rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again on these 
 different amendments. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow The trouble is that the resolutions of 
 the gentleman from Somersworth, Mr. Edgerly, and of the 
 other gentleman, which were made in the Committee of the 
 Whole, are not in order as they were not before the Conven- 
 tion, as I understand it. , 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth That was a doubt that I had, 
 and I would not have offered my amendment had I not been 
 in doubt as to whether it would have been barred by not pre- 
 senting it here; whether we would be barred from going into 
 the Convention and offering a resolution upon a section, 
 which amendments we had said nothing about in considering 
 it in the Committee of the Whole. I understand it to be in 
 this way: that when the Bill of Eights was submitted to this 
 Convention and when an article was read that one wished to 
 have amended, they must then and there offer amendment 
 or be thereafter debarred. 
 
 Otherwise I would not have offered my amendment. If 
 
 this whole action of the committee is to go for naught from 
 
 the beginning and we are to start over again and consider an 
 
 amendment and then rise and report progress on that and 
 
 6 
 
82 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 leave opportunity to offer other amendment hereafter, I am 
 satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I see nothing to be gained from 
 the action asked to be taken by Mr. Baker of Bow. 
 
 Supposing that we do make mistakes and supposing that 
 our procedure is not just what it ought to be, when we come 
 into the Convention, the Convention can correct anything we 
 do. 
 
 The Committee of the Whole is not a usual thing in the 
 legislatures of New Hampshire and it is natural that we make 
 some errors as we go along, but as I have already said, all of 
 those errors can be corrected in the Convention and I see no 
 reason why the motion of the gentleman from Bow should 
 prevail. 
 
 (Motion put and rejected.) 
 
 Mr. Lord of Manchester Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
 as one of the members of the Convention I am not familiar 
 with the Committee of the Whole. As has been suggested, 
 it is an unusual proceeding here in New Hampshire to sit in 
 a Committee of the Whole, and there are not many of us who 
 seem to know anything at all about it. I would like to know 
 what we are doing. 
 
 It seems to me that the proper place for the Bill of Eights 
 to be read and considered would be in the Convention and 
 the amendments offered there and then referred to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, where they can be discussed. If it is in 
 order, therefore, I make the motion that the committee do 
 now rise and report no progress and ask leave to sit again at 
 some other time. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I am opposed to that. I am op- 
 posed to taking any backward steps. This is a Constitu- 
 tional Convention and it is above and beyond parliamentary 
 rules. When it has. done anything fairly, whether it is in 
 the Committee of the Whole or as a Convention, no one can 
 question it. We have made some progress and no one has a 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 83 
 
 right to question what we have done. It offends no prin- 
 ciple, it offends no parliamentary law, except those that the 
 Convention has a right to waive for the time. It makes no 
 difference whether these things are submitted in the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole or in the Convention. It is simply the 
 question of considering the changes the people should make 
 to the Constitution, and the object, as I understand it, in go- 
 ing into the Committee of the Whole and reading the Bill of 
 Eights is to receive suggestions and consider them. If we 
 come to a matter that we can dispose of here, make a dis- 
 position of it, and no one can question it. If we come to 
 a matter which we think should be printed and considered 
 further or reported to the Convention, we can do that. 
 There is no occasion to talk about making mistakes, be- 
 cause we cannot make any by receiving amendments when- 
 ever offered, if the committee chooses to receive such 
 amendments and consider them. And that I think is so, 
 whether we are sitting in a Committee of the Whole or in 
 Convention. It makes no difference, and I am opposed to 
 the motion of the gentleman from Manchester that we rise 
 and report no progress. I think we had better go a,long as 
 a Committee of the Whole and read the Bill of Eights and 
 receive such suggestions as we can dispose of. If we come to 
 something that cannot be disposed of here, then we can con- 
 sider the matter of rising and reporting. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia I see no difficulty, as the gentle- 
 man from Littleton has said, in the parliamentary situation. 
 As I understand the situation, the Bill of Eights is under 
 consideration by the Committee of the Whole, it having been 
 referred to that committee by the Convention. We have been 
 sent into Committee of the Whole upon the line which the 
 stenographer has read. 
 
 Now, my understanding of the Committee of the Whole is, 
 that unless work of the Committee of the Whole is approved 
 by the Convention, nothing has been done; but whatever the 
 committee does, which is approved by the Convention, is 
 something that has been accomplished. 
 
84 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Under those circumstances I think that any amendment 
 that any delegate desires to submit can be submitted here and 
 that it can be printed and discussed, that the whole Bill of 
 Rights can be considered under these rules, and then we can 
 rise and report progress and our recommendations to the 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Lord of Manchester My motion was made simply be- 
 cause the brightest minds in this Convention did not seem to- 
 know where they are at. 'If they have found out I will with- 
 draw my motion. 
 
 (Motion withdrawn.) 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Before this discussion the gen- 
 tleman from Stratham, Mr. Wingate, had an amendment 
 which he desired to offer to article five, with reference to< 
 which the gentleman from Littleton offered a suggestion. I 
 made a motion, which I understood the chair allowed by 
 unanimous consent, that we should return to article five, for 
 the purpose of amendment. Is that amendment pending 
 now? 
 
 The Chairman Article five is before the committee for 
 amendment. Is there any amendment to be offered? 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham I made the motion I did, sup- 
 posing it was necessary to make it this afternoon, since which 
 time the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, has sug- 
 gested an alteration, and I have accepted it by changing the 
 word " citizen " to the word " inhabitant " or " one." I am 
 certainly very anxious to have the word " subject " taken out 
 of our Constitution. When the Constitution was first passed 
 we had just come out from under the rule of George the 
 Third, and the word " subject " was a familiar term at that 
 time. 
 
 In the office which I have held, the distinction has been 
 made. Americans have come to me and told me that they 
 were Americans and then it was not necessary for me to in- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 85 
 
 vestigate. I knew that they were citizens of the United 
 States, but if they came to me and said that they were Ameri- 
 can subjects I always had occasion to inquire where they did 
 come from. If the word " one " or " person/' suggested by 
 the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, is the correct 
 word to put in that place, I accept that amendment with 
 pleasure. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I do not want to take anything 
 out of the hands of the gentleman from Stratham, but I 
 think it would be better to have the section read as follows: 
 " Every individual has the natural and unalienable right to 
 worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience 
 and reason, and no citizen [or person, or one] shall be hurt," 
 etc. I think the words " person " or " one " would be bet- 
 ter in that connection than "citizen." 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham That is entirely agreeable to 
 me. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Then I think it better.be dis- 
 posed of now while the section is under consideration. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter Does the amendment change the 
 sense ? I don't see that it would make any difference whether 
 the word " subject " is used in that connection or one of the 
 others. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton The objection of the gentleman 
 from Stratham is largely founded on taste and many people 
 hold the same view. No American is a subject. They are 
 all sovereigns and kings. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham As the Romans said, if I pro- 
 nounce my Latin right, Gives Romanus sum. 
 
 (The following resolution introduced by Mr. Wingate of 
 Stratham is passed.) 
 
86 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Resolved, That the word " subject," in line three of article 
 five of the Bill of Eights, be stricken out, and the word " one " 
 be inserted in place thereof. 
 
 Articles twelve, thirteen, and fourteen read by the clerk. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham The word " subject " comes in 
 article fourteenth and the word " one," I think, would not be 
 correct in that place. Some other word ought to be inserted. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord That has already been brought to 
 my attention by a gentleman nearby, and it will take perhaps 
 a little time to adjust it. I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, 
 that the committee do now rise and report progress and ask 
 leave to sit again. 
 
 (Motion prevailed.) 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 On rising the Committee of the Whole, through its chair- 
 man, Mr. Cross of Manchester, reported to the Convention 
 that the- Committee of the Whole had been in session and had 
 instructed him to report that some considerable work had 
 been done and asked leave to sit again. 
 
 No objection being made, such leave was granted. 
 
 Mr. Barton of Newport introduced the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That part second, article nine of the Constitution, 
 be amended by striking out the words " eighteen hundred," 
 in the eighth line of said article and inserting in place there- 
 of the words " twenty-six hundred;" and by striking out the 
 words "twelve hundred," in the tenth line of said section, 
 and inserting in place thereof the words " two thousand," so 
 that said section, as amended, shall read: 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1902. 87 
 
 ART. 9. There shall be, in the legislature of this state, a 
 representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded 
 upon principles of equality, and, in order that such represen- 
 tation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, every 
 town, or place entitled to town privileges, and wards of cities 
 having six hundred inhabitants, by the last general census of 
 the state, taken by authority of the United States or of this 
 state, may elect one representative; if twenty-six hundred 
 such inhabitants may elect two representatives; and so pro- 
 ceeding in that proportion, making two thousand such inhab- 
 itants the mean increasing number for any additional repre- 
 sentative; provided, that no town shall be divided or the 
 boundaries of the wards of any city so altered as to increase 
 the number of representatives to which such town or city may 
 be entitled 'by the next preceding census; and provided 
 further, that, to those towns and cities which since the last 
 census have been divided or had their boundaries or ward 
 lines changed, the general court in session next before these 
 amendments shall take effect shall equitably apportion repre- 
 sentation in such manner that the number shall not be great- 
 er than it would have been had no such division or alteration 
 been made. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 upon the table to be printed, and to be considered with the 
 other resolutions on the same subject as a part of the special 
 order at the forenoon session of Thursday, December 4. 
 
 The Special Committee, to whom was referred the petition 
 of Felix G. Harbour and others, representing that the peti- 
 tioners were entitled, and that Herman Greager, Joseph G. 
 Plante, Joseph Richer, and Eugene Quirin were not legally 
 entitled to seats in this Convention, reported the said peti- 
 tion with the following recommendation: 
 
 That the petitioners have leave to withdraw, and that said 
 Herman Greager, Joseph G. Plante, Joseph Richer, and Eu- 
 gene Quirin be declared duly qualified members of this Con- 
 
88 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 vention, legally elected as delegates from the ninth ward in 
 the city of Manchester, and be seated accordingly. 
 
 The facts of the case are undisputed, and the petitioners 
 admit that said Greager, Plante, Richer, and Quirin were 
 legally elected as delegates to this Convention, unless their 
 election is invalidated by the fact that the certificate of nom- 
 ination of said Greager, Plante, Richer, and Quirin, as nomi- 
 nees of a caucus of a political party, was filed with the secre- 
 tary of state one hour and fifteen minutes after the expiration 
 of the time limited by statute for the filing of such certifi- 
 cates of nomination. 
 
 The nomination was regular, and the omission to file the 
 certificate seasonably was the result of accident or of neglect 
 on the part of some person other than the nominees. By di- 
 rection of the ballot law commissioners, the secretary of state 
 placed the names of the nominees on the official ballots, and 
 no other ballots were provided or used at the election in s-iid 
 ward. 
 
 The petitioners received some votes at said election; and 
 if the votes cast for said Greager, Plante, Richer, and Quirin 
 be rejected and those cast for petitioners be counted, the peti- 
 tioners would be entitled to seats in this Convention. 
 
 Your committee are of the opinion that the law limiting 
 the term within which certificates of nomination shall be 
 filed with the secretary of state is directory, and the secretary 
 of state was acting properly under the law in placing on the 
 official ballot the names of the acting members, that they were 
 legally voted for and elected, and are entitled to their seats 
 in this Convention. 
 
 ARTHUR 0. FULLER, 
 
 For the Committee. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kent of Lancaster, the report of the 
 committee was accepted, the recommendations adopted, and 
 the persons therein named were declared duly elected mem- 
 bers of this Convention. 
 
 The committee to whom was committed the matter of in- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 89 
 
 specting the ballots cast for Philip Riley and Nelson \V. 
 Paige as contesting candidates, in ward ten of the city of 
 Manchester, for the position of delegate to this Convention 
 from said ward, reported that they had attended to their 
 duties and respectfully reported as follows: 
 
 The number of ballots cast for said candidates was seven 
 hundred and fourteen (714). 
 
 Of which number 
 
 Philip Eiley had three hundred and fifty-six (356), 
 
 And Nelson "W. Paige had three hundred and fifty-eight 
 (358). 
 
 EDWARD B. PARKER, 
 Chairman of Committee. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Harvey of Manchester, the report was 
 accepted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. Reed of Concord. 
 
 The reading of the journal having been commenced, on 
 motion of Mr .Chase of Bristol, the rules were so far sus- 
 pended that the further reading of the journal was dispensed 
 with. 
 
 Mr. Little of Manchester announced that Chaplain Burton 
 "W. Lockhart would be unable to perform his duties during 
 the present week, and on motion of Mr. Briggs of Manches- 
 ter, the President was authorized to supply the vacancy for 
 the remainder of the week. 
 
90 JOUENAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The President announced the following standing commit- 
 tees: 
 
 BILL OF RIGHTS AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton. 
 Mr. Briggs of Manchester. 
 Mr. Drew of Lancaster. 
 Mr. Bales of Wilton. 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter. 
 Mr. Chase of Kingston. 
 Mr. Meader of Eochester. 
 Mr. Busiel of Laconia. 
 Mr. Eogers of Tilton. 
 Mr. Clow of Wolfeborough. 
 Mr. Kimball of Concord. 
 Mr. Sanborn of Franklin. 
 Mr. Buxton of Boscawen. 
 Mr. "Woodbury of Bedford. 
 Mr. Madden of Keene. 
 Mr. Stone of Troy. 
 Mr. Colby of Claremont. 
 Mr. Bradley of Newport. 
 Mr. Morris of Lisbon. 
 Mr. Evans of Gorham. 
 
 LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, 
 
 Mr. Cross of Manchester. 
 Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield. 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord. 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord. 
 Mr. Howard of Portsmouth. 
 Mr. Healey of Raymond. 
 Mr. Cochran of Rochester. 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia. 
 Mr. Coldbath of Barnstead. 
 Mr. Truesdell of Pembroke. 
 Mr. Hadley of Temple. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 91 
 
 Mr. Peavey of Greenfield. 
 
 Mr. Quirin (Joseph) of Manchester. 
 
 Mr. Eugg of Sullivan. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Acworth. 
 
 Mr. Eichardson of Canaan. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Woodstock. 
 
 Mr. Parker of Franconia. 
 
 Mr. Philbrook of Shelburne. 
 
 Mr. LaPlante of Berlin. 
 
 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. Blodgett of Franklin. 
 Mr. Walker of Concord. 
 Mr. Parker of Nashua. 
 Mr. Adams of Portsmouth. 
 Mr. Follansby of Exeter. 
 Mr. Gunnison of Eochester. 
 Mr. Fellows of Tilton. 
 Mr. Thompson of Laconia. 
 Mr. Coleman of Brookfield. 
 Mr. Dudley of Concord. 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua. 
 Mr. Smith of Hillsborough. 
 Mr. Little of Manchester. 
 Mr. Annett of Jaffrey. 
 Mr. Taft of Keene. 
 Mr. Barton of Newport. 
 Mr. Way of Claremont. 
 Mr. Westgate of Haverhill. 
 Mr. Colby of Hanover. 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin. 
 
 ON FUTURE MODE OF AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND 
 OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter. 
 Mr. Tennev of Claremont. 
 
92 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Botch of Milford. 
 Mr. Norris of Portsmouth. 
 Mr. Moulton of Dover. 
 Mr. Lewis of Laconia. 
 Mr. Smith of New Hampton. 
 Mr. Bideout of Bartlett. 
 Mr. Baker of Bow. 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin. 
 Mr. Howe of Concord. 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester. 
 Mr. Hunt of Manchester. 
 Mr. Spaulding of Walpole. 
 Mr. Pierce of Winchester. 
 Mr. Greene of Littleton. 
 Mr. Pike of Haverhill. 
 Mr. Bussell of Plymouth. 
 Mr. Wight of Berlin. 
 Mr. Paine of Berlin. 
 
 ON TIME AND MODE OF SUBMITTING TO THE PEOPLE THE 
 AMENDMENTS AGREED TO BY THE CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord. 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester. 
 Mr. Shute of Wentworth. 
 Mr. Wetherell of Exeter. 
 Mr. Sanders of Derry. 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth. 
 Mr. Nute of Dover. 
 Mr. Cogswell of Gilmanton. 
 Mr. Dearborn of Eaton. 
 Mr. Mies of Concord. 
 Mr. Hollis of Concord. 
 Mr. Chase of Bristol. - 
 Mr. Wason of Nashua. 
 Mr. Holman of Hillsborough. 
 Mr. Woodward of Keene. 
 Mr. Newell of Keene. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 9& 
 
 Mr. Kichards of Newport. 
 Mr. Bartlett of Sunapee. 
 Mr. Dole of Lebanon. 
 Mr. Johnson of Colebrook. 
 
 Mr. Thompson of Warner offered the following proposed 
 amendment to the Constitution: 
 
 Resolved, That the word " male " be stricken from article 
 twenty-seven,, part second of the Constitution. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was or- 
 dered printed and laid upon the table until the article to 
 which the proposed amendment related was reached by the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord submitted the following proposed 
 amendment to the Constitution: 
 
 That article six of the Bill of Eights be amended as follows: 
 
 Strike out the word " evangelical " and insert in place 
 thereof the word " Christian." 
 
 Strike out the word " towns " wherever it appears in said 
 article. 
 
 Strike out the word " Protestant." 
 
 Strike out the words " every denomination of Christians,"" 
 and insert in place thereof the words " all persons." 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 upon the table to be printed, and the same was referred to 
 the Committee on Bill of Eights and Executive Department. 
 
 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Fuller of 
 Exeter: 
 
 Resolved, That article seventy of part second of the Consti- 
 tution be amended by striking out the word " solicitors," and 
 that the following article be added to the Constitution: 
 
 The county solicitors shall be appointed by the judges of 
 
94 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the superior court, and shall hold office for a term of five 
 years. They shall be subject to removal at any time by the 
 judges of the superior court on the ground of physical or 
 mental disability, or for cause shown, after due notice and 
 hearing. Vacancies occurring by reason of the removal, 
 death, resignation, or expiration of the term of office of any 
 solicitor shall be filled in like manner, the persons so ap- 
 pointed to hold office for a term of five years from the date 
 of their appointment. The judges of the superior court shall 
 have power to make all necessary rules for carrying into effect 
 the provisions of this article. The first appointments under 
 this article shall be made to take effect on the first day of 
 January following its adoption. 
 
 It shall be the duty of the legislature to provide for the 
 county solicitors such reasonable salaries as shall suffice to 
 secure the services of men qualified to perform the duties 
 of the office. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 referred to the Committee on the Judicial Department and 
 ordered printed. 
 
 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Aldrich 
 of Littleton: 
 
 Resolved, That article twenty-five, part two of the Consti- 
 tution be amended by striking out the words " twenty-four " 
 and inserting in place thereof the word " forty," so that the 
 same shall read: 
 
 The senate shall consist of forty members, who shall hold 
 their office for two years, from the first Wednesday of Jan- 
 uary next ensuing their election. 
 
 And article twenty-six, part two, be amended by striking 
 from the third line the words " twenty-f our," and inserting 
 the word " forty." 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the proposed amend- 
 ment was laid upon the table, to be included in the special 
 order for 11 o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 95 
 
 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Morris of 
 Lisbon: 
 
 Resolved, That article seventy-seven, part two of the Consti- 
 tution be amended by the addition of the following words: 
 
 " And the general court are further empowered to give to 
 police courts original jurisdiction to try and determine, sub- 
 ject to right of appeal and trial by jury, all criminal causes 
 wherein the punishment is less than imprisonment in the 
 state prison." So that when amended said section shall read: 
 
 The general court are empowered to give to justices of the 
 peace jurisdiction in civil causes, when the damages demanded 
 shall not exceed one hundred dollars, and title of real estate 
 is not concerned, but with right of appeal to either party to 
 some other court. And the general court are further empow- 
 ered to give to police courts original jurisdiction to try and 
 determine, subject to right of appeal and trial by jury, all 
 criminal causes wherein the punishment is less than imprison- 
 ment in the state prison. 
 
 The same gentleman moved that the resolution be printed 
 and referred to the appropriate committee. The motion 
 prevailed and the resolution was referred to the Committee 
 on the Legislative Department. 
 
 The following proposed amendment to the Constitution 
 was introduced by Mr. Thompson of Warner: 
 
 Resolved, That the following words be stricken from article 
 nine, part second, viz.: "if eighteen hundred such inhabi- 
 tants may elect two representatives, and so proceeding in that 
 proportion, making twelve hundred such inhabitants the mean 
 increasing number for any additional representative." And 
 that in place of the words stricken out, the following words 
 be substituted, viz.: if thirty-six hundred such inhabitants 
 may elect two representatives, and so proceeding in that pro- 
 portion, making three thousand such inhabitants the mean 
 increasing number for any additional representative. 
 
96 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, it was ordered that the 
 resolution lie upon the table, to be taken up and considered 
 under the special order for 11 o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
 The following proposed amendment to the Constitution 
 was offered by Mr. Baker of Bow: 
 
 Amend article two, part second of the Constitution, under 
 title of The General Court, so it shall read as follows : 
 
 ART. 2. The supreme legislative power within this state 
 shall be vested in a senate, which shall not exceed fifty, and 
 a house of representatives, which shall not exceed one hun- 
 dred and fifty members, and the senate and house shall have 
 a negative on each other. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 upon the table to be printed, and to remain subject to the 
 general order. 
 
 The following proposed amendment to the Constitution 
 was offered by Mr. Baker of Bow: 
 
 Amend part second of the Constitution, title Senate, by 
 striking out all of articles twenty-four and twenty-five and 
 inserting as follows: 
 
 ART. 24. The number of members who compose the sen- 
 ate shall be prescribed by law, but shall never exceed one 
 member for every ten thousand, nor be less than one member 
 for every twenty thousand inhabitants, and shall be appor- 
 tioned equally throughout the different sections of the state 
 in proportion to the population thereof. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was or- 
 dered printed and laid on the table subject to the general 
 order. 
 
 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Sloane of 
 Haverhill : ' 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 97 
 
 Resolved, That article seventy of part second of the Consti- 
 tution be amended by striking out the word " sheriffs/' and 
 that the following article be added to the Constitution: 
 
 The sheriffs shall be appointed by the judges of the superior 
 court, and shall hold office for a term of five years. They 
 shall be subject to removal at any time by the judges of the 
 superior court on the ground of physical or mental disability, 
 or for cause shown, after due notice and hearing. Yacancies 
 occurring by reason of the removal, death, resignation or 
 expiration of the term of office of any solicitor shall be filled 
 in like manner, the persons so appointed to hold office for a 
 term of five years from the date of their appointment. 
 
 No deputy sheriffs shall be appointed until their names 
 have been submitted to and approved by the judges of the 
 superior court. 
 
 The judges of the superior court shall have power to make 
 all necessary rules for carrying into effect the provisions of 
 this article. 
 
 The first appointments under this article shall be made to 
 take effect on the first day of January following its adoption. 
 
 The same gentleman moved that the foregoing resolution 
 be ordered printed and referred to the appropriate committee. 
 Declared lost on a viva voce vote. Mr. Collins of Portsmouth 
 moved to lay the resolution upon the table. Upon the former 
 question, Mr. Sloane of Haverhill called for a division. This 
 motion was ruled out of order. 
 
 By request the resolution was given a second reading. 
 Question, upon the motion to lay upon the table. 
 
 Mr. Sloane moved to amend the motion, but was declared 
 out of order. 
 
 Mr. Collins of Portsmouth withdrew his motion to lay upon 
 the table, and the motion to print and refer to the proper 
 committee being renewed, the affirmative prevailed and the 
 
 7 
 
98 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judicial 
 Department. 
 
 The following proposed amendment to the Constitution 
 was offered by Mr. Wingate of Stratham: 
 
 Amend article thirty-two, in the second part of the Consti- 
 tution, by striking out the last clause thereof, beginning 
 with the words " provided, nevertheless." 
 
 The same gentleman moved that the resolution be referred 
 to the proper committee and printed. The motion prevailed, 
 and the resolution was referred to the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department. 
 
 The following proposed amendment to the Constitution 
 was offered by Mr. Lamprey of Concord: 
 
 Amend by striking out all of articles nine and ten of part 
 second of the Constitution, and insert in lieu thereof the fol- 
 lowing, viz.: 
 
 ART. 9. There shall be in the legislature of this state a 
 representation of the people biennially elected. The num- 
 ber of members who compose the house of representatives 
 shall be prescribed by law, but shall never exceed one mem- 
 ber for every two thousand five hundred inhabitants. The 
 representation shall be equally apportioned throughout the 
 state in proportion to the population thereof. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and laid upon the table subject to the 
 general order. 
 
 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Scott of 
 Peterborough: 
 
 Resolved, That article nine of the Constitution of the state 
 of New Hampshire be amended by striking out the words 
 "eighteen hundred," in the eighth line of said article, and 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 99 
 
 inserting in place thereof the words "thirty-six hundred," 
 and by striking out the words " twelve hundred," in the tenth 
 line, and inserting the words " three thousand," so that said 
 article, when amended, shall read: 
 
 ART. 9. There shall be, in the legislature of this state, a 
 representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded 
 upon principles of equality, and, in order that such represen- 
 tation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, every 
 town, or place entitled to town privileges, and wards of cities 
 having six hundred inhabitants by the last general census of 
 the state, taken by authority of the United States or of this 
 state, may elect one representative; if thirty-six hundred such 
 inhabitants, may elect two representatives; and so proceeding 
 in that proportion, making three thousand such inhabitants 
 the mean increasing number for any additional represen- 
 tative; provided, that no town shall be divided or the bound- 
 aries of the wards of any city so altered as to increase the 
 number of representatives to which such town or city may be 
 entitled by the next preceding census; and provided further, 
 that, to those towns and cities which since the last census 
 have been divided or had th<;ir boundaries or ward lines 
 changed, the general court in session next before these 
 amendments shall take effect shall equitably apportion repre- 
 sentation in such manner that the number shall not be 
 greater than it would have been had no such division or alter- 
 ation been made. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 upon the table, to be taken up as part of the special order 
 for 11 o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
 The following proposed amendment to the Constitution 
 was offered by Mr. Baker of Bow: 
 
 Amend articles nine and ten of part second of the Consti- 
 tution, under title of House of Eepresentatives, by striking 
 out the words " six hundred " wherever they occur, and in- 
 
100 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 serting the words " twelve hundred ;" the words " eighteen 
 hundred," wherever they occur, and inserting the words 
 " thirty-six hundred," and the words " twelve hundred," 
 wherever they occur, and inserting the words " twenty-four 
 hundred," so that they shall read as follows: 
 
 ART. 9. There shall be, in the legislature of this state, a 
 representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded 
 upon principles of equality, and, in order that such repre- 
 sentation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, every 
 town, or place entitled to town privileges, and wards of cities 
 having twelve hundred inhabitants by the last general census 
 of the state, taken by authority of the United States, or of 
 this state, may elect one representative; if thirty-six hundred 
 such inhabitants, may elect two representatives; and so pro- 
 ceeding in that proportion, making twenty-four hundred such 
 inhabitants the mean increasing number for any additional 
 representative; provided, that no town shall be divided, or the 
 boundaries of the wards of any city so altered as to increase 
 the number of representatives to which such town or city 
 may be entitled by the next preceding census; and provided, 
 further, that, to those towns and cities which since the last 
 census have been divided, or had their boundaries or ward 
 lines changed, the general court, in session next before these 
 amendments shall take effect, shall equitably apportion repre- 
 sentation in such manner that the number shall not be 
 greater than it would have been had no such division or alter- 
 ation been made. 
 
 ART. 10. Whenever any town, place, or city ward shall 
 have less than twelve hundred such inhabitants, the general 
 court shall authorize such town, place, or ward to elect and 
 send to the general court a representative such proportionate 
 part of the time as the number of its inhabitants shall bear 
 to twelve hundred; but the general court shall not authorize 
 any such town, place, or ward to elect and send such repre- 
 sentative, except as herein provided. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 101 
 
 upon the table to be printed, and to be taken up with the 
 special order for 11 o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
 The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Mies of 
 Concord: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by the addition 
 of the following article: 
 
 The supreme and superior courts, as now established by 
 law, are hereby made permanent. The duties and powers of 
 the courts may, from time to time, be varied in a manner not 
 inconsistent with any other part of the Constitution; provided, 
 that the supreme court shall continue to exercise the func- 
 tions of a court of appeals on questions of law, and shall never 
 act as a trial court, and that the superior court shall continue 
 to be a trial court, exercising like functions to those with 
 which it is now charged by law. 
 
 The legislature may, from time to time, increase the mem- 
 bership of either court, and may change the salaries and 
 emoluments of the judges; but no act of the legislature 
 shall have the effect, directly or indirectly, of decreasing the 
 salary or emoluments of any judge, during the term of office 
 for which he has been appointed, or to shorten his term of 
 office, except as hereinafter provided. 
 
 The judges of the supreme and superior courts shall be 
 subject to removal from office only by impeachment for 
 bribery, corruption, malpractice, or maladministration in 
 office, or by address on the ground of physical or mental dis- 
 ability to perform the duties of their office. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was or- 
 dered printed and referred to appropriate committee. Re- 
 ferred to Committee on the Judicial Department. 
 
 The following proposed amendment to the Constitution 
 was introduced by Mr. Chandler of Concord: 
 
 Add, at the end of article eighty- two, the following: 
 
102 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The railroad companies, both steam and electric, are public 
 corporations, in aid of which the state has exercised its right 
 of eminent domain, by authorizing the taking of private lands 
 for the public use, compensation being made therefor. 
 
 All railroads are therefore public highways, upon which all 
 citizens are entitled to equality of right and privilege. It 
 shall be the duty of the legislature to pass laws to enforce 
 such equality, and, especially, to prohibit free transportation 
 for public officers, or for any other persons, except those 
 directly employed in the operation of railroads. 
 
 The legislature shall also promote the extension of the rail- 
 road system of the state, by granting charters for additional 
 roads, upon just conditions, and without unreasonable re- 
 strictions. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 upon the table to be printed. 
 
 The following proposed amendment to the Constitution 
 was introduced by Mr. Chandler of Concord: 
 
 No person, association, co-partnership, or corporation, shall 
 promise, offer, or give, for any purpose, to any political com- 
 mittee, or any member or employee thereof, to any candidate 
 for, or incumbent of, any office or position under the Consti- 
 tution or laws, or under any ordinance of any town or munici- 
 pality of this state, or to any person at the request or for the 
 advantage of all, or any of them, any free pass or frank, or 
 any privilege withheld from any person, for the traveling 
 accommodation or transportation of any person or property, 
 or the transmission of any message or communication. No 
 political committee, and no member or employee thereof, no 
 candidate for, and no incumbent of any office or position un- 
 der the Constitution or laws, or under any ordinance of any 
 town or municipality of this state, shall ask for, or accept, 
 from any person, association, co-partnership, or corporation, 
 or use, in any manner, or for any purpose, any free pass or 
 frank, or any privilege withheld from any person, for the 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 103 
 
 traveling accommodation or transportation of any person or 
 property, or the transmission of any message or communi- 
 cation. Any violation of any of the above provisions shall 
 be bribery and be punished as provided by law, and if any 
 officer or any member of the legislature be guilty thereof, his 
 office shall become vacant. No person within the purview 
 of this act shall be privileged from testifying in relation to 
 anything therein prohibited; and no person having so testi- 
 fied shall be liable to any prosecution or punishment for any 
 offense concerning which he was required to give his testi- 
 mony or produce any documentary evidence. The railroad 
 commissioners, in the discharge of duty, are excepted from 
 the provisions of this clause. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 on the table to be printed. 
 
 The time having arrived for the consideration of the special 
 order of the day, Mr. Baker of Bow moved that the Conven- 
 tion resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that the 
 several proposed amendments to the Constitution included in 
 the special order for 11 o'clock in the forenoon be taken 
 from the table and referred to the committee. The motion 
 prevailed, and the Convention resolved itself into Committee 
 of the Whole. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Aldrich of Littleton in the chair.) 
 
 The Chairman Gentlemen, you are in the Committee of 
 the Whole and the Chair awaits the pleasure of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Woodstock Mr. Chairman and Gentle- 
 men of the committee, it is not my purpose, nor, perhaps, my 
 place, to discuss at this time the proposition which I intro- 
 duced here yesterday. I am well aware that there are others 
 here better able to discuss this question, and for that reason 
 the discussion will be left to men of legislative experience. 
 
104 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 I am simply going to present to you, gentlemen of the com- 
 mittee, my views in regard to the matter. I am not going 
 to present them, thinking or believing that they are the only 
 good ones that can be offered. There have been several 
 propositions made in regard to amending the Constitution 
 which look to a reduction of the house of representatives, and, 
 of course, this Convention is called for the purpose of bring- 
 ing out the different ideas of the people. 
 
 It is a foregone conclusion that the legislature of the slate 
 of New Hampshire is too large by a good many, and I have 
 prepared, at the request of my constituency, . a resolution 
 which was read yesterday in the Convention and referred to 
 this Committee of the Whole. I have gone over the matter 
 in regard to the number of representatives that this resolu- 
 tion would authorize elected, provided it was adopted by the 
 Convention and ratified by the vote of the people. 
 
 I am in favor, as far as it is possible, of retaining the town 
 representation, and I think the better way to do that is upon 
 a basis of the voters rather than inhabitants. Perhaps some 
 of the gentlemen of the committee may think that the town 
 I come from has 165 voters, but that is not a fact, as you 
 will readily see by looking up the gubernatorial vote which 
 was cast at the last election. We cast 136 votes at that time. 
 
 I do not believe, gentlemen of the committee, that the 
 rural towns of the state of New Hampshire want to be 
 bunched together into different districts. I believe that a 
 large per cent, of the rural towns want to send one of their 
 own men as representatives, if it is not more than once in 
 two or three sessions; they prefer to do that rather than to 
 be bunched together in a district. For this reason I have 
 proposed this resolution, which bases the representation upon 
 the legal voters of the state, and not upon the population, as 
 is done now. This is a fair proposition for the town and also 
 a fair proposition for the city. The city will get its share of 
 representation and be on an equal footing with the town. 
 
 I am not going to detain you on this part except to read 
 to you some figures I have made. I do not claim they are 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 105 
 
 strictly correct, but they are somewhere near what would 
 be the result if this resolution was adopted by the Convention 
 and ratified. 
 
 Eockingham county would have 34 representatives; Strat- 
 ford, 23; Belknap, 14; Carroll, 17; Merrimack, 39; Hills- 
 borough, 52; Cheshire, 18; Sullivan, 13; Grafton, 30; Coos, 
 22; making in all 262, based upon the vote of the state at the 
 last election; providing, however, that the legislature pro- 
 rates the towns equally; or, in other words, pro-rates one half 
 of the towns for one session and the other one half for the 
 next session of the legislature. And, of course, the legis- 
 lature of the state would pro-rate, having in view the justice 
 of the case, and would naturally pro-rate half of the towns 
 each year and would regulate its membership according to the 
 towns that would have to be pro-rated. 
 
 The cities would have a representation as follows: These 
 figures, gentlemen of the committee, may not be exactly cor- 
 rect, but they are somewhere near. Perhaps some cities 
 might have one or two more representatives than I have 
 figured out. Portsmouth would have 6; Dover, 5; Eochester, 
 6; Somersworth, 5; Laconia, 4; Concord, 10; Franklin, 3; 
 Manchester, 17; Nashua, 10; Keene, 5; Berlin, 3; making 74 
 representatives from our cities. The large towns like Exeter, 
 Claremont, Lebanon, Littleton, and Lancaster, would have 
 two representatives each. 
 
 I think, gentlemen of the committee, that I have made my 
 position plain and I trust now you may have some grounds 
 on which to discuss my proposition, either favorably or un- 
 favorably. 
 
 (Mr. Lyford of Concord called for the reading of the pro- 
 posed amendment, offered by Mr. Woodbury, and the same 
 was read by the clerk.) 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I ask that the clerk read the reso- 
 lution offered by me yesterday. 
 
 (Clerk reads as follows:) 
 
106 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Eesolution offered by Mr. Lyford of Concord: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that the 
 house of representatives shall consist of three hundred mem- 
 bers, which shall be apportioned by the legislature, at the 
 first session after a United States census, to the several coun- 
 ties of the state, equally, as nearly as may be, according to 
 their population as ascertained at the next preceding United 
 States census. The county commissioners in each county, 
 or in lieu of the county commissioners in each county, such 
 board of special commissioners in each county, to be elected 
 by the people of the county, as may for that purpose be 
 provided by law, shall on the first Tuesday of June next 
 after each assignment of representatives to each county, 
 assemble at a shire town of their respective counties, and 
 proceed, as soon as may be, to divide the same into repre- 
 sentative districts of contiguous territory, so as to apportion 
 the representatives assigned to each county, equally, as nearly 
 as may be, according to the relative population in the several 
 districts of each county, and such districts shall be so formed 
 that no town or ward shall be divided therefor. Districts 
 may be formed for one or more representatives as the con- 
 tiguity of territory or the physical and social relations of 
 the towns or wards may warrant. The legislature at the 
 next session after such division of the counties into repre- 
 sentative districts may, upon appeal by a town or ward, 
 examine the classification of that town or ward, and change 
 the district lines of that county in accordance with the pro- 
 visions of this article if it shall appear that injustice has 
 been done. 
 
 Mr. Chairman In the same spirit that the gentleman from 
 Woodstock has approached this subject, I approach it that 
 of inquiry and the only argument I shall offer to you to-day 
 in support of the resolution I have presented will be the 
 argument shown by the facts. 
 
 I began figuring on this question with an endeavor to pre- 
 serve the town system. In the Convention of 1876, I voted 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 107 
 
 for that system and against the district system. Confronted 
 with the facts, as my tables show them, I am convinced that 
 the town system is only a question of time, and a very brief 
 time at that. 
 
 When we build or amend Constitutions, we do so with 
 reference to their permanency. Constitutions are not like 
 statutes, that can be amended at the next session of the 
 legislature, or, if trouble comes, at a special session of the 
 legislature. We should endeavor, in amending this Consti- 
 tution, to build for permanency, as the founders did in their 
 day. They could not foresee the conditions that exist at 
 this time, any more than we can foresee the conditions that 
 will exist one hundred years hence. In considering this 
 subject, if we do not present a plan which lasts more than 
 ten, fifteen, or twenty years, we shall deserve to have that 
 plan rejected by the people. 
 
 We are sent here to submit a plan to the people. As their 
 representatives, or delegates, we are not to inquire wholly 
 what the people will ratify. We are not in a position of the 
 people submitting to us a proposition that we approve, but 
 of submitting to them what we, in our collective wisdom, ap- 
 prove. No plan that we may agree upon will suit everybody 
 in all its details. 
 
 Let us now consider the town system. If we preserve it, 
 there is no possibility of limiting the membership of the 
 house. You may fix it at 300 to-day, and the next census 
 with an increase of population is bound to increase that mem- 
 bership. So the question of limitation upon the basis of the 
 town system may be dismissed at once. 
 
 If you vote to preserve under any plan the town system, 
 your work becomes merely a temporary expedient. There 
 can be no material reduction of the house under the town 
 system that is likely to be acceptable to the people of the state. 
 Various plans have been presented here and others will be, 
 but you cannot present a plan that is likely to be adopted 
 unless it represents the approbation on the one hand of the 
 small towns, and on the other hand the large towns and cities 
 of the state. 
 
108 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 In the legislature of 1901 we had a representation of 397. 
 The coming house has a representation of 393. It is not 
 material, therefore, which house we take for comparison. 
 Of these 397 representatives, 203 were from wards and towns 
 which have more than one representative; 146 were from 
 towns having one representative, and 48 from pro-rated 
 towns. Any plan which seeks to make the reduction wholly 
 in the large towns and cities must of necessity fail, because 
 the large towns and cities have to-day unequal representation, 
 for it takes 600 inhabitants for the first representative and 
 1,200 additional population for each representative after the 
 first. I submit the following tables for your consideration. 
 
 Table No. 1, showing population of towns and representation 
 thereof on the following bases: 
 
 600 for first and 1,200 for additional. 
 700 for first and 1,300 for additional. 
 700 for first and 1,400 for additional. 
 800 for first and 1,400 for additional. 
 800 for first and 1,600 for additional. 
 900 for first and 1,800 for additional. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. 
 
 109 
 
 
 B 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 X3 
 
 43 
 
 1 
 
 PH 
 
 T3 
 
 i 
 
 700 and 1 
 
 700 and 1 
 
 T3 
 
 i 
 
 H3 
 
 3 
 
 73 
 
 i 
 
 Atkinson 
 
 442 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Auburn 
 
 682 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Brentwood 
 
 957 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Candia 
 
 1 057 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 Chester.. 
 
 861 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 Danville 
 
 615 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Deerfield 
 
 1 162 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Derry ... 
 
 3 583 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 East Kingston 
 
 496 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EDDinjr 
 
 1 641 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Exeter 
 
 4 922 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 Fremont 
 
 749 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Greenland . 
 
 607 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hampstead 
 
 823 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Hampton 
 
 1,209 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hampton Falls 
 
 560 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kensington . 
 
 524 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kingston 
 
 1,132 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Londonderry 
 
 1 408 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Newcastle . ... 
 
 581 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Newfields 
 
 647 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Newington . . . 
 
 390 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Newmarket 
 
 2 892 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Newton 
 
 924 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ] 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 Novtli Hampton 
 
 812 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 North wood 
 
 1,304 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 638 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Plaistow 
 
 1 027 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Portsmouth, 10,637: 
 Ward 1 
 
 2,644 
 
 9, 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 3 105 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 3 . 
 
 1 391 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 843 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1,654 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Raymond.. 
 
 1,100 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Rye 
 
 1 142 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 2,041 
 
 ? 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Sandown 
 
 400 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Seabrook 
 
 1,497 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 South Hampton. . 
 
 297 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stratham 
 
 718 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Windham 
 
 641 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total ... . 
 
 51 118 
 
 44 
 
 36 
 
 35 
 
 31 
 
 31 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 8 towns pro-rated; 700 and 1,300, 14 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 14 towns pro-rated; 806 and 1,400, 16 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1,600, 16 towns pro-rated; 900 and 1,800, 19 towns pro-rated. 
 
110 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. 
 
 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 g 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Populati 
 
 T3 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 
 1 
 
 73 
 
 a 
 
 c3 
 
 1 
 
 T3 
 
 9 
 
 800 and 1 
 
 ft 
 
 Barrington 
 
 1,208 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Dover, 13,207: 
 Ward 1 
 
 2 387 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 3,018 
 
 3 
 
 9, 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 2 384 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 9, 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 3 851 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1,567 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Durham 
 
 996 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Farmington 
 
 2 265 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 Lee 
 
 545 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Madbury 
 
 336 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Middleton . , . 
 
 300 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Milton 
 
 1,625 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 New Durham 
 
 625 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Rochester, 8,466: 
 Ward 1 
 
 1 131 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1 222 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1,510 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 901 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 964 
 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 1 738 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Rollinsford 
 
 1 701 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Somersworth, 7,023: 
 Ward 1 
 
 1 285 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 2 .... 
 
 1 167 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1,104 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 4. 
 
 2 183 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1,284 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Stratford 
 
 1 040 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Total 
 
 39 337 
 
 89 
 
 29 
 
 29 
 
 29 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 3 towns pro-rated; 700 and 1,300, 4 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 4 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 4 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1,600, 4 towns pro-rated; 900 and 1,800, 4 towns pro-rated. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. 
 
 Ill 
 
 
 d 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Populate 
 
 T3 
 - 
 c3 
 
 d 
 
 I 
 t- 
 
 700 and 1 
 
 13 
 
 - 
 - 
 
 T5 
 
 73 
 
 
 Alton 
 
 1,500 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Barnstead ... 
 
 1 072 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Belmont 
 
 1 294 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Center Harbor 
 
 422 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Gilford 
 
 661 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Gilmanton. . 
 
 1,100 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Laconia* 
 
 8 042 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 fi 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 3 . ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Meredith 
 
 1,713 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 New Hampton 
 
 852 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Sanbornton .... .... 
 
 944 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Tilton 
 
 1 926 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 19,526 
 
 17 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 1 town pro-rated ; 700 and 1,300, 2 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 2 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 2 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1,600, 2 towns pro-rated; 900 and 1,800, 10 towns pro-rated. 
 
 *The ward lines of Laconia have been changed since the census of 1990 and 
 die number of wards decreased from 6 to 4. 
 
112 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. 
 
 
 a 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 "^ 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 8 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Populati 
 
 600 and 1 
 
 n3 
 
 a 
 
 o3 
 
 8 
 
 t- 
 
 700 and 1 
 
 T3 
 
 a 
 
 rt 
 
 800 and 1 
 
 900 and 1 
 
 Albany 
 
 210 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bartlett 
 Brookfield 
 
 1,013 
 296 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chatham 
 
 269 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Conway . . .... 
 
 3 154 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Eaton 
 
 365 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Effi ngham 
 
 600 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Freedom . 
 
 594 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hart's Location 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jackson . . . 
 
 622 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Madison 
 
 529 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Moultonborough 
 
 901 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ossip66 . . 
 
 1 479 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Sandwich 
 
 1,077 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Tain worth . ... 
 
 1 050 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Tuftonborou "!! 
 
 663 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wakefield 
 
 1,645 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 AVolfeboroufifh 
 
 2 390 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 16,895 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 7 towns pro-rated; 700 and 1,300, 10 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 10 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 10 towns pro-rated, 
 800 and 1,600, 10 towns pro-rated; 900 and 1,800, 10 towns pro-rated. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. 
 
 113 
 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 g 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 I 
 
 ! 
 
 'd 
 
 1 
 
 700 and ] 
 
 T3 
 
 
 1 
 
 800 and ] 
 
 i 
 
 c 
 
 1 
 
 Allenstown 
 
 1,496 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Andover 
 
 1,179 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Boscawen 
 Bow 
 
 1,455 
 617 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bradford 
 
 805 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Canterbury 
 
 821 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Chicliester . . . .... 
 
 598 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Concord, 19,632: 
 Ward 1 
 
 1 911 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 "Ward 2 
 
 753 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1 043 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 3 644 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 ?, 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 2 609 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 3 390 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 3 178 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 1 212 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 1 892 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Danbury 
 
 654 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dunbarton 
 
 551 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Epsom 
 
 771 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Franklin, 5,846: 
 Ward 1 
 
 1 572 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 2 365 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 9, 
 
 ?, 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1 909 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Henniker . 
 
 1 507 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hill 
 
 608 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hooksett 
 
 1 665 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hopkinton . . . . . 
 
 1 652 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Loudon . 
 
 960 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Newbury 
 
 424 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 New London 
 
 768 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Northfield 
 
 1 227 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Pembroke 
 
 3,183 
 
 3 
 
 ?, 
 
 a 
 
 ?, 
 
 ?, 
 
 ?, 
 
 Pittsfield 
 
 2 129 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Salisbury ... 
 
 604 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sutton 
 
 776 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,358 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Webster 
 
 496 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wilmot 
 
 653 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 52 430 
 
 47 
 
 37 
 
 36 
 
 31 
 
 29 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 4 towns pro-rated; 700 and 1,300, 9 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 9 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 12 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1,600, 12 towns pro-rated; 900 and 1,800, 14 towns pro-rated. 
 8 
 
114 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 'O 
 
 a 
 
 m 
 
 700 and 1 
 
 "d 
 a 
 
 c3 
 
 1 
 
 800 and 1 
 
 1 
 
 'O 
 
 i 
 
 
 1,231 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 x 
 
 Antri in 
 
 1 366 
 
 1 
 
 j 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 Bedford. 
 
 1 148 
 
 ] 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Bennington 
 
 667 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Brookline 
 
 606 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Deering 
 
 486 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Francestown 
 
 693 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Goffstown 
 
 2 528 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 Greenfield 
 
 605 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Greenville 
 
 1,608 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 Hancock 
 
 642 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hillsborough 
 
 2,254 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Hollis 
 
 910 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 Hudson . 
 
 1 261 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 Litchfield 
 
 243 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L/yndeborough .. . . . 
 
 686 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Manchester, 56,987: 
 Ward 1 
 
 3,625 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 2. . 
 
 5 501 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 7 320 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 6 922 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 5. . . 
 
 9 094 
 
 g 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 g 
 
 Q 
 
 5 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 4 880 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 Q 
 
 Q 
 
 Q 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 1 757 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 5,508 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 7,986 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 10 
 
 4 394 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Msison 
 
 358 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Merrimack 
 
 1,234 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Milford 
 
 3 739 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 453 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nashua, 23,898: 
 Ward 1 
 
 2 384 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 2,274 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 3 476 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 570 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1,651 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 1 440 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 3 477 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 3,082 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 4 544 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 New Boston 
 
 1 002 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 911 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Pelham 
 
 875 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Peterborough . 
 
 2 527 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 Sharon 
 
 122 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Temple 
 
 313 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Weare 
 
 1,553 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Wilton 
 
 1,696 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Windsor 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 112,640 
 
 96 
 
 8? 
 
 77 
 
 77 
 
 68 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 7 towns pro-rated; 700 and 1,300, 12 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 13 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 13 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1,600, 13 towns pro-rated; 900 and 1,800, 14 towns pro-rated. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. 
 
 115 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 g 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 45 
 
 1 
 
 PH 
 
 T3 
 
 9 
 
 "d 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 
 1 
 
 'd 
 
 
 13 
 i 
 
 T3 
 
 i 
 
 Alstead... 
 
 799 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 Chesterfield.. 
 
 981 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 l 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Dublin 
 
 620 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Fitzwilliara. . .. . 
 
 459 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oilsum . . 
 
 590 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Harrisville 
 
 791 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 l 
 
 
 
 
 Hinsdale 
 
 ,933 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 J afire y 
 
 891 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 l 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Keene, 9,165: 
 Ward 1 
 
 488 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 ,896 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 926 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4. . . 
 
 384 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 ,471 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Marlborough 
 
 524 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Marlow 
 
 488 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nelson 
 
 295 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Richmond 
 
 987 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Kindge 
 
 855 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Roxbury. ... . 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stoddard 
 
 367 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 287 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Surry 
 
 250 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Swanzey . . . 
 
 1 570 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Troy 
 
 1 527 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Walpole 
 
 2 693 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Westmoreland 
 
 875 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ^V^inchester. . . . 
 
 2 274 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 31,321 
 
 <>6 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 19 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 8 towns pro-rated; 700 and 1,300, 9 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 9 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 11 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1,600, 11 towns pro-rated; 900 and 1,800, 13 towns pro-rated. 
 
116 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. 
 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Populati 
 
 'd 
 
 700 and ] 
 
 73 
 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 800 and J 
 
 T3 
 
 i 
 
 Acwortli 
 
 594 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Charlestown 
 
 1 473 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Clareinont . .... 
 
 6 498 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 962 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Croydon 
 
 372 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Groshen 
 
 345 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Granth a rn 
 
 374 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Langdon 
 
 339 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Leinpster 
 
 391 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Newport 
 
 3,126 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 9, 
 
 ?, 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Plainfield 
 
 1 114 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Springfield 
 
 439 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sunapee 
 
 946 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Unity 
 
 572 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \Vashington 
 
 464 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 18,009 
 
 1?, 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 9 towns pro-rated; 700 and 1,300, 9 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 9 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 9 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1,600, 9 towns pro-rated; 900 and 1,800, 9 towns pro-rated. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. 
 
 117 
 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Populati 
 
 73 
 I 
 
 700 and ] 
 
 700 and ] 
 
 800 and ] 
 
 nS 
 
 i 
 
 900 and] 
 
 Alexandria.. . 
 
 630 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ashland 
 
 1 289 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 Bath 
 
 1 006 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 Benton 
 
 209 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bethlehem 
 
 1 261 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 Bridgewater 
 
 244 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bristol 
 
 1,600 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 Campton 
 
 999 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 Canaan 
 
 1 444 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 308 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Easton 
 
 249 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ellsworth 
 
 107 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Enfield 
 
 1 845 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 3 
 
 Franconia 
 
 655 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Graf ton 
 
 748 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 346 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hanover 
 
 1 884 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 Haverhill 
 
 3 414 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 214 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Holderness 
 
 662 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LandaiY . 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lebanon 
 
 4,965 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 541 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 2 221 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Littleton 
 
 4 066 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Liverniore 
 
 191 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lyman 
 
 426 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lyme 
 
 1 080 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Monroe .. 
 
 545 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Orange ... . 
 
 213 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Orford 
 
 890 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Piermont 
 
 637 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Plymouth ... 
 
 1 972 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Rumney . . . 
 
 837 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Thornton 
 
 552 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Warren 
 
 799 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Waterville 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W^entworth . . ... 
 
 617 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \Voodstock 
 
 628 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 40 844 
 
 35 
 
 26 
 
 25 
 
 22 
 
 21 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 15 towns pro-rated, 700 and 1,300, 21 towns pro-rated: 
 700 and 1,400, 21 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 23 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1 ,600, 23 towns pro-rated ; 900 and 1,800, 25 towns pro-rated. 
 
118 JOUHNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 coos COUNTY. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Populati 
 
 600 and 1 
 
 700 and 1 
 
 700 and ] 
 
 1 
 
 73 
 
 3 
 
 900 and 1 
 
 Berlin, 8,886: 
 Ward 1 
 
 3,076 
 
 3 
 
 9, 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 3 324 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 2 486 
 
 j> 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Carroll 
 
 710 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Clarksville 
 
 307 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Colebrook 
 
 1,876 
 
 <? 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Columbia . 
 
 690 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dalton 
 
 592 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dunimer 
 
 349 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Errol 
 
 305 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,797 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Jefferson. . 
 
 1 080 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 3,190 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Milan 
 
 Millsfield . . . 
 
 1,135 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 1,977 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Pittsburg 
 
 687 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Randolph 
 
 137 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shelburne 
 
 283 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stark . 
 
 733 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Stewartstown 
 
 1 150 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Stratford 
 
 968 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Whitefield 
 
 2,157 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 29,050 
 
 ?fi 
 
 ?0 
 
 19 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Present basis, 7 towns pro-rated; 700 and 1,300, 9 towns pro-rated; 
 700 and 1,400, 9 towns pro-rated; 800 and 1,400, 11 towns pro-rated; 
 800 and 1,600, 11 towns pro- rated; 900 and 1,800, 11 towns pro-rated. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 
 SUMMARY BY COUNTIES. 
 
 119 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 a 
 
 700 and ] 
 
 t 
 
 p 
 ce 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 1 
 
 800 and ] 
 
 *& 
 
 Belknap 
 
 17 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 Carroll 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 Cli6shire 
 
 26 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 19 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 Coos 
 
 26 
 
 20 
 
 19 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 Graf ton 
 
 35 
 
 26 
 
 25 
 
 22 
 
 21 
 
 IS- 
 
 Hillsborou 01 !" 1 . 
 
 96 
 
 82 
 
 77 
 
 77 
 
 68 
 
 61 
 
 M6rrimack . 
 
 47 
 
 37 
 
 36 
 
 31 
 
 29 
 
 26 
 
 Rockingham 
 
 44 
 
 36 
 
 36 
 
 31 
 
 31 
 
 27 
 
 Straff ord 
 
 32 
 
 29 
 
 29 
 
 29 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 Sullivan . 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 349 
 
 286 
 
 277 
 
 260 
 
 239 
 
 215 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Number of towns pro-rated : 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 600 and 1,200. 
 
 700 and 1,300. 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 800 and 1,600. 
 
 i-T 
 
 a 
 
 i 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 Carroll 
 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 Cheshire 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 Coos 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 
 15 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 23 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 Hillsborough 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 Merrimack . 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 14 
 
 Rockinfham 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 19- 
 
 Straff ord 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 69 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 111 
 
 111 
 
 122 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The last legislature designated the years that towns of less than 600 
 inhabitants could be represented in the legislature for the next ten 
 years. Of the 69 of these towns 44 are represented in 1902, 42 in 1904, 
 43 in 1906, 42 in 1908, and 43 in 1910. There is representation from 
 nearly two thirds of these towns every session. It may be safely 
 assumed that under any of the foregoing bases of representation that 
 
120 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of the towns pro-rated two thirds of the total number will be repre- 
 sented every session. Legislatures in discharging this constitutional 
 duty are disposed to be liberal. 
 
 The following table will show the total membership of the legisla- 
 ture under all of the foregoing bases of representation: 
 
 BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 
 
 a 
 
 * 
 
 1-H 
 
 ^3 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 e 
 g 
 
 i-T 
 T3 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 e 
 
 a 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Membership from towns and wards 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 entitled to representation every 
 session . . . . 
 
 286 
 
 277 
 
 260 
 
 239 
 
 215 
 
 Membership from two thirds of pro- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rated towns 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 74 
 
 74 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total membership 
 
 352 
 
 343 
 
 334 
 
 313 
 
 297 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 No amendment of the constitution relative to representation is 
 likely to be operative before the legislature of 1905. Another census 
 will be taken in 1910. The foregoing totals will therefore apply to 
 only those legislatures of from 1905 to 1911. After the legislature of 
 1911 they will increase with our increase of population. 
 
 TABLE TWO. 
 
 COUNTY. 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 District system, 
 house of 300. 
 
 el 
 
 05 OQ 
 
 Rockingham 
 
 52 
 
 37 
 
 41 
 
 Straff ord 
 
 34 
 
 29 
 
 27 
 
 Carroll 
 
 19 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 Belknap 
 
 18 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 
 51 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 
 100 
 
 82 
 
 79 
 
 Cheshire 
 
 32 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 21 
 
 13 
 
 15 
 
 Graf ton 
 
 42 
 
 30 
 
 35 
 
 Coos 
 
 28 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 397 
 
 300 
 
 313 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 
 
 121 
 
 TABLE THREE. 
 
 There are 3 towns of less than 100 population. 
 There are 5 towns of from 100 to 200 population. 
 There are 14 towns of from 200 to 300 population. 
 There are 17 towns of from 300 to 400 population. 
 There are 13 towns of from 400 to 500 population. 
 There are 16 towns of from 500 to 600 population. 
 There are 31 towns of from 600 to 700 population. 
 There are 12 towns of from 700 to 800 population. 
 
 Total, 111 
 
 My amendment provides for a house limited to 300 mem- 
 bers. Let u^ compare the reduction under my amendment 
 with the reduction under the town system that will give a 
 house of 313 members, the basis for which would be 800 
 inhabitants for the first representative and 1,600 for each 
 additional representative. In this comparison I have pro- 
 rated towns not entitled to continuous representation at the 
 ratio provided by the last legislature, that is practically two 
 thirds of the towns being represented at every session of the 
 legislature. 
 
 COUNTY. 
 
 District system. 
 
 3 
 
 o ^^ 
 
 *M 
 
 rsi 
 
 OrO a 
 EH 
 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 Carroll 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 Cheshire 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 Coos 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 Graf ton 
 
 30 
 
 35 
 
 
 82 
 
 79 
 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 
 37 
 
 41 
 
 Straff ord 
 
 29 
 
 27 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 13 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 300 
 
 313 
 
122 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Either method gives practically the same representation to 
 the counties of the state. If you take your counties as units, 
 you will find it makes no material difference in the strength 
 of these localities whether you adopt the district system or 
 the town in providing for a house of 300 members, the real 
 distinction being that under the district system you can per- 
 manently limit the house to 300, while under the town sys- 
 tem the limitation lasts only three or four legislatures at best. 
 
 There is no equality in the town system. A town which 
 has but 600 inhabitants has one representative, and another 
 town which has 1,799 has no more. In Merrimack county, 
 Allenstown, with 1,496 population, and Hookset^ with 1,665, 
 a total of 3,161, and which are contiguous towns, have two 
 representatives, while Pembroke, a neighbor, with only twen- 
 ty-two more population, has three. Hopkinton and Henni- 
 ker, having a population of 3,159, have two, while Pembroke, 
 with only a few more, has three. 
 
 In Carroll county, Wakefield and Ossipee, with a joint 
 population of 3,124, have two representatives, while Con way, 
 with 3,154 population, has three representatives. 
 
 In Cheshire county, Marlborough and Swanzey, two con- 
 tiguous towns, having 3,094 population, have two represen- 
 tatives, while Jaffrey, with a population of 1,891, has the same 
 number. 
 
 In Straff or d county, New Durham, with 625 population, 
 has one representative, while Eollinsford, with a population 
 of 1,701, has no more. 
 
 In Grafton county, the towns of Alexandria, Franconia, 
 Holderness, Piermont, and Wentworth, with a combined 
 population of 3,201, have five representatives, while Haver- 
 hill, with 3,414, has but three; Littleton, with 4,066 popu- 
 lation, has but three representatives, and Lebanon, with 4,965 
 population, has but four. Haverhill, Lebanon, Littleton, En- 
 field, Hanover, Lisbon, and Plymouth, large towns in Graf- 
 ton county, with a population of 20,367, have a representation 
 of eighteen, while the remainder of the county, excluding the 
 towns not sending representatives, with a population of 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 12& 
 
 17,847, or nearly 3,000 less, have twenty-four representatives; 
 that is, six more than the large towns. In the large town& 
 of Graf ton county there is one representative to every 1,131 
 population, while the small towns have a representative to- 
 every 743. 
 
 In Sullivan county, Claremont and Newport, with a popu- 
 lation of 9,624, or about half the county's population, have 
 eight representatives, while the remainder of the towns of 
 the county have thirteen representatives. 
 
 In Belknap county, Center Harbor, Gilford, and Sanborn- 
 ton, with a population of 1,935, have three representatives^ 
 while Meredith, with 1,713 population, has but one. 
 
 In Coos county, Lancaster, with a population of 3,190, ha& 
 three representatives, while Carroll, Columbia, Pittsburg, 
 and Stark, with 2,820 population, 300 less than Lancaster,, 
 have four representatives. Berlin, with over three times the 
 population of these small towns, which have four represen- 
 tatives, has but eight. 
 
 In Hillsborough county, Milford, with a population of 
 3,739, has three representatives, while Bennington, Brookline,. 
 Francestown, Greenfield, Hancock, and Lyndeborough, with 
 a population of 3,899, about 100 more than Milford, have six 
 representatives. 
 
 In Rockingham county, Exeter, with a population of 4,922, 
 has four representatives, while Auburn, Danville, Greenland,, 
 Newfields, Nottingham, Stratham, and Windham, with a 
 population of 4,548, have seven representatives. Portsmouth^ 
 with over twice the population of these towns, has but nine 
 representatives. 
 
 The deductions I draw from the examination of this ques- 
 tion are these: 
 
 The town system does not give equality of representation. 
 The small towns gain at the expense of the large towns ano! 
 cities. 
 
 We have reached the point where the remedy lies, not in 
 temporary expedients, but in a change of system. 
 
 We must limit the membership in the house or that body 
 
124 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 will become in the immediate future most unwieldy and a 
 travesty on popular government. 
 
 Any lasting limitation of membership, based upon the 
 town system, will pro-rate so many towns that the system will 
 exist but in name. 
 
 The large towns and cities will lose nothing by a change 
 to the district system. The small towns will be as well off 
 eventually under the district system, being grouped with 
 other towns, as they will be under the town system, to be rep- 
 resented only a part of the time. 
 
 The district system is one of equality and must be event- 
 ually adopted. If we do not adopt a plan which meets our 
 approval, how can we expect it to meet the approval of the 
 people. 
 
 The Chairman Will the gentleman from Concord suspend 
 a moment. 
 
 The President of the Convention Mr. Aldrich of Little- 
 ton desires to leave the chair, and I appoint Judge Cross as 
 chairman of the committee. 
 
 (Mr. Cross of Manchester in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Lyford We are passing through the same state of 
 affairs that confronted the state of Massachusetts in 1850, 
 when a Constitutional Convention was held. In that Con- 
 vention were such men as Nathaniel P. Banks, George S. 
 Boutwell, Henry Wilson, and other of the old-time leaders 
 of the state. Many of them came from the little republics, 
 as they are called, and they considered the question of repre- 
 sentation with reference to the towns as well as with reference 
 to the cities of the state. It is urged here that we preserve 
 the little republics. Nothing in the change of the basis of 
 representation would disturb these little republics in the 
 least. Our Constitution was changed in 1876, and the elec- 
 tions of the towns for local affairs was changed to a differ- 
 ent time. The town elections will remain the same under the 
 district system. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 125 
 
 The district system has stood the test of time for fifty years 
 in the state of Massachusetts, and I hope the gentleman from 
 Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, who has been in Massachusetts for 
 several years, may give us the benefit of his knowledge of the 
 district system in that state. 
 
 In conclusion, I desire to say that I have submitted my 
 plan for the district system for information, but I have no 
 pride in the phraseology of the resolution. I am entirely 
 willing it should be amended, or something better substituted 
 in its place. I came here without prejudice on this subject, 
 and I desire equally with all of you to present that plan to 
 the people which we, ourselves, can approve after the fullest 
 consideration. 
 
 Mr. Osgood of Nelson Mr. Chairman, the present popu- 
 lation, as I understand it, recognizes a certain superiority of 
 the smaller towns in its representation as compared to the 
 population of the larger ones. It strikes me that the district 
 system is adapted to discriminate against these smaller towns, 
 which the present system favors. And, suppose, as one of 
 the arguments presented, the district system might last quite 
 a while, it would not last forever, any more than the town 
 system would last forever, and we can arrange the town sys- 
 tem so that will last for years. 
 
 I would not say here for I presume a large proportion of 
 the people would not concede the fact that a rural popula- 
 tion, as a whole, is superior to the population in our cities. 
 Now the present proportion recognizes that fact as I believe 
 it is a fact in the method in which it has distributed the 
 representation among the smaller towns, as compared with 
 that of the larger towns and cities. The population of many 
 of these large towns is largely made up of foreigners, and on 
 that account we get legislation that we would not get were it 
 not for that foreign vote. I refer to one instance with refer- 
 ence to the preservation of deer. Where I reside, the deer 
 is getting to be a nuisance, but not as much as it will be in 
 the course of time. In my section of the state, there is a 
 
126 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 penalty for killing deer at any time, although in certain sec- 
 tions of the state they have,, of course, open seasons. Now 
 that legislation, I venture to say, never could have been 
 enacted but for the votes from these cities, and of men hav- 
 ing no interest in the question whatever. 
 
 The gentleman who has spoken last, as I understand it, 
 doubles the population that requires an additional repre- 
 sentative over what the present portion now is. Of course, 
 as this proportion is doubled, the large towns are discrimin- 
 ated against to that extent. But they are discriminated 
 against now, and if it is right to discriminate against them 
 at all, I see no reason why it is not right to discriminate 
 against them further. Perhaps others cannot look at this 
 from my standpoint, but I believe that the small towns should 
 be favored with reference to its representation in the legis- 
 lature of this state. 
 
 Mr. Barton of Newport Gentlemen of the committee, as 
 I introduced a resolution yesterday upon the subject now be- 
 fore us, I think it appropriate that I should say a word to you 
 with reference to it. All of these resolutions ought to be 
 presented to the committee and discussed, before we select 
 any one plan and call it better than the rest. It may be that 
 we shall make a combination of several of these resolutions, 
 in order to get something that will be acceptable to the people. 
 
 This, it seems to me, ought to be impressed upon the minds 
 in this Convention, that we must get something which the 
 people will ratify. I cannot quite agree with the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Lyford, that we should hit upon some- 
 thing that suits us, and then get it ratified by the people 
 if possible. If we are to secure any results from the time 
 spent here, we must get something that the people will ap- 
 prove. 
 
 It does not appear to me that the people are willing to 
 make any radical change in the method of their representa- 
 tion, and I think as you have talked with each other since 
 'Coming here, you have come to the conclusion that we are 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 127 
 
 not prepared to overthrow the existing order. I, for one, 
 hope we shall not make any great change. There has been 
 a good deal of talk about a large house, and many have said 
 it was a, bad thing. But why call it that? Does not all that 
 has been said against it really come to this, that we shall 
 need more seats in this hall if we keep the ratio of repre- 
 sentation where it now is? I submit to you that it is not a 
 very bad condition of affairs to have a large house. The 
 legislature meets here once in two years, sits about a couple 
 of months, does its business with despatch, and adjourns. 
 Our legislation compares favorably with that of any other 
 state, so far as I can ascertain. Men come here from all parts 
 of the state, mingle with each other, and even if they do not 
 all occupy the floor during the session, receive great benefit 
 from their associations, and return to their constituents bet- 
 ter citizens for having been to the " Great and General 
 Court/' It is a school, not an expensive school, either, and 
 one for which the state can well afford to pay. 
 
 Now, gentlemen of the committee, under our present Con- 
 stitution, each town and city ward with a population of six 
 hundred is entitled to one representative. I am in favor of 
 retaining this provision. The cities must concede that in 
 settling on any population basis, when the Constitution was 
 last amended, there was a concession to them by the small 
 towns, because there is a larger number of women and chil- 
 dren in the cities who help such cities to secure their repre- 
 sentation in the house than the small towns have in propor- 
 tion to the voters of each. In other words, there are more 
 voters in proportion to the population in the small towns than 
 in the large towns and cities. But I, for one, am in favor of 
 letting our representation rest on the basis of population, as 
 a measure of compromise, for I think our first move must be 
 in the nature of a compromise. It is something of a conces- 
 sion for the towns which are too small to send a representative 
 every time, to consent to allow representation to be put upon 
 the basis of six hundred people, but they have acceded to this 
 once and we have no reason to suppose they will be unwilling 
 to do so again. 
 
128 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Then, for the next and each succeeding representative, I 
 would make the increasing mean two thousand. I say two- 
 thousand, because I think the large towns and cities would 
 object to making the number larger. This plan will reduce 
 the house seventy-five members. If you should make the- 
 increasing mean larger than two thousand, you are going ta 
 cut into the cities and large towns more than they will prob- 
 ably stand. As I said, we must hit upon a measure of com- 
 promise, and I think the number two thousand for the addi- 
 tional representative is such a measure. Some may want 
 three thousand, but that will go harder with the cities than 
 two thousand, and two thousand is a great deal better than 
 twelve hundred, because it reduces the house, as I have said r 
 seventy-five members. 
 
 At the last Constitutional Convention, where this matter- 
 was adjusted, which was held in 1876, the house was reduced' 
 ninety members, the apportionment being based on the census 
 of 1870, so we really have been thirty years, reckoning up to 
 the census of 1900, in increasing the membership of the 
 house to the point where it now is. It is said that if we re- 
 tain the town system, our reduction will afford relief for only 
 ten or fifteen years, but the arrangement of 1876 has, as a 
 matter of fact, stood about thirty years, and since we now 
 propose to increase our mean from 1,200 to 2,000, which is an 
 increase of two thirds, as I figure it, it will take two thirds 
 as long again for us to get back to our present number. If 
 this be true, it will take fifty years for us to get back where- 
 we now are. 
 
 It fairly made my head ache to follow the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Lyford, in the figures that he gave, and I think 
 it will make the heads of our farmers ache if they follow those 
 figures when his district system is put before them for rati- 
 fication, if this should ever be done, and I don't think that 
 they will come to the conclusion that they want to ratify 
 something which is so hard for them to get through their 
 heads. 
 
 This, then, is the proposition that I present to you. It is 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 129 
 
 very simple; it has passed through the polls of the state as I 
 have offered it, except that we have raised the population for 
 each additional representative from 1,200 to 2,000, and I 
 think there is no doubt hut that the people will ratify it 
 again. It is a measure of compromise, and I believe will 
 afford relief for at least forty years. It will reduce the house 
 from 393 members to 318, which is a house none too large to 
 do our business carefully and well. 
 
 Mr. McAllister of Manchester Mr. Chairman, if it is in 
 order, I move that the statistics, or tables, that have been 
 prepared and read by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Ly- 
 ford, be printed for the use of this Convention. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster Would it be pertinent to suggest 
 I have no tables of my own, but I am a searcher of light in 
 this matter, would it be pertinent to suggest that there are 
 other tables which have been prepared and presented, and 
 there may be more, and I presume the gentleman from Man- 
 chester would consent to include those other tables in his 
 motion for printing. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I rise to a point of order. That this 
 is not business to be performed in the Committee of the 
 Whole. 
 
 The Chairman There is some doubt in my mind about 
 that. My first impression was that the committee could not 
 do it, and it is the impression of the President of the Conven- 
 tion that it should be done in Convention, and I will so rule. 
 
 Mr. Fellows of Tilton For the purpose of getting some 
 expression of this body, as to how large they wish the house 
 to be, I move that in line two of the resolution offered by 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord, the word " three " be stricken out 
 and " two " inserted, so that it shall read, " that the house of 
 representatives shall consist of two hundred members," etc. 
 I, personally, do not care whether it is 100, 200, or 300, but I 
 
130 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 think the committee is in doubt as to how large they wish 
 this house to be, and under this motion of mine there is a 
 chance to get an expression of opinion upon that point. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua It seems to me that we are not 
 ready at this time to pass intelligently upon the proposition, 
 or the motion, made by the gentleman from Tilton. We are 
 all searching for information and light, and when the matter 
 has been discussed and considered fully, it then will be time 
 to determine this matter. It seems to me that we cannot 
 determine this question and vote intelligently at this time. 
 
 I am free to sa}>" that I do not know whether the house 
 ought to be 300, 250, 200, or 150. It strikes me that it is 
 early for the Convention to commit itself upon so important 
 a proposition. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin This question that we are consid- 
 ering seems to me to embrace three different questions: First, 
 the size of the house; second, whether representation shall be 
 based upon population, as it is now; third, whether or no we 
 shall preserve the town system of representation or the dis- 
 trict system. 
 
 Now it seems to me that these questions can be disposed 
 of more speedily if we could, on the coming in this afternoon 
 of the Committee of the Whole, consider this matter in these 
 three different propositions. If the gentlemen who have in- 
 troduced these resolutions will put them in shape so that we 
 can consider whether we favor an amendment to the Consti- 
 tution based upon population or the number of voters, so we 
 could consider, second, what we would fix as to the size of 
 the house, and, third, whether we would favor the district 
 system of representation or representation by towns and 
 wards; then, when we got the concensus of opinion of the 
 Convention on these matters, some progress would be made 
 and the resolutions introduced could be referred to a standing 
 committee to bring in a resolution in accordance with the 
 expression of the Convention, so obtained. 
 
 Some of these resolutions, in some respects, I favor, and in 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 131 
 
 others I do not. It seems to me that we shall save time if 
 we can get at it in the way I have outlined. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I would be entirely ready to agree 
 to the proposition of the gentleman from Franklin, but I 
 think the point made by the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. 
 Hamblett, is a good one. We have not proceeded far enough, 
 yet; we have not had, as yet, such an exchange of views that 
 members would feel qualified to express themselves by voting 
 upon these different propositions. It seems to me that it 
 will appear to the gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Leach, on 
 reconsideration, that this discussion better proceed as it is 
 proceeding, taking these propositions together and then, at 
 a later stage, his plan might simplify the work and be entirely 
 proper. 
 
 The Chairman The question before the committee is on 
 the motion offered by the gentleman from Tilton, Mr. Fel- 
 lows, to amend the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Lyford, by striking out the word " three " and 
 inserting the word "two." Are you ready for the question? 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I did not intend to speak upon 
 this question this morning, and should not, but for the in- 
 quiry of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford. The 
 gentleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, presents to this com- 
 mittee a motion which calls for a vote, and if the committee 
 votes upon that question now, it commits itself one way or 
 the other. It either rejects the idea of reducing the house 
 of representatives to 200, or adopts it, and, in view of the 
 fact that there has been no discussion of the question, whether 
 the house of representatives should be reduced, and if so, 
 how much, I agree entirely with the suggestion of others that 
 that question ought not to be passed upon now. 
 
 I had supposed, until the gentleman from Newport, Mr. 
 Barton, addressed the committee, that the proposition to 
 reduce the house came to this Convention sua sponte, and 
 that it was undisputed among the people that the house of 
 
132 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 representatives should be reduced somewhat, and the senate 
 increased. 
 
 Now, coming from a country town, I am not prepared, at 
 tnis time, to take a position upon the question as to whether 
 we should depart from the town system. Being a native of 
 one of the smallest, but of course, the most important town 
 111 me state [Laughter], and by adoption, representing, in 
 part, one of the larger towns, I naturally incline to the idea 
 of the town system, if it can be perfected, and equality of 
 representation can be maintained upon a permanent basis. 
 Therefore, any proposition to change from the town system 
 would naturally involve a reluctance on the part of a country 
 member to proceed rapidly and without discussion. 
 
 I do not quite agree with the gentleman from Nelson, Mr. 
 Osgood, when he discusses at this early stage the question 
 whether the greater measure of virtue resides in the country 
 or in the city. We better avoid the discussion of such a 
 question. I- do agree with him, however, to this extent; that 
 any proposition, in order to address itself favorably to this 
 committee, or to this Convention, should spread itself fairly 
 over country and city alike. Any proposition that aims at 
 all in the direction of advantage to the country or to the city 
 is bound to fail. There should be no disposition at least I 
 have none to approach this question with the idea of giving 
 an advantage to either. This question should be approached 
 with the idea of reducing the house of representatives on lines 
 which shall rest the withering frost of diminution upon city 
 and country alike. If we approach the question in any 
 other spirit, whatever we do, will fail. 
 
 I am bound, of course, having taken the floor for that pur- 
 pose, to answer the question which the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Lyford, puts to me, as to the practical working of 
 the district system in Massachusetts, which is the system upon 
 which the plan that gentleman has submitted to the Conven- 
 tion is constructed. I know very little about it, except that 
 I have inquired among the lawyers and judges in Boston, and 
 the answer has always been, that it worked smoothly, and 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 133 
 
 that everybody is satisfied with it. The great argument in 
 favor of it is, that the district lines, having been established, 
 become stable, and that all parts of the state are represented 
 all of the time. Now, if there is a vital defect in the town 
 system, it seems to me that it resides in the fact that quite a 
 portion of our state is unrepresented a substantial part of the 
 time. I do not know how large a portion, but a considerable 
 part of the state. Perhaps the gentleman from Concord can 
 inform us about that. I know there are several towns in the 
 state that are represented only a part of the time. This is 
 wrong. It ought not to be so. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I will say, Mr. Chairman, in an- 
 swer to the gentleman from Littleton, that three towns in 
 the state have less than 100 population; five towns, between 
 100 and 200; fourteen towns, between 200 and 300; seventeen 
 towns, between 300 and 400. So that there are thirty-nine 
 towns in the state having a population of less than 400 inhab- 
 itants. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton What is the practical result? 
 How much of the time are these towns unrepresented? 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Some of them are represented a 
 fifth of the time; the towns of 100 inhabitants, or less, are 
 represented a fifth of the time. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Is there a possibility that the 
 town system can be worked out so that all the towns can be 
 represented all the time? 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I think not; I have not been able 
 to do it. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton It must be admitted, if we are 
 fair, that any system which leaves any town or any place un- 
 represented for any substantial portion of the time, is defec- 
 tive and radically wrong, but as I have said, I am not now 
 
134 JOUKNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 prepared to take any position upon the question whether there 
 should be a departure from the town system and the adoption 
 of something different. I may be prepared later on to do so. 
 
 I do wish,, however, at this time, to submit to this Conven- 
 tion some statistics which bear upon the proposition of the 
 gentleman from Tilton, and upon the question whether the 
 house should be reduced, and if so, whether to 200 or 300. 
 The statistics I am about to submit are familiar to many of 
 you, but I desire to make some brief observations upon the 
 general question involved, namely, the reduction of the house 
 and the increase of the senate. 
 
 My first remark is, that aside from the house of commons, 
 in England, and the chamber of deputies, in France, the 
 house of representatives, in New Hampshire, is the largest 
 legislative body in the world. Another observation is, that, 
 with one or two exceptions, the senate of New Hampshire is 
 the smallest senate in the world. The general plan, as you 
 will see the general scheme, speaking generally, is that a 
 senate shall be about one third of the size of the other repre- 
 sentative body from a quarter to a third. You will find 
 that rule will apply pretty generally throughout the world. 
 
 Here, the house of representatives is sixteen times as large 
 as the senate, the disproportion being so great that it is 
 almost a curiosity. There is nothing like it anywhere else. 
 
 The present legislature of New Hampshire contains 397 
 members, and we have a senate of 24. 
 
 The house of representatives in Maine is 151; our house of 
 representatives exceeding that of Maine by 246. Maine has 
 a senate of thirty-one; seven larger than ours. 
 
 In Vermont, the house of representatives is 245, the New 
 Hampshire house being 152 in excess of that of Vermont. 
 In that state the senate is composed of thirty members; six 
 larger than ours. 
 
 The house of representatives in Massachusetts is 239, ours 
 being 158 in excess. Their senate is forty, being sixteen 
 larger than the senate here. 
 
 The house in Rhode Island is composed of seventy-two 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 135 
 
 members, ours being 325 in excess; and I believe the popu- 
 lation of Ehode Island is larger than that of New Hampshire. 
 Ehode Island has a senate of forty-five, twenty-one larger 
 than ours. 
 
 Connecticut has a house of representatives of 255, having 
 142 less than the house of representatives of New Hampshire. 
 The senate of Connecticut is twenty-four, the same as Few 
 Hampshire. 
 
 The great state of Pennsylvania has a senate of forty-nine 
 and a house of 205, the house of representatives in New 
 Hampshire being 192 in excess of the great state of Pennsyl- 
 vania, and our senate twenty-five less than theirs. 
 
 Indiana has a senate of fifty and a house of 100, the house 
 being 297 less than the house here, and the senate twenty-six 
 more than ours. 
 
 Illinois has a house of 153, 244 less than the house here. 
 The Illinois senate consists of fifty-one members, twenty-seven 
 more than ours. 
 
 Iowa has a senate of fifty and a house of 100. 
 
 Wisconsin has a senate of thirty-three and a house of 100. 
 
 The great state of Ohio has a senate of thirty-three and a 
 house of 110. 
 
 I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the relative proportion, as I 
 give these statistics between the senate and the house, should 
 be observed, to see what the idea outside of New Hampshire 
 is as to what would be the proper balance between the two. 
 
 The great state of New York has a senate of fifty and an 
 assembly of 150. 
 
 Texas has a senate of thirty-one and a house of 128. 
 
 Kentucky has a senate of thirty-eight and a house of 100. 
 
 Michigan has a senate of thirty-one and a house of 100. 
 
 Our present congress consists of 357 members. 
 
 The only elective body in the world equal in size to that 
 of the house of representatives of New Hampshire is the 
 German reichstag. In Germany, where there is a popu- 
 lation of 45,000,000 people, the reichstag has the precise 
 number of members as the house of representatives of New 
 
136 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Hampshire, or 397. Of course, when I make that general 
 remark, the house of commons in England I except, and the 
 chamber of deputies in France, where, on paper, the mem- 
 bership is larger, but the actual sittings of members are 
 much smaller. Not much more than one half the size of 
 this house. 
 
 In the new Western states, speaking generally, aside from 
 those I have given, the rule is a senate of fifty and a house 
 of 100. 
 
 Whatever I have said this morning does not relate to the 
 question as to whether it should be the town plan or the dis- 
 trict system, but relates to the general question whether the 
 senate should be increased and the house reduced, and it must 
 be observed that if the house is only reduced to 300 members, 
 it will still remain more than twenty per cent, larger than 
 any other house of representatives in the United States. I 
 do not say that it should be less or more than 300, but the 
 fact exists that if it is only reduced to 300, it still remains 
 the largest in the country. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Mr. Chairman, if the Conven- 
 ton is to make progress, of course the members must ex- 
 press their views upon the propositions, as they are presented. 
 
 I am not willing to vote for the motion of the gentleman 
 from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, that the house of representatives 
 be reduced to 200. I know that a reduction ought to be- 
 made, but I do not think it ought to go below 300. I am 
 not in favor of small legislatures; I am not in favor of legis- 
 latures so small as those which have been adopted in the 
 Western states, as the gentleman from Littleton has shown 
 you. I remember the enlargement of the present hall of 
 representatives. As in time the house increased, the size of 
 this hall was enlarged, and it now has about 400 seats here. 
 It is too large a body, I think, for so small a state, and if it 
 were reduced to 300, the members would sit in this present 
 room without occupying the two rows of rear seats, and it 
 would be a body reasonable in size and as always, except two 
 years ago, a sensible body. 
 
THUHSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 137 
 
 Now, Mr. President, really the most important work of 
 this Convention is to reduce, if possible, the house of repre- 
 sentatives. I know this subject must be approached intelli- 
 gently, and with harmony, because it is one of some danger. 
 It will not do for the large towns, or their representatives in 
 this body, to threaten the small towns, nor do I think our 
 friends from the small towns should allow themselves to 
 threaten the delegates from the large towns with the rejec- 
 tion of any proposition which this Convention may send to 
 the people. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is going to be very easy 
 to defeat anything which we may do. It is the easiest thing 
 in the world to defeat the work of a Constitutional Conven- 
 tion. I well remember the Convention of 1850, presided 
 over by a distinguished son of New Hampshire, whose statue 
 I soon hope to see in the state house yard at Concord, and 
 who within three years of that time became president of the 
 United States. Besides its noted President, the Convention 
 contained other New Hampshire men of distinction at that 
 time, as of course this Convention contains the most distin- 
 guished men of New Hampshire now in existence! But, Mr. 
 Chairman, that Convention made the mistake of submitting 
 too many amendments. As I scrutinized them then, as a 
 boy, and as I scrutinize them now as a man, I think a very 
 large proportion of them ought to have been adopted; but 
 the people had a notion that there were too many of them 
 and they voted them down with a rush the whole of them. 
 I remember seeing some of the ballots. 
 
 Voters would take a brush or pen and make a wide, black 
 border around the whole ballot (as I sometimes think a bor- 
 der ought to be drawn around The Manchester Union, especi- 
 ally the edition of this morning) [The stenographer is not 
 certain that the last remark is correct, as he could not hear 
 distinctly on account of the laughter], and then the voters 
 would write " No " across the face of the ballot and put it in 
 the box. 
 
 The Convention, Mr. Chairman, presided over by this dis- 
 
138 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tinguished gentleman,, Franklin Pierce, and containing those 
 other distinguished gentlemen, reassembled and were much 
 crestfallen. I hope we shall not have to reassemble to do 
 over again any part of the work that we are now under- 
 taking. That Convention of 1850 mustered courage enough 
 to again submit amendments, three in number, and did suc- 
 ceed in cutting out the property qualification for holding 
 office, but did not succeed in taking out the religious test, 
 which last was not removed until 1876, although, Mr. Chair- 
 man and gentlemen, it was never enforced in this state and 
 was obsolete years before we succeeded in striking it out. 
 
 At this time, therefore, I cannot vote for any measure 
 which I think will go to the people to be made a wreck of. 
 I am not here willing to participate in such a work. Let us 
 see whether, by the application of fairness and good sense (of 
 which latter quality there is a large amount in this Conven- 
 tion), we can come to some just and equitable solution of the 
 problem. 
 
 I think there ought to be a reduction of the house to 300, 
 but not to 200. 
 
 I cannot vote for the proposition of the gentleman from 
 Newport, Mr. Barton, which makes a reduction in the house 
 only by increasing the number of inhabitants necessary for 
 the second, third, and fourth representatives two thousand 
 additional inhabitants instead of 1,200 to get the second, 
 third, and fourth representatives (which is the proposition of 
 the gentleman from Newport), will reduce the house to 
 about 300 members, by making the reduction at the expense 
 wholly of the larger towns and cities, the basis of 600 for the 
 first representative remaining the same as now. I say that 
 I cannot vote to reduce the house to 300, and put the reduc- 
 tion wholly upon the larger towns. I believe, Mr. Chairman, 
 that at some time we will come to the district system in New 
 Hampshire. We shall have to come to it at some time, but 
 I am not anxious or determined that we shall come to it 
 immediately. 
 
 Knowing that this was a difficult subject, I voted against 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 139 
 
 the calling of the Convention at the present time, of course 
 not expecting,, if there were a Convention, I should have the 
 honor of being a member of it, and sitting in such an intel- 
 ligent body as I see before me. But I did not think that we 
 could grapple with this question at this time, and solve it, 
 and get an amendment which the people would adopt. 
 
 Believing that sometime we are coming to the district sys- 
 tem, the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, has with 
 great care prepared an amendment, based upon the Massa- 
 chusetts plan, which reduces the house to 300; and the 300 
 representatives are apportioned among the counties of the 
 state; and the county commissioners, who are elected by the 
 people, are authorized to equitably divide their counties into 
 the necessary voting districts. I am in favor of that plan, 
 and I would be willing to see it adopted by this Convention, 
 and go to the people. I think that it is a fair and equitable 
 plan, which places the loss of representation alike upon the 
 small towns and the large ones. 
 
 On the other hand, the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Bar- 
 ton, presents to us the proposition that 100 members should 
 be stricken out from the house of representatives, wholly at 
 the expense of the large towns, and that the 600 basis for the 
 one representative shall remain as it was before. I do not 
 think that an amendment of this kind, if carried through this 
 Convention, will be adopted by the people, and so here we 
 are, Mr. Chairman, with a very delicate question confronting 
 us. 
 
 I ask my friend, the gentleman from Nelson, Mr. Osgood, 
 whether he is willing, to make any concession; whether the 
 sentiment of the smaller towns of the state will favor any 
 concessions in this matter. Knowing how intelligent his 
 constituents are, and knowing their sentiments in regard to 
 this question, is he willing to propose, if the town system is 
 maintained, any increase of the basis of representation for 
 the first member over 600? 
 
 Mr. Osgood of Nelson Make 700 the basis, instead of 600. 
 
140 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord That is too small a concession, 
 in comparison with the increase of inhabitants necessary for 
 the second representative an increase from 1,200 to 2,000. 
 Would my friend favor an increase of 200 or 300 for the basis 
 of the first representative, if the basis for the other repre- 
 sentatives was increased to 1,800? 
 
 You all see the difficulty there is in this question. If the 
 gentlemen here from the small towns are willing to make an} 
 concessions, in order that we may send out something to the 
 people which stands a chance of being adopted, and which 
 preserves the town system, I hope they will fairly and hon- 
 estly tell us just what they will do, and I, for one, will be 
 willing to meet the question in a spirit of compromise, be- 
 cause it must be met in a spirit of compromise to get any 
 results. That spirit must be manifested on the part of every 
 member, or else any action we take upon this matter will 
 prove abortive. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Baker, the committee arose to report to 
 the Convention that it had come to no conclusion on the 
 subject under consideration, and to ask leave to sit again. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Cross, chairman of the Committee of the Whole, re- 
 ported that the committee had been in session, made pro- 
 gress, and asked leave to sit again. 
 
 No objection being made, leave was granted. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned. 
 
 AFTERNOON. 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 On motion of Mr. Knight of Milford, the following reso- 
 lution was adopted: 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 141 
 
 Resolved, That a Committee on Mileage be appointed by 
 the chair, consisting of one member from each county. 
 
 On motion of Mr. McAllister of Manchester, the following 
 resolution was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That the tables of statistics, relative to the mem- 
 bership of the senate and house of representatives, prepared 
 by Judge Aldrich of Littleton, Mr. Lyford of Concord, and 
 by other delegates, be printed. 
 
 The chair appointed the following tellers, to act during 
 the remainder of the Convention : 
 
 Division one, Howe of Concord; division two, Evans of 
 North Hampton; division three, Little of Manchester; division 
 four, Corey of Portsmouth; division five, Abbott of Derry. 
 
 Mr. Holman of Hillsborough moved that the proposed 
 amendment to the Constitution, offered by him relating to a 
 tax on inheritance, be taken from the table and referred to 
 the Committee on the Judicial Department. 
 
 Mr. Holman yielded the floor to Mr. Lord of Manchester, 
 who submitted the following resolution, which was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the 
 President to make assignment of rooms to the various stand- 
 ing committees of the Convention. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Holman of Hillsborough was then 
 renewed, stated by the President, and prevailed. 
 
 The resolution offered at the afternoon session, December 
 3, by Mr. Lamprey of Concord, to amend article ninety-eight, 
 part two of the Constitution, was, upon motion of Mr. Lam- 
 prey, taken from the table and referred to the Committee on 
 Future Mode of Amending the Constitution and Other Pro- 
 posed Amendments. 
 
 The same gentleman called for a division upon the ques- 
 
142 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tion, which was upon his motion that the resolution last 
 referred to be taken from the table and referred. The chair 
 ruled the call for a division to be out of order, as coming too 
 late. Mr. Lamprey then moved to reconsider the vote where- 
 by the resolution was taken from the table and referred to 
 the Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Consti- 
 tution and Other Proposed Amendments. The question 
 being stated, the affirmative prevailed. The question recur- 
 ring upon the original motion of the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Lamprey withdrew the motion by unanimous con- 
 sent, and moved that the resolution be referred to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, and the motion prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Baker of Bow, the resolution in relation 
 to establishing voting precincts in large towns and cities, was 
 taken from the table and referred to the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution relating 
 to the election of officers by plurality vote, was taken from 
 the table and referred to the Committee on the Legislative 
 Department. 
 
 The President appointed the following committee to select 
 rooms for the standing committees: Messrs. Lord of Man- 
 chester, Flanders of Holderness, Pike of Stark, Wilkins of 
 Henniker, and Nutter of Rollinsford. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kent of Lancaster, the Convention re- 
 solved itself into Committee of the Whole, to consider the 
 various resolutions relating to representation. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Aldrich of Littleton in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of 
 the committee, I am desirous of saying something at this* 
 time on. this subject. I do not expect to enlighten any one 
 by my remarks I desire enlightenment myself. My posi- 
 tion upon the question of representation is not fixed and 
 determined. I do not know thoroughly what may be best, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 143 
 
 but I am very sure no result can be reached except by mutual 
 concession by the different interests after a careful and 
 thoughtful consideration of all the questions presented here. 
 
 I was impressed with the remarks of the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Chandler, this morning with reference to 
 taking such action as shall be endorsed by the people when 
 the question is submitted to them. I realize that we may 
 not properly be bound by a fear of what may happen, but 
 that we must do as nearly right as we know how to do right 
 and trust that the results will be good. At the same time 
 this is not a moral question, but one more of policy and 
 expediency, and we should to some extent, at least, consider 
 what the people will approve. 
 
 A motion is before this committee that the number of 
 the members of the house should be reduced to 200, but I 
 do not think that we are, at this point of the discussion, far 
 enough advanced to fix the permanent bounds of our action, 
 but think we should go further before doing so. It is of 
 course true that in order to accomplish all that we were sent 
 here for, we should reduce the house and reduce it materially, 
 but until we have discussed this further we should, as it 
 seems to me, leave our minds open, both with reference to 
 the size of the house and the basis of representation. 
 
 We come here, not with any pride of opinion or desire to 
 introduce anything new into this fundamental instrument 
 of our government, but simply, as delegates of the people 
 of the state, to consider a delicate situation and to find a 
 way of relief from the conditions which now exist and which 
 seem to some extent burdensome, and we should seek to do 
 this in all candor and with minds liberal enough to entertain 
 and consider fairly all the resolutions that have been and 
 may be presented to this Convention. So you must count 
 me as an opponent of anything which at this time tends to 
 draw the lines between conflicting systems of representation. 
 The invitation to those favoring the town system to meet 
 after adjournment this afternoon is to my mind unfortunate. 
 
 I may at this time, I think, properly say that all the asso- 
 
144 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ciations, education, and training of my early life induce me 
 to favor the existing town system of representation. It is- 
 my desire and hope, if it is possible, to adopt an amendment 
 that will fairly retain it, but I do not know of any particular 
 method that can accomplish the desired result, if it can be 
 accomplished. I hope, however, that during this discussion 
 of various proposed amendments I may be able to arrive in 
 my mind at some conclusion as to which is the best measure 
 to adopt, whether that be one retaining the town system or 
 one setting up the district system. 
 
 I have listened with regard to the explanations and state- 
 ments of my lifelong friend from Concord, Mr. Lyford, and 
 to those of other gentlemen of this Convention, and when 
 the time comes I hope we shall be able to make a right 
 solution of this matter. I wish to say here, as I have said 
 before, that in my judgment any drawing of lines at this 
 time between those in favor of the town system and those in 
 favor of the district system is not wise and that I should not 
 be able to take part in such a conference, because I think the 
 minds of the Convention ought to be left free until we come 
 to some conclusion. 
 
 I am not at this time an advocate of any measure in regard 
 to the method of representation. I have listened with the 
 rest of you to these different suggestions. It is a matter 
 that is not free from sentiment, and I am bound to say that 
 sentiment counts more in the affairs of the world than force. 
 
 I believe in a creed the creed of numbers that all the 
 people should endeavor to join in measures for the common 
 good of the greatest number in this instance for the weal 
 of the commonwealth. 
 
 I have been in favor of the town system, but I desire to 
 hear what may further be said about it. I am willing to 
 listen to all the suggestions in regard to different systems 
 and hope that before we arrive at the conclusion of this 
 discussion I shall be so clear in my mind with reference to 
 this that I shall have no further hesitancy as to the proper 
 action to take, and if I can contribute anything to that end 
 I shall only be too happy to do so. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 145 
 
 In the first place, it seems to me that the town system is 
 more in accord with the genius of the people of New Hamp- 
 shire than the district system. It has been said here that 
 it is only a question of time before we shall be compelled to 
 adopt the district system. Perhaps it is possibly it is so, 
 but I do not believe we should adopt that system before we 
 are obliged to. I know that conditions change. I hope the 
 prosperity of New Hampshire will continue, but it is possible 
 that our population will not increase or even that it may 
 decline and the representation thus fall off, so that no such 
 change as is suggested by the advocates of the district system 
 will become necessary. It has seemed to me that it was 
 better to maintain, so long as we could with fairness and 
 justice, the old system, which not only New Hampshire but 
 the federal government, in its inception, represented. 
 
 It seems to me that while the functions of town govern- 
 ment are carried on independently of the state government 
 and while they retain their identity as towns or little repub- 
 lics, as they have been called, the same independence should 
 be given them or rather left with them for the purpose of 
 electing representatives to the law-making body. It seems 
 to me it fosters a spirit of independence, and freedom, and 
 strength, and that it is better for each town to independently 
 elect a representative than to be one of many necessary 
 to do so. 
 
 I may be wholly wrong in this. It may be that this thing 
 cannot be carried out in its entirety, as it ought to be. I 
 am told that as we go on in this way the more the inequali- 
 ties grow, on account of the larger surplus numbers. Possi- 
 bly that may be so. But I do not know that there is any 
 remedy for these inequalities, even though you take the 
 state and carve it up into districts. I have yet to discover 
 any method by which absolute equality can be obtained it 
 is only approximation to equality that we can hope to gain. 
 And this is so practically with all public measures. For 
 instance, take the taxes. They are never assessed throughout 
 the state with perfect equality. All we can do in the 
 10 
 
146 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 transactions of the state is to approach as nearly as we can 
 to equality to get it approximately, to endeavor to do as 
 well as we can do in that direction. 
 
 I am not prepared to enter into an argument here as to 
 the relative merits of the people in the different parts of 
 the state or to assert that one section of the state is better, 
 physically, morally, or spiritually, than another section, 
 neither should I be able to discuss the matter through all 
 its details and ramifications. But I think I may say this 
 to you, sons of New Hampshire, delegates of our constituents, 
 whether of city or country, you all, either in yourselves or 
 forebears, retain a kindly feeling toward the country. I 
 believe the country to be the nursery of the cities. I think 
 the cities are largely recruited from the towns. I think 
 many of the prosperous men in the cities look back to the 
 old homestead on the hillside and to those left behind when 
 they went out to fight the. battle of life. I do not regard 
 this as sentiment but as one of the phases of human nature, 
 one of the qualities that will endure. I think to a large 
 degree character that has developed on the hillsides of the 
 state has to-day the same result as in the generations gone. 
 Hence I believe that our friends who reside in the cities 
 do have and will continue to have, through whatever changes, 
 kindly feeling toward the country-side from whence they or 
 their fathers and mothers came. 
 
 I further believe, and I do not think it is my individual 
 belief, but the common belief of the people, I believe it 
 is the policy of a republican form of government and I do 
 not use the word republican in a partisan sense at all to 
 increase and strengthen the power and influence of its agri- 
 cultural and rural communities. ' I believe that to be some- 
 thing more than mere dollars and cents and more than the 
 mere question of the relative number city and town should 
 have in the legislature. I believe it to be a broad policy that 
 has grown up from the very nature and essence of country 
 character and has remained inviolate through all the changes 
 of the years. While I do not think this is in any way 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 147 
 
 mandatory or controlling, I do think this idea of the relative 
 position of country and city in the history of the nation is 
 to he taken into account. 
 
 The word " city " is an indefinite term. There are cities 
 and cities. What is a city in one state would he termed 
 country in another. In the state of Kansas, for instance, 
 every gathering where there are two thousand people is a 
 city and has his honor, the mayor, and a city council equally 
 with New York, but how different. Now to my mind the 
 larger towns and the smaller cities are identical; they are 
 really the same. When we come to put a distinctive meaning 
 to the word " city " outside of its form of government, we 
 would not he able to count more than half a dozen in the 
 state at the outside. The other cities are practically large 
 rural communities spread out over more territory than other 
 country communities, and which for convenience' sake have 
 a government called a city government, but to all intents 
 and purposes they are the same as the other country towns 
 and bear the imprint of country towns all through. 
 
 I have listened also with great intentness to the clear and 
 lucid explanation of the gentleman from Newport, Mr. 
 Barton, as to his plan. I do not think any one who has 
 presented a plan is wholly right and in accord with the 
 sentiment of this Convention, and undoubtedly whatever 
 plan is presented will, before it is adopted, have to be 
 changed. 
 
 I understand the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, 
 to say, that from his recollection of the details of the plan 
 offered by the gentleman from Newport, it took all the 
 decrease from the cities and left the rural communities 
 intact. I think that is a mistake. I know that my own 
 town of Lancaster, having something over 3,000 inhabitants, 
 now has three members; under the plan presented by Mr. 
 Barton, it will lose one representative. I think that that 
 plan would take from the large towns and the cities that 
 are large towns rather than from the larger cities. It seems 
 to me that in cities the wards are so constructed, the lines 
 
148 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 so drawn, that there is no more surplus of population in 
 those wards than in the country towns. 
 
 I know that I am making a rambling talk, but I do it 
 because I want all the information that I can get before I 
 come to a conclusion on this matter, and I desire to throw 
 out suggestions which may be discussed and thus have light 
 thrown upon the question, and I must be pardoned for 
 saying some things out of place perhaps. I do it with this 
 intent, that all these matters may come before this body for 
 its deliberation and consideration. It is of the very greatest 
 importance that whatever plan is adopted by this Convention, 
 and presented, should bear the stamp of earnest consideration 
 and the desire of all of us without pride of opinion or preju- 
 dice to come together on common ground. A great English 
 statesman once said that " Compromise is the essence of 
 politics." I believe that to be thoroughly true and that 
 in all questions, except where moral results are involved, 
 the middle course is generally the safer and more satisfactory. 
 I trust that out of all of these plans presented we can get 
 together upon one that will be satisfactory and just. It is 
 of the greatest importance that whatever plan goes out from 
 this body to the people of the state should be received with 
 entire confidence, the feeling that we have tried to do what 
 is best and that no one is getting advantage, unless it is the 
 advantage authorized by omnipotence the advantage of con- 
 ditions and environments. 
 
 Now if any plan was sent out which by any means was 
 so shaped that bad results would follow to any political or 
 ecclesiastical organization or to any business or other legiti- 
 mate interest, it would incite suspicion and greatly imperil 
 the success of that plan. While I regard the system, if we 
 are to have a district system, presented by the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Lyford, as very admirable and complete 
 in its details, I think it has some points connected with it 
 that are objectionable. The state is to be laid upon a bed 
 and carved into 300 representative districts. First the divi- 
 sion is to be by counties and then the towns of those counties 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 149 
 
 instead of maintaining their independence are to be joined 
 together and divided into districts. Now how are the dis- 
 tricts to be determined? I have no doubt but the idea 
 presented by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, is 
 the result of earnest study and deliberation, and I may be 
 mistaken about the result, but what does it do? It puts the 
 formation of this 300 representative districts into the hands 
 of the boards of county commissioners. They are the ones 
 who determine how these districts are to be composed, and 
 as these districts are composed, so the representation is likely 
 to stand and so the legislation of the state is to be conducted 
 during several sessions, at any rate. 
 
 Now it is wholly probable and possible that the condition 
 of parties now existing in this state may change; it is entirely 
 possible that such a condition might exist with reference 
 to the election of representatives to the legislature, that 
 practically the entire power of the state would lie to-day 
 with this party and to-morrow with that party. We are not 
 talking politics here and politics should not enter into this 
 discussion, but there is always a suspicion that partisan 
 boards throughout the state might take partisan advantages in 
 determining the lines of the districts which are to send repre- 
 sentatives under the system proposed. My apprehension is 
 that anything in an amendment submitted to the people, 
 which would tend to such a result would not be ratified. 
 Now it is more than likely that the trained brain of the 
 gentleman from Concord and the interest he has taken in 
 this matter, will enable him to make some other proposition 
 to take the place of the present plan if it is open to this 
 objection of possible partisan advantage. 
 
 There may be other things to come up also objectionable; 
 some points are open to criticism, in this as well as in the 
 other proposed amendments, but I am in hopes that the 
 result of this discussion will be to eliminate objections and 
 bring about the adoption of an amendment which will be 
 just and fair. I have no idea in my own mind that the 
 discussion on these several measures will be finished this 
 week. 
 
150 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 There is a question in regard to the change of the mem- 
 bership of the senate that has been very little discussed. 
 Individually, that does not seem to me a matter of great 
 importance one way or another. I do not attach importance 
 to the fact that New Hampshire is unique in its house of 
 representatives; I think it is cumbersome and more expensive 
 than necessary, and should be reduced in size, but there are 
 other things to be considered in connection with a proposed 
 reduction. 
 
 A prominent son of New Hampshire for many years was 
 Oilman Marston. There were a great many points on which 
 I did not agree with Oilman Marston, and on which he did 
 not hesitate on occasion to disagree with me. The idea he 
 had was that a large body of this sort was an educational 
 body and the amount of money expended in maintaining a 
 large house of representatives was more than offset by its 
 educational value, giving opportunity for many to learn by 
 experience how to conduct public business. That is a matter 
 that should be taken into consideration as an element here. 
 
 It is not necessary that we have 200 members in the house, 
 because Connecticut, for instance, has that number or that 
 we should have any number that the traditions of the state 
 and the best interests of our people may demand. 
 
 I do not suppose that I have in any way made a lucid 
 speech or argument, because, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
 I do not fully know what I do want and therefore have not 
 attempted to place any definite proposition before you, but 
 I have tried to suggest ideas that may be of value. 
 
 I hope the town system may be retained with justice to 
 all, but I assure you, if in my mind I come to the conclusion 
 that that could not be, I shall be perfectly willing to replace 
 it by such a system as would do justice, and I know that is 
 practically the feeling of the people all over New Hampshire. 
 
 On the other hand I am sure that this Convention is im- 
 pressed with the idea that while we may find numerous 
 things in this venerable Constitution that may be improved, 
 it is not a wise thing to depart from its spirit or to try to 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 151 
 
 make numerous amendments. As was so well illustrated 
 this morning by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, 
 in referring to the results of the Constitutional Convention 
 of 1852, too many amendments are apt to defeat the purposes 
 of the Convention. Let us consider and adopt a few amend- 
 ments which are important and essential and go home. This 
 Convention will then have accomplished something worthy 
 of approval. 
 
 My belief is that the house of representatives ought to be 
 reduced. It seems to me that by discussing and considering 
 different plans to that end we may reach some basis and just 
 ratio between extremes. 
 
 It seems to me also that population is better than ratable 
 polls or voting strength. 
 
 I think we can agree upon a plan without loss of respect 
 to ourselves and that we should waive all pride in our pre- 
 conceived opinions or prejudices. 
 
 I believe in retaining so far as possible the independence 
 of these little commonwealths, these little republics, that are 
 the germs of empire, but if we cannot retain them, I am 
 ready to join in any system to reduce the representation that 
 is likely to promote justice and meet the reasonable expec- 
 tations of the people of New Hampshire. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough Gentlemen of the Convention, 
 in the line of the ideas expressed by the gentleman who has 
 just taken his seat, I introduced a resolution in this Conven- 
 tion, which is before you, for the preservation of that old 
 town system, which I believe in thoroughly. 
 
 I was called out for a short time this forenoon, and when 
 I returned I found a motion had been made, upon which, I 
 supposed, the Committee of the Whole was acting at this 
 time, that the number of the house of representatives be 
 fixed at 200. I was a little surprised at that, because, it 
 seemed to me, that the action which the Convention had 
 previously taken, that all matters pertaining to the matter 
 of representation should be considered in the Committee of 
 
152 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the Whole, was taken that the members of the Convention 
 might thoroughly consider these matters before acting upon 
 them. I find the arguments made by the speakers who have 
 preceded me have proceeded on the line of discussing all of 
 the questions involved in this matter; and with reference to 
 the remarks that I make at this time, I shall not confine my- 
 self simply to the numbers of the house of representatives, and 
 more especially, gentlemen, because I do not remember that 
 there has been a single project presented to this Convention 
 by which the house of representatives was to be reduced to 
 the number of 200. That being the case, if such a motion 
 was made here, of course it lays to one side all the resolutions 
 that have been introduced by the several gentlemen, to pre- 
 serve the town system, and also the district system. Conse- 
 quently, I take it that the chair has taken the sense of this 
 Convention, and has not seen fit to confine the discussion 
 strictly to the motion that the house should be limited to 200. 
 
 Another reason why I speak of this is because several reso- 
 lutions were introduced this morning which have not been 
 printed, and consequently the Convention has not had an 
 opportunity to see them and know what they were. 
 
 The resolution which I introduced was based upon an in- 
 crease for the second representative to 3,000. My friend 
 from Newport, Mr. Barton, has introduced a bill, based on 
 2,000, as an increase for the second representative. He re- 
 tains the old town system and I agree with that, if it reduces 
 the numbers of the legislature to the required limits, and I 
 believe, from what I have heard in the different parts of the 
 state, that that is what the people desire to reduce the house 
 and still preserve the town system. 
 
 I have a tabulation, which is based upon the present system 
 of 1,200 increase, and also one on an increase of 2,000, and 
 one on an increase of 3,000. I find that the number of the 
 legislature, based upon a 2,000 increase, would be 271, ex- 
 cluding representatives from prorated towns. 
 
 I had supposed that it was the desire of the people, in view 
 of the fact, as has been stated to you, that our legislature is 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 153 
 
 BO large, to have it reduced somewhat, but I did not suppose 
 it would be the desire of the people to reduce it as much as 
 has been suggested. 
 
 As you have well known, some of the states around us have 
 ,a house of only 150, some 100, others 175, but none o,f them 
 so high as the house of representatives in the state of New 
 Hampshire. But I do not think that we ought, on that 
 account, to reduce our representation as low as it is in many, 
 if not all, of those states. I had supposed that the people 
 desired to have the number made smaller than it now is, and 
 consequently I had fixed the number of inhabitants neces- 
 sary for an increase of one representative at 3,000. That 
 would give us a house of 240, and it. seems to me that is 
 sufficient; that 240 is all that is required. 
 
 I take but very little stock in what has been said in regard 
 to the inequality of this thing, and the hardships it would 
 impose upon the larger towns and cities, from the fact that 
 I found, on tabulating it, that the reduction rested very 
 equally upon, the community. If anybody has to suffer, it is 
 a town like mine, which falls a little short of 3,000, and which 
 now has two representatives, but cannot have but one under 
 the system proposed in my resolution; but on the part of the 
 inhabitants of that town, in the line of the remarks of the 
 gentleman who has just taken his seat, such is the feeling in 
 regard to the retention of the old town system, which gives 
 to the people in the old state of New Hampshire the right to 
 be heard as of old (and that goes a great ways), we are en- 
 tirely satisfied to have our representation reduced one half, 
 and all that we require is, that the cities stand equally with 
 us. 
 
 I have the tabulation which shows what the result would 
 be under this system, but I am not going to put it in here at 
 this time. If this notice had not been given, that there was 
 to be a meeting following this of all those who were interested 
 in the town system, I should have more to say now, but after 
 that meeting, and after knowing the feeling of my fellow- 
 delegates better, I may be inclined to talk to you again, but 
 
154 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 at the present time I shall be very brief. I will, however, 
 simply give you a few of the results which I have tabulated. 
 This tabulation has been made by as accurate a mathematician 
 as there is in the state of New Hampshire. I do not pretend 
 to be so very accurate in mathematics as some others, but 
 usually have been able to do my own business, and some for 
 other people, and they have not complained. I have looked 
 over this tabulation and revised it. 
 
 The city of Nashua, which now has twenty representatives, 
 will have ten; the city of Manchester, which now has forty- 
 eight representatives, will have twenty-three; and it runs in 
 that proportion throughout the state of New Hampshire. I 
 cannot find and I have figured on it a good deal any more 
 equitable basis upon which the representation can be placed, 
 if you desire to reduce this house, and furthermore, if you 
 desire in this Convention to do something that will be ratified 
 by your constituents when you get home. 
 
 I think I am well qualified I do not say any better than 
 the others here to know the sentiment of the people. There 
 are gentlemen here as well qualified as I am, but my business 
 for forty-five years has been such that I have had occasion 
 to go around through the rural communities of New Hamp- 
 shire, and I think I know something about the sentiment of 
 those communities. Whatever you do here must be simply 
 a recognition of that sentiment, as it has got to go to those 
 rural towns to be approved or disapproved by two-thirds vote. 
 I take it that we all want to do something to meet the appro- 
 bation of the people of New Hampshire, so that this Conven- 
 tion shall not be a farce, and I stand here to-day to say, not 
 what is intended for a threat but what seems to be a fact, 
 knowing the sentiment of those towns as I do, that there are 
 but three systems, in my candid judgment, that have been 
 presented here, that will meet the approbation of your con- 
 stituents when you get home, and I will tell you what those 
 are. 
 
 One is the amendment that I had not heard spoken of until 
 it was presented to the Convention, and that is the one that 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 155 
 
 is included in the resolution of the gentleman from Newport, 
 Mr. Barton, based upon the actual voters. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster That is, 165 voters for the first 
 representative that was introduced by Mr. Woodbury of 
 Woodstock? * 
 
 Mr. Scott It is the one introduced by Mr. Woodbury. I 
 have not looked up the figures independently, under that 
 scheme, but I have his figures here, and they vary very little 
 from the results under the resolution introduced by myself. 
 
 If a man wants to know what representation his town is 
 entitled to, under the present system, I can give it; if he 
 wants to know what it would be under an increase of 2,000, 
 I can give it; or of 3,000, I can give it, and I have the tabu- 
 lations by counties as well as by towns. I will give you the 
 figures representing the number of representatives each 
 county would send under an increase of 3,000. And you will 
 remember the tabulation which Mr. Woodbury gave you, un- 
 der his system of actual voters. 
 
 Rockingham County 34 
 
 Strafford 
 
 Belknap 
 
 Carroll 
 
 Merrimack 
 
 Hillsborough 
 
 Cheshire 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 Grafton 
 
 Coos 
 
 23 
 14 
 11 
 35 
 56 
 18 
 7 
 
 26 
 16 
 
 Making 240 under the system of an additional represen- 
 tative for each 3,000 increase in the inhabitants, and leaving, 
 as of course it does, the old town system precisely as it is now, 
 with 600 for the first representative. 
 
 If 271 is as small as you desire to have this house, the sys- 
 tem presented here by the gentleman from Newport, Mr. 
 Barton, which is based upon a population of 600 for the first 
 representative and 2.000 for the second, would seem to an- 
 
156 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 swer the purpose. If that is too large a house, I know of 
 no other system by which you can reduce it so fairly and pr?- 
 serve the rights of the towns throughout the state, than 
 having 3,000 necessary for the second representative. It 
 seems to me that it is necessary to preserve the town system, 
 in order that the amendments be accepted and the object of 
 this Convention here accomplished. I take it there is no 
 one here but what wants what is fair and right. I have con- 
 versed with the gentlemen from the cities, and some of them 
 have said to me that the cities would suffer wrongfully under 
 these tabulations. But you will note that they will not suffer 
 more than the towns. My own town would have but one 
 representative, and would lose one. Hillsborough would lose 
 one representative, Goffstown would lose one representative, 
 and many of the towns in this state, falling a little short of 
 3,000, would lose one representative. Can you say that the 
 cities will lose more in proportion? We are here to reduce 
 the house, and there is no other way so just and fair as this; 
 there is none other that will meet the wishes of the people so 
 that when it is submitted to the people it will be ratified, 
 and your doings will not come to naught. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster Mr. Chairman, may I ask, through 
 you, if there was a resolution presented by some one in regard 
 to this same matter, which I think, pertains to the system as 
 it prevails in Connecticut and Vermont that is, one repre- 
 sentative from each town and ward. Mr. Holman of Hills- 
 borough is the one which, I think, introduced it, and I should 
 like to have that plan explained to us by the gentleman who 
 introduced it. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I do not desire to address the com- 
 mittee at this time on the general subject, but in response 
 to the suggestion of the gentleman from Lancaster, in the 
 absence of the gentleman from Hillsborough, I think I can 
 give the statistics he desires. There are 225 towns, and there 
 are eleven cities, and the eleven cities have sixty-six wards, 
 so that would make a house of 291 members. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 157 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster That is Connecticut. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Practically the Connecticut system. 
 So, if every town and ward in the state be represented by 
 one, we should have a house that consisted of 291. 
 
 The Chairman In the absence of other business, I will 
 request the clerk, for the information of the committee, to 
 read section two, article four of the Constitution of the state 
 of Maine, which provides for a house of representatives in 
 that state. 
 
 (The clerk reads.) 
 
 The Chairman And also, unless there is objection, I desire- 
 the clerk to read section five of the Constitution of Khode- 
 Island. 
 
 (The clerk reads.) 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord It has seemed to me, during the 
 progress of this discussion so far, that we are not making the 
 headway we should, if we first determine whether this Con- 
 vention desires to -reduce the house of representatives, and if 
 so, how much. It does seem to me that it would be better, 
 first, to decide upon the number which should constitute the 
 house of representatives. 
 
 Now I am in favor, personally, of a horizontal reduction 
 to 100. I believe it would be a business proposition to reach 
 that decision, so that there could be no doubt what the size of 
 the house is to be, whether the legislature need be more than 
 fourteen times as large as that of the state of New York, in 
 proportion to the population, or not. Will some one rise and 
 tell me why the state of New Hampshire needs fourteen times 
 more men, in proportion to its population, to represent it in 
 its legislature, than the great state of New York, with a popu- 
 lation of nearly six millions ? That state has a house of about 
 150, and if we reduce our house to 150, we should then have 
 fourteen times as large a representation as New York has. 
 
 Now I understand the tenacity of the people of New 
 
158 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Hampshire for the old institutions which have come down to 
 us from our fathers. I can remember when there was the 
 same tenacity manifested in retaining the school district 
 system, when each school district was a kingdom by itself. I 
 remember, when a boy, of hearing the Hon Nathaniel Baker 
 use the whole power of his eloquence to induce the then No. 
 9 district of Concord, N. H., not to consolidate and make a 
 union district; I remember how strongly he urged them to 
 retain their independence and their individuality; the old 
 district system died hard. But it is dead, and who would 
 bring it to life again? 
 
 I believe Mr. Lyford of Concord has taken the boldest step 
 which is likely to meet with the approval of this Convention, 
 in reducing this house about 100, and that if we go to the 
 people with this proposition, it will be one that they will ratify 
 all but unanimously. It would reduce the legislative ex- 
 penses so that we could spend more money elsewhere, where 
 it is badly needed. I wish it were within the power of this 
 body to appropriate annually $50,000 for good roads in the 
 country districts, and if we could do that by a Constitutional 
 amendment, as is done in some states, I should be heartily 
 in favor of it. 
 
 I am in favor of the reduction of the expenses, both of our 
 legislature, and by doing away with Constitutional Conven- 
 tions, in order that we may spend money more liberally in 
 other directions in the state of New Hampshire. There 
 faces us, and must continue to face us, the question of better 
 roads and better schools, if we are to keep pace with our sister 
 states in those matters. We are not facing any theory, but 
 facts. We need improvements in our roads, and in our com- 
 mon schools, and if we could secure such an amendment as 
 that by the delegates of this Convention, and its ratification 
 by the people, it would certainly be doing a good thing for 
 the state. 
 
 Now if we were to divide the state into 300 districts, 
 according to the population, I may be wrong about it, but 
 I am inclined to think that such a radical measure as that is 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 159 
 
 more likely to meet with approval by the people than any 
 system we can get through the Convention by discussing 
 town lines, etc. If we obliterated the lines of the school dis- 
 tricts, and did not suffer by it, why cannot we obliterate town 
 lines in the matter of representation. I believe firmly that 
 if this Convention adopted that idea, and the people approved 
 of it, in a few years there would be as few people who would 
 think of going back to the town system as there are now 
 people who would think of going back to the district school 
 system. We have got at some time or other to take this step, 
 and if we do not take it now, some other Convention will 
 do it. 
 
 I know the time will come when the legislature of New 
 Hampshire will be reduced 100 and why not make the prop- 
 osition now, and submit it to the people, and give them our 
 reasons for it, and there are reasons and good reasons for 
 doing it. We want to manage the affairs of this state as a 
 great corporation would manage its affairs. We want to 
 reduce expenses where we can without injury, and put the 
 money thus saved into enterprises that will do the most good. 
 
 I do not intend to iake up the time of this Convention and 
 did not intend to take the floor at this time to discuss this 
 matter, but I wish to express my conviction that we are 
 wasting time in not first deciding the number to which the 
 house of representatives should be reduced, and then it will 
 be in order to discuss the way and manner by which that 
 reduction can be made. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth I did not intend to make 
 any talk upon the question now before the committee, but it 
 seems to me that it is settled by the gentlemen who have 
 spoken upon the various propositions that have been sub- 
 mitted, that it is the policy of the Convention to reduce the 
 number of representatives in our legislature, but I do not 
 think it is the policy to reduce it very much. I think the 
 sentiment among the different sections of the state, from 
 which I have been able to get information, seems to be that 
 
160 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 it ought to be reduced about 100, or so as to bring it down 
 to about 300, and that our senate should also be increased to 
 about 50. That would bring our house and senate nearer in 
 proportion to the house and senate of other states, that have 
 been referred to in this committee, than it now is. I do not 
 think it is the purpose of the Convention to reduce the house 
 to 200 at this time. I do not think it would be policy to at- 
 tempt it, because we have got to get a two-thirds vote of the 
 people to ratify any action that we take here. 
 
 I, myself, do not believe in a small house. It is stated that 
 the great state of New York has a very small house of repre- 
 sentatives, while we have a very large number of repre- 
 sentatives. There is one thing that New Hampshire can 
 boast of, that is, that it has the largest house of representa- 
 tives in this country, and if we have got anything larger than 
 any other state, we do not want to part with it just now. 
 
 I think that the legislation of this state compares favor- 
 ably with the legislation of the great state of New York, 
 about which we have heard so much. I believe that the 
 safety of our people depends upon a large house of repre- 
 sentatives as much as upon any other one thing, and I also 
 believe that the state of New Hampshire is wedded to the 
 town system, and I do not think the people want to exchange 
 it for the district system at this time. 
 
 It may be, that at some time in the future, our people may 
 think a district system better for them, but I do not think 
 it is what we need to-day, and I believe in letting future Con- 
 ventions take care of that, if that time ever arises. Any 
 attempt by us to agree upon a system, that will last for all 
 time, will certainly fail. 
 
 Various suggestions have been made here, and numerous 
 resolutions have been introduced before the committee, but 
 I think that the resolution introduced by my friend from 
 Newport, Mr. Barton, for a reduction of the members of the 
 legislature, is better than any other that has been presented. 
 I think, however, that there should be one amendment to 
 that. I think the unit should be increased from 600 to 800, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 161 
 
 so that a town with less than 800 inhabitants w~ould not be 
 entitled to one representative all the time. I may be in 
 error upon this point., but that is my opinion. I do not know 
 as it would be what a majority of this committee believe in, 
 and would want to report, but, if that were done, we would 
 then have 111 towns in this state that would send one repre- 
 sentative only a proportionate part of the time, which would 
 be an addition, if I have correctly estimated it, of twenty-two 
 towns to those which are now known as classed towns. That 
 would be a concession on the part of those towns as great as 
 it would be on the part of the large towns and cities, to make 
 reduction by increasing the number for the second and 
 third representative to 2,000, which I believe to be the desire 
 of the Convention. 
 
 I have heard so many figures and estimates made bj 
 various members here, that I am at a loss to say exactly 
 what should be done. I think, however, that we have made 
 fine progress so far, and have gained a great amount of 
 information upon this subject, and, after a little time to 
 think these matters over, I have no doubt that we can formu- 
 late a resolution, which" will reduce the house of represen- 
 tatives 100 in number, or approximately that, so as to have 
 a house composed of about 300 members; and then we should 
 increase our senate to about fifty, and I think that we would 
 then have no difficulty, when we go before the people, in 
 getting such amendments adopted. I do not think it is now 
 contemplated that we are to make an amendment which is 
 to last for all time, and, it seems to me, that it cannot be 
 supposed by anybody of common sense that we are to make 
 an amendment which will last longer than thirty years, be- 
 cause, in thirty years, conditions will change, population will 
 change, and almost everything is liable to change. The 
 inhabitants of this state thirty years hence will, without 
 doubt, want to call another Convention to amend the Consti- 
 tution, and I believe in leaving something for them to do, 
 when that time arrives. If we can retain the town system, 
 and reduce the house to 300 members, we shall then have 
 done our full duty. 
 11 
 
162 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover I do not propose at this time to 
 enter into any lengthy discussion, hut, like the gentleman 
 who has preceded me, I have "been trying to determine in my 
 own mind what seems to he best. 
 
 Now, following in the line of what he has said, and what 
 has been heard by me from others in this Convention, it 
 seems that a reduction to about 300 is more satisfactory than 
 any other. That may be too large, but from what I have 
 heard it is apparently all right. That brings us, then, to 
 these two propositions, the question of a district system and 
 the question of a town system. 
 
 I believe, and we all believe, I have yet to learn that there 
 is a dissenting voice, that we should retain the town system, 
 if we can do so. Is there a man in the state of New Hamp- 
 shire who does not desire to do so ? That being a fact, we all 
 stand upon the ground that the people of New Hampshire are 
 in favor of retaining the town system. The gentleman from 
 Concord, Senator Chandler, and the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Lyford, and one or two others have suggested, I 
 think all of them, that when this Convention acts it should 
 act in such a manner that the people would ratify its doings. 
 
 The gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, has proposed 
 the best amendment, and the gentleman from Newport, as I 
 understand, represents a town that will lose one third of its 
 representation under the amendment he proposes, and I think 
 the gentleman from Newport believes that his constituency 
 would consent to such a concession upon their part. It 
 would then have a representation of only two members, in- 
 stead of three. The gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. 
 Scott, represents a town that would lose one half of its repre- 
 sentation, but he and his constituents are well satisfied, and 
 there is no objection heard from him, but on the contrary he 
 has intimated that his town would ratify it. The gentle- 
 man from Lancaster, Mr. Kent, has also expressed his ap- 
 proval of the town system, although his town would lose by 
 means of it, and there are many others here in the same 
 situation who do not object to this proposition. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 163 
 
 Now, gentlemen, is there anyone to say that the city of 
 Manchester, with its present large representation, and the 
 representation it would have under such an amendment, 
 would vote against this ratification; is there any man in this 
 Convention that believes they will? Will the city of Con- 
 cord vote against it? 
 
 There is a sentiment in favor of the town system. One of 
 the generals of Napoleon said that a certain thing was only 
 one of imagination and sentiment. " Sentiment and imagi- 
 nation," says the great Napoleon, "rule the world." That 
 sentiment for the town system must be taken into consid- 
 eration in what we do. So far as the town I represent is 
 concerned, it makes no difference whether we have the dis- 
 trict system or the town system as to representation. There 
 will be one representative, and only one, but I believe that 
 that town and others similarly situated, would all prefer to 
 maintain the town system, instead of going to the district 
 system. 
 
 To summarize, it seems to me, it comes apparently to this. 
 The sentiment is to reduce the house of representatives to 
 300; the town system will do it, as well as the district sys- 
 tem, and by the former there will be preserved this system, 
 under which New Hampshire has prospered and been re- 
 spected. 
 
 Mr. Dudley of Colebrook This seems to me to be a sort 
 of an experience meeting, and I want to state my experience, 
 with the rest of the brethren. 
 
 I come from a town that has now two representatives, and 
 by the town system, proposed by the gentleman from New- 
 port, Mr. Barton, we shall lose one of the number; but we will 
 bear it pleasantly, and take our medicine with a smile. I 
 believe thoroughly, from the bottom of my heart, in the town 
 system in the little republics of New Hampshire. 
 
 I am not scared by the size of the house of representatives. 
 In my younger days I used to teach school, and I never saw a 
 big school that did not do better than a small one. The 
 
164 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 gentleman from Concord,, Mr. Lamprey, wants to cut us 
 down so that nobody can go to the representative school but 
 the big scholars, and so he would have a select school. He 
 wants to save the money for roads; haven't we already our 
 new boulevard? He wants to save it for schools; haven't we 
 education enough, when Dartmouth beats Brown at the foot- 
 ball game? 
 
 I think, without further nonsense about it, that the town 
 system is the only one that commends itself to the mind and 
 heart of every person in this house, regardless of the eloquent 
 argument of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford. If 
 we are to have a district system, leaving out some of the de- 
 tails at the encf of his proposed amendment, which to me 
 would be very objectionable, I do not know as we could have 
 anything better than such an amendment as he proposes. 
 But I do not believe that we want the district system at all. 
 
 There seems to be a strong feeling among a majority of the 
 members of the Convention, that we should stick to the old 
 basis of 600 for the first representative, and have the num- 
 ber for the additional representatives larger than at the pres- 
 ent time. Others from the cities and the larger towns seem 
 to think this unfair/but it seems to me that the advantage 
 that the small towns might appear to gain by this basis of 
 600 is fully offset, and more than offset, in the cities, by an 
 excess of population that is not a voting population. 
 
 We all know that in the cities, especially in manufacturing 
 cities, the proportion of women and children to the number 
 of voters is much larger than in the country, and in making 
 up the increase for representation, the cities can count every 
 man, woman, and child, and reckon them in its population, 
 for the purpose of fixing the number of representatives to be 
 sent to the legislature. 
 
 The small towns are made up mostly of native stock, and 
 nearly all the men over twenty-one years of age are voters; 
 whereas, in the cities, there is a large class of unnaturalized 
 foreigners who do not vote, but still are counted as among 
 the population. I say, therefore, that the discrepancy occa- 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 165 
 
 sioned by increasing the number of persons for the addi- 
 tional representative is more than corrected by the number 
 of those in the cities who are not a part of the voting popu- 
 lation. 
 
 I do not believe in putting this matter on a basis of votes, 
 or ratable polls. We are all acquainted with the methods of 
 making up the check-lists at the present time. These lists 
 are stuffed now, and if necessary to stuff them more, they 
 would be stuffed more. Let us get down to the basis of the 
 United States census, and upon that basis try to present 
 something to the people that they will be satisfied with, and 
 when we get home, let us all set ourselves up as school- 
 masters and teach every voter that he ought to vote for 
 whatever is here adopted. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin Before this Convention closes for 
 the day, it seems to me the attention of this body ought to 
 be called to the fact that if the rural towns have any advan- 
 tage under the present situation, it is only on account of the 
 fact that the large towns and cities have not availed them- 
 selves of the privilege of having the same representation that 
 these small towns enjoy. Under the present Constitution, 
 if the cities which had been chartered in the last ten years 
 had, prior to the last census, divided themselves into wards 
 of 600 inhabitants each, they might have enjoyed double tin; 
 representation that they have to-day. If the city of Man- 
 chester was divided into wards of 600 each, they might have 
 nearly fifty additional representatives, over what they have 
 to-day. If the city of Franklin had been disposed to avail 
 itself of this privilege, it might have to-day ten represen- 
 tatives instead of five. 
 
 I call your attention to this for two reasons: First, our 
 friends that live in the rural districts ought to appreciate the 
 fact that this matter of representation is not a matter that 
 the people of the large towns and cities have thought was of 
 very great moment, because none of them have availed them- 
 selves of the privilege they now have under the Constitution 
 
166 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 as it is. My second reason is, that you may bear this in mind 
 when you come to revise the Constitution, in determining how 
 you wish to revise it. If you go on the basis presented in 
 several bills, of having 600 for the first representative, and a 
 larger mean increase for the other representatives, and do 
 not limit the size of the house of representatives, you are 
 going to come out in a few years with a house as large as you 
 have it to-day. 
 
 It is my opinion that the only way to fix this is to fix abso- 
 lutely in the Constitution the number that the house shall 
 consist of. 
 
 I, too, gentlemen, am in favor of making this body as large 
 as practicable. I do not think that we can afford to cut it 
 down below 300. If we do there will be great danger that 
 our action here will not be approved by the people. I be- 
 lieve the way to do this, and the only way, is that provided 
 in the amendment presented by the gentleman from Concord, 
 Mr. Lyford, fixing the size of the house absolutely. 
 
 Then, the next thing that comes up is whether the basis 
 should be on population or the number of voters. I do not 
 think there is much difference in the sentiment of this Con- 
 vention in regard to that. I think the people want popu- 
 lation as the basis of representation. They have already had 
 a former experience, based upon ratable polls, or taxpayers, 
 as a basis, which they abandoned. It is such a system as 
 they would not want to return to at this time. The basis of 
 voters would be a varying basis; would be a basis which would 
 change from year to year, and might be changed, and always 
 would be changed, by the supervisors of the town, in accord- 
 ance with their political views and their considerations of 
 expediency. I do not think it worth while to spend much 
 time on that point, because I think it is settled in the minds 
 of the members of this Convention that the basis of repre- 
 sentation must be by population. 
 
 Now the other question is, whether we shall continue the 
 town system or the district system. I am in favor of pre- 
 serving the town system, so far as it can be preserved, and I 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 167 
 
 think that is the sentiment of the large majority in this 
 body; but when we come to consider it, there is not a great 
 difference between the method of representation by towns 
 and the method of representation by districts, as to the re- 
 sults. I have examined the bill of the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Lyford, and I see that it provides that towns and 
 wards shall be divided into voting districts, so that the aver- 
 age of population will be 1,370. I take it that under that 
 bill every town and ward that had 1,370 population would 
 have one representative; if it had double that amount, it 
 would have two representatives, and it would be a district on 
 that basis. I think the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Ly- 
 ford, would himself agree to amendments to his bill that 
 would preserve this independence of the towns and wards, 
 so far as it can be preserved. I think, probably, it would be 
 well to provide an amendment to that bill, that where towns 
 and wards agree on their basis of representation, they would 
 not be classified. That is, take it, for instance, in relation to 
 a ward in the city that I represent. That ward would have 
 one representative, and a margin of 1,000 or 1,200, not 
 enough for another representative. It is my opinion that 
 that ward would rather take one representative than be classed 
 with another town or ward and take its chances in having 
 two. So, from that ward there would be a surplus of about 
 1,000, which would not be represented by the represen- 
 tative from that ward; and it seems to me that the bill of the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, as presented, might in 
 some way be amended so as to preserve the town and ward 
 system so far as possible. I did not mention, I think, that 
 such surplus population as I have referred to in any large 
 town or ward might be credited and divided among the 
 smaller towns and wards. 
 
 It certainly cannot be urged against this bill presented for 
 a district system, that it is not perfectly fair, perfectly equal. 
 It takes the counties, first, on the basis of population, and 
 divides the representatives among those counties in propor- 
 tion to their population. The house of representatives can 
 
168 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 never go above 300, and if your population increases in the 
 next ten years, it simply changes your ratio. I think that if 
 that bill was amended, so as to preserve, as far as possible, the 
 town and ward lines, and thus retain the town system where 
 it can be retained, it would be the best measure that could be 
 adopted by this Convention. The bill adequately meets the 
 situation and is the only basis on which we can arrive at a 
 permanent solution of this question, as it seems to me. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I wish the gentleman from Frank- 
 lin would elaborate a little more fully that point in the 
 measure which he put out to the public before this Con- 
 vention sat, in regard to the distribution of the surplus popu- 
 lation. He has touched upon it here, but I should like to 
 have him elaborate it a little more fully. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin I might say here that I had given 
 this subject some study and had made up my mind substan- 
 tially in regard to this matter before I saw the bill intro- 
 duced by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford. 
 
 I came to an independent conclusion that it would not be 
 safe to reduce the size of this house below 300, and I then 
 tried to work out the matter of representation by towns and 
 wards, but could not do so by strictly adhering to the town 
 system. It is my idea that under practically such a bill as 
 the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, has introduced, 
 with certain amendments that might be made to it, the house 
 could be kept at the number of 300, and at the same time the 
 town and ward system, based upon population, could be main- 
 tained to a large extent. Under his bill, a population of 
 1,370 would have one representative; in order to have two 
 representatives, it must have twice that population; and in 
 order to have three representatives, three times that popu- 
 lation, etc. 
 
 Now a town or ward would naturally have a surplus popu- 
 lation over and above what would be necessary to give it a 
 representation of one or two representatives, as the case 
 might be, and that surplus population should be applied for 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 169 
 
 the benefit of other towns and wards in the county, provided 
 the total number of representatives from that county should 
 not exceed the total number allowed, which is allowed to it 
 under the bill as introduced. On this basis, the city of Frank- 
 lin would have a representation of three, and a surplus popu- 
 lation of about 3,000, which would go to the benefit of the 
 smaller adjoining towns. 
 
 In thinking it over, I think that in the county of Merri- 
 mack there would be such a surplus population of about 
 7,000, and that surplus population could be distributed 
 around among small towns of this county, which would giv-3 
 those a representative where, otherwise, they would not have 
 one. You will find in every large ward and town that there 
 would be a large surplus in population above what would 
 probably entitle the town or ward to a representative and 
 that surplus could be distributed or credited to the smaller 
 towns and wards, and in that way they would help out. They 
 would have a great advantage over what would be their repre- 
 sentation on a basis of their actual population, and still your 
 house would never increase above the number to which you 
 should limit it. 
 
 Mr. Smith of New Hampton I would like to inquire of 
 the gentleman from Franklin, if he believed his town would 
 make a present of all the surplus population to some other 
 town? 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin My idea would be this: As I 
 understand the bill introduced by the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Lyford, it provides that each county is entitled to 
 such a number of representatives as its population bears to 
 the whole number. I believe that his bill could be easily 
 amended so that each town or ward would be entitled to 
 representation according to its proportion of the population, 
 and then the surplus that was left over should be allotted by 
 the legislature in some way to the smaller towns, if they didn't 
 choose to be classed with other towns. This would be fair 
 
170 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 and equitable and would preserve to a large extent the town 
 system. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua I would like to inquire of the 
 gentleman from Franklin, I understood you to say that you 
 lived in a ward that would be entitled to one representative 
 on 1 the basis of 1,370 population to each representative, and 
 that there would be a surplus of about 1,000? 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin That is one of the wards in my 
 city. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua I wish the gentleman would 
 explain to the committee in what way that surplus of 1,000 
 should be distributed throughout the county of Merrimack. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin The house of representatives 
 would do it as they now apportion the classed towns in the 
 state. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
 I believe thoroughly in the town system, although I have the 
 honor to represent one of the wards of the city of Nashua. 
 We must, in my opinion, have the towns of New Hampshire 
 retain their individuality. The power which those towns 
 to-day enjoy must not be taken away. 
 
 Something has been said during the discussion in regard 
 to the system which now prevails in Massachusetts. I have 
 given some time to the consideration of that system, and 
 have observed the working of it in that commonwealth 
 personally. I am informed from reliable sources of some 
 very great objections to the system, and, as appears to my 
 mind, the very same objections are applicable to the plan 
 suggested by the gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Leach. 
 Three towns of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the 
 border-line of my city, are classed in a district. The gentle- 
 man who is now presiding over this Convention inquired 
 this morning as to whether the towns of New Hampshire 
 could all be represented under any possible town system, and 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 171 
 
 the answer was " No." But the effect in Massachusetts is 
 that there are towns under their system absorbed by the other 
 towns in the district, and prevented from any individual 
 representation at all. That is the serious objection to your 
 district system. The town of Litchfield, as I remember, is 
 entitled to individual representation, under the present 
 arrangement, once in four years. Better that they should 
 have representation once in six years, than that they should be 
 classed with Hudson, Londonderry, and other adjoining 
 towns, all of which are larger, and be deprived of a repre- 
 sentative from their own town. 
 
 What reason is there for a change to-day? Why this 
 discussion? Simply because the state house is not large 
 enough. No one complains of the character of our legis- 
 lation; no one complains that the legislation of New Hamp- 
 shire does not compare favorably with the legislation of any 
 other state in this Union, and certainly it is not open to the 
 criticism, and never has been, that the legislatures of some 
 of the states which have been mentioned here to-day have been 
 criticised and condemned for throughout this country. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, if it is because we have got to enlarge 
 the state house, if that is the only reason, then let us consider 
 that one proposition. I believe in the towns, and the nearer 
 you get to the soil the better the men. I rely upon the 
 representatives of the towns to guide us, and when I say 
 that, I am not reflecting upon the representatives of the 
 cities. 
 
 I hope, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we shall retain the 
 town system, and that we shall retain the present law, rather 
 than adopt the district system, and rob the towns of New 
 Hampshire of the individuality which they enjoy to-day. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord I have voted under the district 
 system of Massachusetts for twenty years, and I wish to 
 make this explanation: 
 
 Under that system three towns, the towns of Easton, Eayn- 
 ham, and Mansfield, were classed together as one district^ 
 
172 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 and they alternated, in proportion to the population, in 
 sending a representative, or in sending a man from each 
 town as a representative in the different years. In that 
 way, the voters of the town voted every year, and they also 
 had their proportion of their citizens as representative. Is 
 not that a great deal better than it is to vote for a repre- 
 sentative and be represented in the legislature only once in 
 five years, because some of the towns in New Hampshire 
 are represented only one fifth of the time there are four 
 years out of five that they are not represented at all and, 
 as it seems to me, the voters and inhabitants in those towns 
 are practically dead four years out of five, so far as the 
 legislature of the state is concerned. Under the district 
 system they would be alive each and every year, and in 
 every year they would be fully represented in the legislature. 
 
 A Delegate I had just as soon not be represented at all 
 as to be represented by a man not from my town. What 
 good does it do me to be represented by a man whose interests 
 belong to another town, and* who does not help our town? 
 I would also like to ask the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Lamprey, if it is not better to be resurrected once in five 
 years than to be dead forever. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord You would not be dead at all; 
 that is the very point I was making. 
 
 Mr. Hadley of Temple Gentlemen of the Convention, I 
 did not intend to enter into this discussion this afternoon, 
 although I did wish to have a word to say at some time before 
 the vote was taken. But I feel so much encouraged by what 
 I have heard here since dinner that it is actually impossible 
 for me to keep my seat any longer. 
 
 I am thoroughly in sympathy with preserving the town 
 system. That is what I was sent up here for. I had no 
 idea of coming, but my town, which is a small town, sent 
 me here because they knew I was always a fighter for the 
 small towns and the rural communities. I did not suppose 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 173 
 
 that we were to have any assistance from any of the lawyers 
 or statesmen, or those who are considered the big men from 
 the cities; but when the gentleman from Somersworth, Mr. 
 Edgerly, and the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. Hamblett, 
 and the gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. Kent, came up here 
 and told us what they were going to do, I tell you that we 
 felt encouraged. 
 
 It has been my privilege and pleasure to meet with the 
 people in the rural sections of the state within the last six 
 months, of every town in our county, and I have taken the 
 occasion to talk with the people with reference to reducing 
 the house of representatives. I tell you that any system that 
 is proposed here and carried, even by this Convention, to 
 the people, which does not preserve the town system, will 
 never be ratified by the people of New Hampshire, in my 
 opinion. I had prepared some figures, with reference to 
 this matter, but I will refrain from putting them in at this 
 time, at least. I do believe that a population of 600 for the 
 first representative is all right, and will be satisfactory to 
 all these small towns. We are represented once or twice in 
 six years, as it is at the present time. My own town only 
 sends a representative one half of the time, but we are 
 satisfied with that. I believe that it is all right to have 
 2,000 inhabitants for the next representative; I believe, with 
 my friend from Peterborough, Mr. Scott, that perhaps 3,000 
 would be better, but that would be a little harder of ratifi- 
 cation by the people. We do not want to come here and 
 do anything that will be entirely undone. So I do hope 
 that the resolution of the gentleman from Newport, Mr. 
 Barton, when the time comes for voting, will be adopted, 
 and I know the people of New Hampshire will stand by and 
 ratify it, and I believe that it will be the most acceptable of 
 any proposition. 
 
 Above all, let us not go into the district system in New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 Mr. Fairbanks of Cornish Gentlemen of the Convention, 
 I have no doubt but every man in this Convention has, in his 
 
174 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 heart, a feeling of love and pride for the old state of New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 We were sent here because our constituents believed we 
 would do what is best for the whole state, but there are repre- 
 sented here so many different interests that we could not 
 expect, as it would be impossible, for all of us to think alike 
 as regards what ought to be done. 
 
 But it seems to me that it is for the interest of our state 
 that we should not adopt the district system. 
 
 I think I fully appreciate the benefit the cities and large 
 towns are to our state, and I believe their interests should be 
 protected. It is true that under some of the propositions 
 proposed for the preservation of the town system, the cities 
 will not have representation in proportion to their population 
 that some of the small towns would; but I think that is fully 
 ofiset by the fact that the people of our country towns are 
 largely composed of that class of people that were born, 
 brought up, and have always lived in the old Granite state, 
 who have always taken an interest in New Hampshire, and 
 expect their children and grandchildren to do the same. I 
 would not like to have the people of my county, which is 
 composed mostly of such people, offset on an equal, or nearly, 
 basis with those people who come to the city, with large 
 families, to work for a short time in the factories and mills, 
 and then return to the places from which they came. Those 
 people have but little interest in our public affairs, and have 
 no part of that pride and patriotism for our state, and nation, 
 inspired by living a lifetime under the inspiring influences 
 of the star spangled banner, and within the borders of the 
 grandest, most enterprising and powerful nation on the face 
 of the earth. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Acworth When I came to Concord, I 
 little thought that I should stand up and address such an 
 assembly as this. I thought it would not do, that they would 
 say in my town, " Why, here, here is Mitchell that has gone 
 down to Concord and spoke." What a thing that would be 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 175 
 
 to go back home! But getting encouragement, as T 
 from my friends here, I have gotten up to announce my 
 sentiments, as fully and strongly as I think it is necessary. 
 
 I respect this city, and all the cities of New Hampshire. 
 We cannot do without these gentlemen from the cities; they 
 are what we want. But I want to ask you, gentlemen, can 
 these city people do without us country people? Can they 
 get along without us? We have nothing up in the country 
 where we live that encourages us so much as the idea that 
 we can be represented, that a man from our own town can 
 represent us in the legislature. That is what we aspire to 
 to come here to the legislature, representing our town. We 
 have, gentlemen, no city offices to fill; we do not have a 
 mayor or councilmen, by which we can honor our men; and 
 so, gentlemen, we can have no ambitions in that direction at 
 all. But we are working in digging and tilling the soil, and 
 in doing that, we are thinking all the time how we are going 
 to be represented in the legislature at some time. Why, 
 gentlemen, this is a great question. The very moment that 
 you change this representation from what it is now; if you 
 cut New Hampshire up into districts, or if you put the basis 
 for the first representative at 800; if you do not keep the basis 
 where it is to-day, there is a majority of my section that will 
 lose all their interest, and you will lose the aid you now get 
 from the rural towns in my section. 
 
 Now I say that I am in favor of the basis of representation 
 being kept where it is, at 600 for the first representative, and 
 as to the increasing mean, you can put it, gentlemen, as you 
 see fit. My idea would be 2,000 for that, and that would 
 reduce your house just as much as you ask for. Perhaps it 
 would be better to put it at 3,000, or it may be possible that 
 2,500 is best, but that I am willing to leave to you. I have 
 not made any figures, to see how those different methods 
 would result. We people that come down from away up 
 there in Sullivan county ought not to be expected to do this 
 figuring as quickly and as well as you. Of course, we are 
 not in it with you, in that respect, but we do want to be 
 
176 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 represented in this legislature, and we intend to if we can 
 hold it at 600. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, 
 there has been a notification of a meeting in this hall this 
 afternoon, which I shall not attend. I suppose I would not 
 be allowed to be present, holding the exact views which I do. 
 I have forgotten the exact language of the invitation 
 whether it was an invitation to the delegates from the smaller 
 towns, or an invitation to the delegates in favor of preserving 
 the present town system. I am in favor, as I stated this 
 morning, of the district system, if we can get it. But I 
 should judge from the speeches made here this afternoon,, 
 that the friends of the district system who believe that 
 sooner or later this state will come to a district system will 
 not be in the majority. Even if it were possible to carry the 
 district system by five or ten votes, I would not be in favor 
 of sending such a system, adopted only by that majority in 
 this Convention, to the people of New Hampshire for 
 ratification; because it would be voted down. On the 
 other hand, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, assuming that 
 the delegates from the smaller towns can carry a system which 
 would keep the basis for the first representative at 600, and 
 increase the basis for every other representative to 2,000 
 assuming they can carry it through this Convention I am 
 sure it will not receive the votes of two thirds of the people 
 of New Hampshire. 
 
 There is one suggestion to be made, and that is that the 
 power of the legislature over questions which are being 
 considered is exercised by a majority vote. When you have 
 before the legislature of this state the question whether there 
 shall be a license law, or prohibition, in New Hampshire, 
 the majority of the legislature determines the question, and 
 when that question comes to be voted upon, the small towns 
 of the state have twice as much power as the large towns, or 
 cities have, in proportion to the population. That is to say, 
 a citizen of the small town has twice as much power in the 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1902. 177 
 
 legislature, in deciding that question, as a citizen of the 
 large town or city. This is grossly unjust. 
 
 Yet, Mr. Chairman, there is much sentiment, and justly 
 so, about town representation. It is easy for my eloquent 
 friend from Andover, and my friends from Colebrook, and 
 Acworth, and Nashua, to arouse enthusiasm in its behalf. 
 It is undoubtedly a noble feeling, and one honorable to us, 
 and much may be sacrificed to preserve that system. What I 
 wish to suggest to our friends, who are to meet here after 
 the Convention adjourns to-day, is that they ought to consider 
 whether, if we are to reduce the house of representatives from 
 400 to 300, it should be done wholly at the expense of the 
 large towns. 
 
 The eloquent gentleman from Acworth has told you that 
 the reduction may be made by leaving 600 for the first repre- 
 sentative, and making 2,000 for the second; but he must 
 bear in mind that one third of the people of this state can 
 defeat whatever we do. So I suggest that the plan most 
 creditable to us, and the only one likely to be adopted by the 
 people of this state, is the plan that makes some change of 
 figures in the basis of representation for the first repre- 
 sentative. I should not have spoken again this afternoon 
 had I not thought I ought to throw out these ideas for the 
 benefit of those who are to remain here after adjournment. 
 
 Upon the motion of the gentleman from Peterborough, 
 Mr. Scott, the committee arose, to report progress and ask 
 leave to sit again. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton, chairman of the Committee of 
 the Whole, reported that the committee, having had under 
 consideration the resolutions of the gentleman from Wood- 
 stock, Mr. Woodbury, the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Lyford, and the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, and 
 other resolutions, relating to the legislative department of 
 12 
 
178 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the government of our state, reported progress, but that the 
 committee had no recommendations to make, and asked leave 
 to sit again. 
 
 No objection being made, leave was granted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lambert of Manchester, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 FEIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Prayer was offered by Eev. Mr. Dearborn of Eaton. 
 The journal was read and approved. 
 
 Mr. Rogers of Tilton offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article nine, part two of the Constitution, be 
 so amended as to provide for a house of representatives not to 
 exceed in number 300. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Clement of Manchester, the following 
 resolution was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That the President be authorized to appoint a 
 committee of ten, one from each county, on finance, to ap- 
 prove the accounts of the officers of the Convention for their 
 compensation. 
 
 The committee appointed for the purpose of assigning 
 rooms to the several standing committees of the Convention 
 submitted the following report: 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 179 
 
 Committee on Bill of Eights and Executive Department, 
 room No. 4. 
 
 Committee on Legislative Department, senate chamber. 
 Committee on Judicial Department, judiciary room. 
 
 Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution 
 and other Proposed Amendments, room No. 5. 
 
 Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the Peo- 
 ple the Amendments agreed to by the Convention, room 
 No. 8. 
 
 HARRY T. LORD, 
 For the Committee. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester offered the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 Part second of the Constitution, article forty-one, reads as 
 follows: 
 
 " There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall 
 be styled governor of the state of New Hampshire, and whose 
 title shall be His Excellency." 
 
 Move to amend by striking out the words " and whose title 
 shall be His Excellency." 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and other Proposed 
 Amendments. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin offered the following resolution: 
 
 ART. 9. The house of representatives shall consist of 300 
 members. Representation shall be upon the basis of popula- 
 tion of each town and ward at the next preceding census, and 
 the proportion that its population bears to the population 
 of the state. The population requisite for each represen- 
 
180 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tative shall be obtained by dividing the population of the 
 state by 300. 
 
 Towns and w#rds having a greater or less population than 
 give it full representation may unite with other towns and 
 wards for the election of representatives by written agree- 
 ment signed by the selectmen of such towns and wards 
 filed with the secretary of state which shall continue in force 
 until the next census. 
 
 ART. 10. Such towns and wards as have insufficient popu- 
 lation to elect a representative and do not file written agree- 
 ments to be classed with other towns and wards as above 
 provided, may send representatives such proportion of the 
 time as their population bears to the required number. The 
 sessions at which such towns and wards shall elect shall be 
 fixed by the general court and shall not be changed until 
 after the next census. 
 
 The legislature may also apply the surplus population of 
 towns and wards above what would count in its representa- 
 tion to other towns and wards having insufficient population 
 to give it representation, provided, that the number of repre- 
 sentatives in any county shall not be greater than the pro- 
 portion to which it would be entitled by its population of 
 the last preceding census. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 referred to Committee of the Whole and ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Madden of Keene offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That part second, article nine of the Constitution, 
 be amended by striking out the words " eighteen hundred," 
 in the eighth line of said article, and inserting in place 
 thereof the words "twenty-eight hundred," and by striking 
 out the words " two thousand," in the tenth line of said sec- 
 tion, and inserting in place thereof the words " two thou- 
 sand," so that said section as amended shall read: 
 
 " ART. 9. There shall be, in the legislature of this state, 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 181 
 
 a representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded 
 upon principles of equality, and, in order that such repre- 
 sentation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, every 
 town, or place entitled to town privileges, and wards of cities 
 having eight hundred inhabitants by the last general census 
 of the state, taken by authority of the United States or of 
 this state, may elect one representative; if twenty-eight hun- 
 dred such inhabitants, may elect two representatives; and so 
 proceeding in that proportion, making two thousand such 
 inhabitants the mean increasing number for any additional 
 representative; provided, that no town shall be divided or 
 the boundaries of the wards of any city so altered as to 
 increase the number of representatives to which such town 
 or city may be entitled by the next preceding census; and 
 provided further, that, to those towns and cities which since 
 the last census have been divided or had their boundaries or 
 ward lines changed, the general court in session next before 
 these amendments shall take effect shall equitably apportion 
 representation in such manner that the number shall not be 
 greater than it would have been had no such division or alter- 
 ation been made." 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole to 
 be considered with resolutions of like character. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Jones of Manchester, the Convention 
 resolved itself into Committee of the Whole for the consid- 
 eration of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Bow, 
 Mr. Baker, in relation to article six, Bill of Eights. 
 
 Mr. Jones at this point yielded the floor to Mr. Chandler of 
 Concord, who introduced the following order: 
 
 Ordered, that on Wednesday next at 12 o'clock the Con- 
 vention in Committee of the Whole shall vote on the fol- 
 lowing propositions: 
 
 1. The house of representatives shall consist of 300 mem- 
 bers. 
 
182 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 2. The members of the house of representatives shall be 
 elected under a district system. 
 
 3. The number of inhabitants required for the first repre- 
 sentative under the town system shall be ; and the num- 
 ber required for a second representative shall be - . 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the above order was 
 laid upon the table. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester then renewed his motion, which 
 prevailed, and the Convention resolved itself into Committee 
 of the Whole. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Little of Manchester in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
 committee do now arise and recommend to the Convention 
 that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Bow, 
 Mr. Baker, be referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights 
 and Executive Department. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I rise to a point of order on that mo- 
 tion for this reason. When the committee rose yesterday, 
 after having this matter under consideration, there was a 
 motion then pending which should first be decided. That 
 motion was that the committee report the resolution favor- 
 ably, and that motion, I should judge, would take precedence 
 of the motion made by the gentleman from Concord. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Js the gentleman correct in that 
 statement? I do not recollect it in that way, but it is only 
 a matter of memory with me. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow It is a matter of absolute certainty 
 with me, for I made the motion myself. 
 
 The Chairman If the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 183 
 
 is correct in his statements, the chair would rule that the 
 point was well taken. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I have not looked over the rules 
 of the proceedings that have been adopted here in regard 
 to the priority of motions, but it seems to me that it will 
 commend itself to the gentleman from Bow, without raising 
 any question for the Chair to decide, to withdraw his motion, 
 if such is pending, and allow the gentleman from Concord, 
 Mr. Xiles, to present his resolution for consideration, reserv- 
 ing to himself the right to renew that motion prior to any- 
 thing else. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I have not the slightest objection in 
 the world to the consideration of the amendment proposed 
 by the gentleman from Concord. Neither have I the slight- 
 est objection in the world to his making any motion or amend- 
 ment, if that will bring about the object he desires, but his 
 motion was, that we set this article practically aside in the 
 Committee of the Whole, and refer my resolution with 
 his to the Committee on Bill of Eights and Executive De- 
 partment. I am entirely willing that the committee should 
 rise and relieve itself of any further consideration of Mr. 
 ISTiles' amendment, and that it be referred to the committee 
 he suggested, if that is his desire. I have not the slightest 
 objection to anything of that kind, but this motion of mine 
 ought to be considered in this committee. 
 
 (Mr. Baker requests clerk to read his motion.) 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow While I am positive that I made the 
 motion and it was pending, it does not appear in the report 
 of the clerk, and I withdraw the objection that I made to 
 the motion proposed by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 
 Niles. 
 
 The Chairman The question now is upon the motion of 
 
184 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mies, that the committee 
 do now arise and recommend to the Convention that the 
 amendment submitted to the Convention by the gentleman 
 from Bow, Mr. Baker, be referred to the Committee on Bill 
 of Eights and Executive Department. 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord I want to state very briefly the rea- 
 sons for my asking this action on the part of the committee. 
 
 The purport of my motion is that the two resolutions relat- 
 ing to article six of the Bill of Eights, which deals with mor- 
 ality and piety and religious matters, should go together to 
 a committee appointed for the express purpose of considering 
 that very kind of a question. 
 
 An amendment has been introduced by the gentleman from 
 Bow, Mr. Baker, which has been printed and distributed and 
 which redrafts this entire article from beginning to end. 
 Some of the language that formed the original article is 
 retained; a great deal is eliminated, and a great deal that is 
 new is inserted. The changes are not simply changes in 
 language, but some new suggestions are inserted, some new 
 provisions, and some are wholly eliminated. 
 
 I do not suppose there will be found any one who will want 
 to stand up and be counted in favor of retaining the words 
 " evangelical " and " Protestant," and Mr. Baker's amend- 
 ments and mine agree in eliminating those features from 
 article six of the Bill of Eights. But we think differently 
 in this, and this is the principal thing, and is the reason 
 why I think it should go to a small select committee to be 
 there first considered, we think differently on the question 
 whether we shall, as far as possible in every instance, retain 
 the exact phraseology and the exact words put into the Con- 
 stitution at the beginning, or whether we shall come here 
 and try to make it a little better here and a little better there, 
 for the purpose of simply improving the language. 
 
 I do not think we are here to change the Constitution all 
 over, but simply approach it in the most reverent way to add 
 to it what needs to be added, and to take from it what should 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 185 
 
 be taken from it; and this should be done with as little 
 change in the original document as possible. 
 
 We cannot now consider this matter in a Committee of 
 the Whole, as well as it can be considered in a select com- 
 mittee like the one on the Bill of Eights and Executive De- 
 partment, which is composed of men practised in the exact 
 use of the English language, and of men having a wide knowl- 
 edge of the decisions of our courts with reference to the 
 Constitution. 
 
 The courts have had this matter before them a number of 
 times, and it has been the subject of several most important 
 decisions, and in all of those decisions the exact language of 
 the Constitution has been considered and construed; and it 
 is extremely important that we should not, by modifications, 
 slight or otherwise, change the words that have thus been 
 construed, and perhaps cause the courts to consider these 
 modifications and make new constructions of them. 
 
 Now it seems to me that the whole thing should go to the 
 Committee on Bill of Eights. They can take it, and they 
 can consider what changes are proposed in the language, and 
 whether there is any reason for such changes, and if so, what 
 reasons; they can ask introducers of the amendments to 
 appear before them and to advocate their proposition and 
 state what reasons they have for making the proposed changes. 
 And then they can strike out this or that word, and in that 
 way get it into a shape in which they can report it to the 
 Convention, and all the Convention will then have to do is 
 to agree to the language. 
 
 This is not an attempt to squelch any one or to obtain any 
 undue advantage. We will then have all the time we want 
 for debate, and it will be in a shape in which we can debate it 
 to a better advantage than we now can. 
 
 Then there are certain new things which have been intro- 
 duced in the resolution offered by the gentleman from Bow, 
 Mr. Baker, one of which is a provision that " no public money 
 or property shall be appropriated for, or applied to, the uses 
 of any religious society, sect, or denomination, or the support 
 
186 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of any religious establishment." That is right, but I say that 
 we have that provision in the Constitution now. It was put 
 in in 1876 in article eighty-two. That is my position, but 
 Mr. Baker does not agree with me that the language means 
 the same thing. Can we here sift that question down and 
 go through the language word by word and syllable by syl- 
 lable, as it can be done by a select committee appointed for 
 that express purpose? 
 
 Then there is a proposition as to witnesses and jurors, to 
 the effect that no religious test shall be required and that a 
 witness or juror shall not be rendered incompetent on account 
 of his opinions on matters of religious belief. We want that, 
 of course, but how are we going to know whether it is not so 
 now, and how are we going to know whether there are not, 
 perhaps, some other declarations in our Constitution which 
 are based on religious grounds which should also be removed? 
 
 This - committee by discussing these questions between 
 themselves, bound by no rules of order, can work these propo- 
 sitions out very much better than can be done in a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, and when they get it licked into shape, 
 they can put it before the Convention in a form that all can 
 agree to. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Before the gentleman sits down, 
 I would like to ask him if there is not involved a principle 
 between the two resolutions on this word " Christian " 
 whether that should be retained or not whether that is not 
 taken out by the amendment of the gentleman from Bow, 
 Mr. Baker, and left in in yours. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord No, there is no word " Christian " 
 in the present article which is left in. The present article 
 provides that " every denomination of Christians " are equally 
 under the protection of the law. My amendment proposes 
 that should be stricken out, and that is of course approved 
 by Mr. Baker, and that the words "all persons' 5 shall be 
 substituted. I do not understand that there is any question 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 187 
 
 there. But there is another question, and it is a question, 
 and the only one as far as I can see upon which there will 
 ultimately be a debate. That is whether the word " evan- 
 gelical," to be stricken out, shall be replaced by the word 
 " Christian." That probably will come up for debate when 
 we have gotten it into some such shape that by a definite 
 and exact amendment it can be taken out or left in. Then 
 it can be done with intelligence instead of talking at random 
 all over the lot, the way we have to do where there are two 
 separate resolutions, as here. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Would the gentleman insist upon 
 retaining that word " Christian ?" That seems to be the 
 issue between the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, and the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mies, that is, whether you 
 will make that broad enough so that Jews, for instance, will 
 be included? 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord I do not quite understand. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord You say that there may be a ques- 
 tion that if the word " evangelical " is stricken out, whether 
 the word " Christian " should be placed in the Constitution 
 to take the place of that word. The question is, therefore, 
 whether we should retain the use of the words " Christian 
 bodies " or use some other word that would admit Jews and 
 others. 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord The place where it occurs is in the 
 very first clause of article six of the Bill of Eights. The 
 clause is as follows: 
 
 "As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical 
 principles, will give the best security to government," etc. 
 
 The word " evangelical " I would strike out and substitute 
 the word " Christian " therefor. 
 
 I do not, however, desire to argue that question here and 
 
188 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 now. I do not think that there is any way in which we can 
 do it here and now, because we have no definite question be- 
 fore us. We have two amendments in two entirely different 
 forms, and until they are amalgamated by the committee and 
 brought into one form, which is definite, we haven't anything 
 to argue we are talking in the air. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow The real question involved at present 
 is exactly the one which has been developed by the gentle- 
 man from Concord, Mr. Lyford. In making the draft which 
 I had the honor to present some days ago, it was my purpose 
 to rid this article of the Bill of Eights of anything which 
 would be prejudicial to any man's religious views, whether 
 Christian, Mohammedan, or Jew, and I believe it is a right 
 that every man in the state of New Hampshire ought to 
 have, that 'his religion be recognized by the laws as well as 
 that of his neighbor. 
 
 Besides that, there are two or three clauses added by my 
 amendment, as I had the pleasure of expressing to you the 
 other day, which are not included in the amendment offered 
 by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Niles. But the gentle- 
 man himself has to me approved of every one of those clauses, 
 so that cannot be the issue. The whole issue is the insertion 
 of the word " Christian " into this article as proposed by him. 
 
 It is true that the word " Christian " includes Protestants 
 and Catholics, but it is only a little less distasteful than the 
 word " Protestant," because it includes Catholics as well. 
 The principle involved is as absolutely violated by the inser- 
 tion of the word " Christian " as it is by the word " Protest- 
 ant." I am endeavoring to get this Convention to place 
 itself absolutely before the people, and the people before the 
 world, through the Constitution of the state, in a non-partisan 
 attitude. 
 
 The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Niles, said in the course 
 of his remarks, that there is already a clause in the Consti- 
 tution relative to the use of public moneys for sectarian pur- 
 poses. That is true, but it is an entirely different clause than 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 189 
 
 that inserted in my amendment. In article eighty-two of 
 part two there is this proviso: 
 
 " Provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation 
 shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or 
 institutions of any religious sect or denomination." 
 
 That does not say that the property of the state shall not 
 be so used; it does not say that no moneys which come intc* 
 the state treasury in any other way than by taxation shall 
 not be so used; but if my proposed amendment is adopted, it 
 does cut out entirely the use of any public money,, or property 
 being appropriated or applied to the use of any religious 
 society, sect, or denomination, or to support any religious 
 establishment. You will see that there is nothing whatever 
 in the present Constitution to cover the amendment which I 
 have proposed. 
 
 Now I have no personal objection to the adoption of the 
 motion made by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mies, if 
 you see fit to adopt it; but, gentlemen, the whole question is 
 before you, and in the interest of time I do not know of any 
 reason why this committee is not capable of voting on this 
 question when it has all the light obtainable on the subject 
 of amending section six of the Bill of Rights. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord If the motion of the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Mies, were to prevail, I am not saying 
 that I shall support it, I think it should be worded in this 
 way that this amendment be referred to this select com- 
 mittee with instructions to report an amendment in which 
 all sectarian phraseology is stricken out. Would the gentle- 
 man from Concord, Mr. Niles, be willing to put his motion in 
 that form and thus eliminate all need for discussion at this 
 time? 
 
 The Chairman The question is upon the motion of the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mies. It has already been 
 stated. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I move to amend the motion in 
 the form which I stated, so that the committee will under- 
 
190 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 stand its duty. The motion is, as I understand, that Mr. 
 Baker's amendment be referred to the special Committee on 
 Bill of Eights, and I would move to amend by adding the 
 words " with instructions to report an amendment in which 
 all sectarian phraseology is stricken out." 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham I would ask if there is any sec- 
 tarian phraseology in the word " evangelical." It is a word 
 that is employed in all Christian religions at least. 
 
 Mr. Osgood of Nelson Has there been any intoleration or 
 persecution as to religious belief under the Bill of Rights as 
 it stands now? If not, why is there need of any amendment 
 to this article. I would like to know further whether it is 
 the sense of this Convention that we are a Christian nation 
 or not. If this is a Christian nation, and a Christian state, 
 why should we strike the word " Christian " out of our Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord I do not think it is the proper time, 
 with the house only about half filled, to discuss this question 
 now. 
 
 The Chairman It is moved by the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Mies, that the amendment proposed by the gentle- 
 man from Bow, Mr. Baker, that the committee do now arise 
 and recommend to the Convention that the amendment pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, be referred to 
 the standing Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive De- 
 partment; and the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, 
 moves to amend that motion as follows: Amend by adding 
 the following words: "With instructions to report an 
 amendment in which all religious phraseology is stricken 
 out." The question is upon the adoption of the amendment 
 proposed by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford. Is 
 the committee ready for the question? 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord I am afraid that the gentleman 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 191 
 
 from Concord, Mr. Lyford, has bitten off a little more than 
 he meant to, when he asked that all " religious phraseology " 
 be stricken out. It would strike out a great part of the 
 amendment offered by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, 
 which is couched in the language of religion of some sort or 
 other. At any rate, it refers to the Deity, which I suppose 
 is a religious term, and it speaks of public worship and pub- 
 lic instruction in religion. In fact, that is all that the article 
 is for, is the promotion of religious instruction. If their 
 report is to be in a form which shall strike out all religious 
 phraseology, it will strike out the whole article. The gentle- 
 man from Concord, Mr. Lyford, might change it so as to em- 
 body his idea. But as his motion appears now it would 
 seem to go too far. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I understood the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Lyford, to use the word " sectarian " and 
 was prepared to vote upon that motion; but if all reference to 
 religion and all religious phraseology is to be stricken out, 
 that is a proposition of another sort, and is the same propo- 
 sition made by our friend from Nashua, Mr. Everett. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord The suggestion of the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Niles, is a very pertinent one. When I 
 offered the amendment first I used the word " sectarian," but 
 objection was made to that word, and I accepted the sug- 
 gestion of the gentleman from Stratham, Mr. Wingate, that 
 the word " religious " should be used. I now desire to strike 
 out the word " religious " and use the word " sectarian." 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord I would like to ask the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Lyford, whether that would bar the word 
 " Christian," whether he regards the word " Christian " as a 
 sectarian word. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I think the committee will under- 
 stand the amendment when they come to act upon this sub- 
 ject. 
 
192 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Sloan of Woodsville It seems unwise to me to in- 
 struct this committee as to its duties. It practically amounts 
 to our determining the matter before it goes before them for 
 consideration. It seems to me that the special committee 
 to which this matter is referred fully understands the propo- 
 sition, and its seems to me that they should be left free to 
 take these two measures and consider them, and after due 
 consideration to report whichever one they see fit, or draft 
 such another measure as they think best. I hope the amend- 
 ment of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, will not 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord With the consent of the other mem- 
 bers of the committee, I will accept the amendment, under- 
 standing that we will get an opportunity to debate this ques- 
 tion with reference to its precise form when there is a full 
 membership of the Convention. 
 
 The Chairman With the unanimous consent of the com- 
 mittee this can be done. So that the committee will con- 
 sider that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from. 
 Concord, Mr. Lyford, is added to the motion made by the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mies. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I do not rise for the purpose of 
 discussing the question the theological question as to the* 
 difference between " evangelical " and " Christian." That 
 would be going to the merits of the proposition involved. 
 But in view of the fact that we are approaching the Sabbath, 
 the inquiry of the gentleman from Nelson, Mr. Osgood, as : 
 to whether this is a Christian state, is a pertinent one. My 
 answer is that New Hampshire is a Christian state, and is 
 one that treats the faith of all persons alike, whether Jew or 
 Gentile. And this is so because she is a Christian state. As 
 I understand it, the object as expressed in this body, and 
 considered in this informal way, is that the subject matter of 
 the proposed amendments be referred to a standing commit- 
 tee to the end that the standing committee shall proceed in 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 193 
 
 its investigations, having in mind and respecting the informal 
 expression of the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 I desire, and my purpose in rising was, to address a legal 
 question to the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, who is a 
 distinguished lawyer not for the purpose of at all criticising 
 his draft but for the purpose of getting his view upon the 
 question whether or not the proviso already existing in article 
 eighty-two of part two of the Constitution, which was inserted 
 in 1877, as the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Niles, has sug- 
 gested, does not in substance cover what he proposes in the 
 last paragraph of his draft, to which I would invite the atten- 
 tion of the committee. 
 
 " Xo public money or property shall be appropriated for, 
 or applied to, the use of, or the support of, any religious estab- 
 lishment," etc. 
 
 The proviso in the Constitution, article eighty-two, as it 
 stands to-day, is this : " Provided, nevertheless, that no 
 money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for 
 the use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or 
 denomination." I am referring, of course, to article eighty- 
 two, which is for the " encouragement of literature," etc. As 
 I understand the remarks of the gentleman from Bow, Mr. 
 Baker, this morning, his point is that the existing proviso 
 does not include money which may come into the treasury 
 of the state by means other than by taxation. I think his 
 point there may be well taken, but the concrete question I 
 desire to ask is, whether or not it would not be wise to strike 
 from his present draft everything down to the word "prefer- 
 ence," which covers this general subject I am talking about, 
 and insert in the present proviso of article eighty-two, part 
 two, words which will cover the idea, so there shall not be 
 two articles in the Constitution relating to the same general 
 subject, but have it all in one. My suggestion would be to 
 strike that out of the present draft submitted by the gentle- 
 man from Bow, Mr. Baker, commencing with line twenty- 
 one and ending with line twenty-four, and then carry the 
 non-taxation and non-appropriation phraseology over into 
 13 
 
194 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the present proviso of article eighty-two, and insert it there 
 in appropriate language. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow The purpose announced by the gentle- 
 man from Littleton is exactly my purpose. The only differ- 
 ence is the difference of location in the Constitution. Upon 
 that point I have no preference whatsoever. I am perfectly 
 willing that that clause should be taken out in my draft and 
 inserted as an amendment to article eighty-two; but, to my 
 mind, it is of importance that the language of section eighty- 
 two shall be enlarged upon so that there may be no doubt 
 about what is meant by that proviso. 
 
 We have a practical object lesson before us to-day. We 
 have the Thompson fund in charge of the treasurer of the 
 state. It is not money derived from taxation, but it is money 
 that belongs to the state and should not be appropriated for 
 religious or denominational purposes. Do you want to leave 
 the Constitution in such form that the Thompson fund could 
 in some hazy future be appropriated for the purpose of assist- 
 ing any denomination? 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord As a Unitarian, I should like to 
 ask some theological person whether or not the word " evan- 
 gelical " is sectarian, and if it is sectarian, why it is sectarian. 
 I confess to profound ignorance upon that point. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Of course, I see to what com- 
 mittee this is going, and I am reminded by the query of the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, that it is proposed 
 to send this theological question to the committee of which I 
 am chairman, and the result would be that such committee 
 must take the initiative in deciding this delicate question. 
 Now we are all agreed the distinguished gentleman from 
 Bow, Mr. Baker, and my distinguished young friend from 
 Concord, Mr. Mies as to the phraseology, provided we settle 
 upon the question whether the word " evangelical " shall 
 come out and the word " Christian " come in, or whether 
 both shall be left out. The point is, I believe, as some think, 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 195 
 
 that " evangelical " does not include the Catholic faith. The 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Niles, insists upon phraseology 
 which shall include the word " Christian " which does include 
 the Catholic faith. The point of the gentleman from Bow, 
 Mr. Baker, is that that still leaves a certain class of people 
 out, and excluded from the immunity which is intended, or 
 which it is believed should be extended. There is a particular 
 question here that is to be discussed, and why not discuss it 
 in this committee. Perhaps not now, but at some time when 
 we have a full committee. I hope the motion that the com- 
 mittee rise and refer this subject directly to the standing 
 committee, of which I am cjiairman, will not prevail. Let 
 the question first be decided here. The only substantial 
 question is the one I have stated. And that is a question 
 eminently fit and proper to be first decided here in Commit- 
 tee of the Whole, and then your standing committee, under 
 the advice of the Committee of the Whole, can undertake a 
 new draft which shall meet the sense of this body. 
 
 I do not say it should be discussed now if the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Mies, says he is not prepared at this time 
 to discuss it, or, that he wishes to discuss it in a full body, 
 but let it stay where it is and take the sense of this body, and 
 then a draft may be made in a very short time by the Com- 
 mittee on Bill of Eights and reported back to the Conven- 
 tion. For these reasons, I hope that the motion in its present 
 form will not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord The object sought by the gentle- 
 man from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, is the same object sought 
 by me in making my motion, and that is to bring this discus- 
 sion before the Committee of the Whole, that we might decide 
 these various questions raised. If it is not the time now, and 
 this Convention is not full enough, the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Niles, can withdraw his motion with the privilege 
 of renewing it at some subsequent time when the Convention 
 goes into a Committee of the Whole with a larger number 
 of members present. 
 
196 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester I move that the committee now 
 rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again on this mat- 
 ter, leaving as pending the motion of the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Niles. 
 
 (Motion prevailed.) 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Little of Manchester Mr. President, the Committee 
 of the Whole has been in session, and had under consid- 
 eration the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
 Bow, Mr. Baker, with reference to the matter of striking out 
 article six of the Bill of Eights and substituting an amend- 
 ment to the same. The committee has voted to rise, report 
 progress, and ask leave to sit again. 
 
 The President Gentlemen of the Convention, you hear 
 the report of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
 and the request by the committee. Leave will be granted, 
 there being no objection. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I now move to take from the 
 table the resolution which I offered this morning, relating to 
 the taking of a vote upon the reduction of the house of repre- 
 sentatives and the basis of representation. 
 
 (Motion prevails.) 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord My principal motive in offering 
 the resolution was to suggest to the Convention that it would 
 be wise to decide, before separating to-day, upon the time 
 next week when the question of the reduction of the house 
 of representatives and of fixing the basis of representation 
 shall be voted upon. It is desirable, as it is the main ques- 
 tion before this Convention, that all the members who can 
 shall be here, and that result will be best obtained by having 
 it understood when next week the vote is to be taken. 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 197 
 
 I have suggested that we should vote on three propositions. 
 First, the proposition to have a house of 300 members; second, 
 the proposition that the district system be adopted (upon 
 which, I desire to say, its friends wish to vote), and third, if 
 that proposition is voted down, then to vote upon the num- 
 ber necessary under the town system for first representative, 
 and for second representative, and so on. The numbers I 
 have left blank, because when the order is reached the first 
 thing will be to vote upon the filling of those blanks. 
 
 I am not at all particular about this order of proceeding. 
 It is the best I can think of. But I do advise the Conven- 
 tion to fix a time before we adjourn to-day for voting next 
 week upon the size of the house and the basis of represen- 
 tation, for I notice even to-day there is not a full attendance. 
 I suppose no member expects we shall vote to-day. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I would like to ask through you, Mr. 
 President, the gentleman from Concord, if he would be will- 
 ing to change the words "three hundred" in the first part 
 of his order, and insert in lieu of that " one hundred and 
 fifty," with the provision that when we vote on that number 
 if that fails we add twenty-five, and vote again, and so on, 
 until the Convention agrees upon some figure. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I had not the slightest idea 
 that the Convention would agree to much less than three 
 hundred for the size of the house of representatives. I would 
 be perfectly willing to strike " three hundred " out, and 
 leave a blank to be filled by the Convention, in the same way 
 as the others are filled. I do not know what the rule would 
 be, whether the vote should be on the largest number first 
 or on the smallest number. I do not know whether one 
 hundred and fifty would prevail over three hundred, or three 
 hundred over one hundred and fifty. I would be willing, 
 however, to strike the words " three hundred " out and leave 
 a blank. 
 
 President It is the impression of the chair that in 
 
198 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 putting the vote the largest number should be put first. If 
 the gentleman from Concord desires to strike out the words 
 " three hundred " and leave a blank, it can be done. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I do. I ask to modify my reso- 
 lution by striking out the words " three hundred " and 
 leaving a blank where they now are. Then we would have 
 three blanks to fill in. First, as to the size of the house of 
 representatives; second, the blank as to the number necessary 
 for the first representative, and third, the blank as to the 
 number necessary for the second representative. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I think we are all agreed that some- 
 thing in the nature of the resolution offered by the gentleman 
 from Concord should be adopted, but as he puts the voting 
 on this question off until Wednesday, it naturally occurs to 
 the presiding officer what this Convention would do in the 
 meantime, if it should adjourn to-day until Monday, and 
 then to Tuesday, there being no special orders, as I under- 
 stand, for Tuesday. 
 
 Preceding Conventions, as I understand it, have ordinarily 
 met on Monday, either at three o'clock in the afternoon or 
 half -past seven o'clock in the evening. I do not know any 
 particular reason why we should not have an afternoon and 
 an evening session both, for we all want to get through with 
 the business and get home, but at the same time do the busi- 
 ness carefully and not eliminate discussion. There are 
 several matters that have been referred to committees and 
 have not been reported back from those committees, which 
 matters could be considered either to-day or Monday. If the 
 gentleman from Concord will withdraw his motion for a 
 moment, I would like to move that when we adjourn to-day 
 we do so to meet at 3 o'clock Monday afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I am not particular about the 
 time when the Convention votes on this question. I have 
 made my suggestion, which may be rejected or accepted by 
 the Convention and I shall not be displeased. But what I 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 199 
 
 do say is that we ought to know to-day when next week we 
 shall cast those votes. 
 
 Now the motion of the gentleman from Bow does not 
 determine that, but raises another question whether we shall 
 meet here at 3 o'clock on Monday and go on with the business. 
 I am in favor of that, and I think the President of the Con- 
 vention will allow me to state that the suggestion he made to 
 the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, and myself, was that we 
 meet Monday afternoon at 3 o'clock and go on with this 
 subject, and get a vote on Tuesday instead of on Wednesday. 
 I do not see any reason why we should not have a meeting 
 Monday afternoon, if the delegates are willing to come here. 
 
 As to the question of the time when we shall take the 
 vote, as I have already said, I am not particular, but one of 
 the delegates has suggested to me that it ought to be as late 
 as Thursday. I beg, however, to remind the Convention that 
 time is rapidly passing, and we shall be obliged to be in ses- 
 sion some portion of the week after next, I think, unless 
 there is a great slaughter here of amendments next week, and 
 if we are going to do that we had better begin it on Monday. 
 
 I have no objection to the gentleman from Bow moving, 
 whenever he sees fit, that when we adjourn we adjourn to 
 meet on Monday afternoon, but I think that this other mo- 
 tion can be disposed of before that. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow It was my intention that the motion 
 of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, would imme- 
 diately follow the one I made, and I made it in order to bring 
 it to the attention of the Convention. 
 
 I now move that the resolution offered by the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Chandler, be amended by striking out in 
 that resolution " Wednesday next " and that " Tuesday next, 
 at half -past two " be inserted in place thereof. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster I hope that the gentleman from 
 Bow, Mr. Baker, will withdraw his amendment. I know it 
 is exceedingly difficult to oblige every one in a matter of this 
 
200 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 sort, but it seems to me that the wiser way is to give every 
 one an opportunity as far as possible. There are some of 
 our members, all of whom want to be here, and some of whom 
 I know might not be able to be here on Tuesday and might 
 be able to be here Wednesday. I do not think anything can 
 suffer by delaying this matter until Wednesday. If we are 
 going to pass a resolution in amendment of the Constitution 
 that is going to meet the approval of the people, it is going 
 to come after very full discussion, expression of opinion, and 
 a compromise of all minds. 
 
 We must bear in mind that we, members of this Conven- 
 tion, are but a small part of the people, and when this Con- 
 vention decides, by a majority of the members, that a certain 
 amendment for the reduction of the house is one that should 
 be made, that vote here does not represent a very large per- 
 centage of the actual voters of the state of New Hampshire. 
 The only relevancy of this to the question before us is that it 
 seems to me there should be the fullest discussion about this 
 matter, and that all may feel no one has been choked off 
 and every opportunity has been given for a full, free, and 
 open discussion of all sides of this question. I further feel 
 that the middle of the week, Wednesday, would be the best 
 day of the week upon which to take this vote. I am quite 
 sure a larger attendance would greet the settlement of this 
 question on Wednesday afternoon than it would on Tuesday 
 afternoon, and I trust that the amendment may be withdrawn 
 to substitute Tuesday instead of Wednesday. If it is not 
 withdrawn, then I hope the amendment will be voted down 
 and that the original motion will prevail. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham For information, I wish to 
 inquire if there is not a little discrepancy in the order in 
 which the resolution of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Chandler, for the taking of votes upon this question is put. 
 I understand that the order he suggests is that we first vote 
 on the question of reducing the house and the number to 
 which it should be reduced, and then 011 the question of 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 201 
 
 whether the district system shall be used. Now if the Con- 
 vention adopts the district system, there is no trouble in 
 fixing the size of the house at 300; but if it does not adopt 
 that system, it does seem that any vote which has been made 
 to fix the size of the house at any exact number would be 
 futile. I make this inquiry, not in any way of objection, but 
 merely to suggest that the vote on fixing the size of the house 
 should come after the vote on whether the district system 
 should be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I would call for the read- 
 ing of the order. 
 
 The President The original order, submitted by the gen- 
 tleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, is as follows: 
 
 1. The house of representatives shall consist of 300 mem- 
 bers. 
 
 2. The members of the house of representatives shall be 
 elected under a district system. 
 
 3. The number of inhabitants required for the first repre- 
 sentative under the town system shall be , and the num- 
 ber required for a second representative shall be . 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry The gentleman from Strat- 
 ham, Mr. Wingate, anticipated the question which I had also 
 intended to ask the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler. 
 It seems to me if we adopt any arbitrary number of repre- 
 sentatives first, we have then practically adopted the district 
 system, and I would suggest that the gentleman change the 
 order so that we shall first vote on the system which we will 
 adopt either the town or the district system and then we 
 can arrange the number of representatives to correspond with 
 the system we have adopted. If we should adopt the town 
 system, any of the schedules submitted will not allow the 
 arbitrary number of 300 or 250, or any other number. It 
 may be very near that number, but it would not be it exactly. 
 I will ask the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, if he 
 insists on having the votes in the order in which he has 
 
202 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 arranged them, and if he would not permit the order to be, 
 to vote upon the district system first, and then upon the 
 number of representatives that the house shall consist of. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I have no objection to that, if 
 the Convention prefers it, but the original order seemed to 
 me to be the natural order. It seemed to me best for the 
 Convention to say first whether it wanted to reduce the house 
 of representatives, and if so, how much. That is all there 
 is in the firsfr question, Shall the house of representatives be 
 reduced, and if so, how much shall it be reduced. When 
 the Convention has decided how much it shall be reduced, 
 then the Convention can go on and decide whether or not 
 it will make the reduction through the district system or 
 under the present town system. If the latter, it would then 
 be necessary to fix the number for the first representative, 
 and the second representative, and so forth. 
 
 I understand very well that it appears from the various 
 tables that have been printed, how much it would be neces- 
 sary to have for .each representative in order to reduce the 
 house to about 300 members. That is, every calculation that 
 has been made and presented here shows what the result 
 would be. 
 
 I, however, only made the suggestion of this order, and 
 would be entirely willing to have the question whether we 
 should adopt the district system voted upon first, it being 
 well understood that the whole object of this business is to 
 reduce the house of representatives. 
 
 The gentleman sitting beside me has suggested that the 
 ladies have been given the privilege of a hearing on Tuesday 
 afternoon, on the question of woman suffrage, or some other 
 of the things that the ladies desire. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry Do I understand that the 
 gentleman from Concord assents to the change of the order? 
 
 The President The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chand- 
 ler, assents to the change of the order. What shall be the 
 order as changed? 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 203 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord The second paragraph first, and 
 the first second. 
 
 Mr. Fairbanks of Cornish Of course the gentlemen of 
 this Convention realize that we are having quite a storm in 
 Concord, and usually under the circumstances it is a great 
 deal heavier back in the country, and it may not be possible, 
 under the present conditions of a heavy snow storm, to get 
 back here as early as Tuesday. I think it would be far bet- 
 ter to have the vote on Wednesday, and I hope the vote 
 with reference to representation will not be taken up before 
 Wednesday. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I will withdraw my motion. 
 
 The President The gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, 
 withdraws his motion that the resolution of the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Chandler, be amended by substituting 
 Tuesday for Wednesday. The question recurs to the original 
 resolution, which is that the order for voting presented by 
 the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, which has been 
 changed by arrangement so that the second proposition is to 
 be voted upon first, and the first one second, that that reso- 
 lution be taken up and acted upon on Wednesday next at 
 12 o'clock. Is the house ready for the question? 
 
 (Question is put and motion prevails.) 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That when the Convention adjourns it adjourn 
 to meet at 3 o'clock Monday afternoon, December 8. 
 
 (Motion prevailed.) 
 
 Mr. Madden of Keene offered the following proposed 
 amendment to the Constitution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be amended as follows: 
 By striking out articles nine and ten of the second part of 
 the Constitution and inserting the following: 
 
204 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ART. *9. There shall be in the legislature of this state a 
 representation of the people, biennially elected, founded upon 
 principles of equality to consist of 350 members. Every 
 town and city in the state may elect one representative. The 
 remaining number necessary to make up 350 members shall 
 be apportioned among the different cities of the state in pro- 
 portion to the population thereof. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole 
 to be considered with other amendments of a like character. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Warner of Antrim, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 AFTEKNOOK 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Mr. Clyde of Hudson offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article five, part second of the Constitution, 
 be hereby amended as follows: 
 
 Provided also that the people hereby reserve to themselves 
 power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution, 
 and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of 
 the said general court, and also reserve power at their own 
 option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the said 
 general court. The first power reserved by the people is the 
 initiative, and not more than five per cent, of the legal voters 
 of the state shall be required to propose any measure by such 
 petition, and every such petition shall include the full text 
 of the measure so proposed. Initiative petitions shall be 
 filed with the secretary of state not less than four months 
 before the election at which they are to be voted upon. The 
 second power is the referendum, and it may be ordered 
 (except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation 
 of the public peace, health, or safety, support of the state 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1902. 20/> 
 
 government and its existing public institutions), either by 
 petition,, signed by five per cent, of the legal voters, or by 
 the general court as other bills are enacted. Eeferendum 
 petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state not more 
 than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session 
 of the legislative assembly which passed the bill on which the 
 referendum is demanded. The veto power of the governor 
 shall not extend to measures referred to the people. All 
 elections on measures referred to the people of the state shall 
 be had at the biennial regular general elections, except when 
 the general court shall order a special election. Any measure- 
 referred to the people shall take effect and become the law 
 when it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, 
 and not otherwise. The style of all bills shall be: "Be it 
 enacted by the people of the state of New Hampshire." This 
 section shall not be construed to deprive any member of the 
 general court of the right to introduce any measure. The 
 whole number of votes cast for governor at the regular elec- 
 tion last preceding the filing of any petition for the initiative 
 or for the referendum shall be the basis on w^hich the number 
 of legal voters necessary to sign such petition shall be 
 counted. Petitions and orders for the initiative and for the 
 referendum shall be filed with the secretary of state, and in 
 submitting the same to the people he and all other officers 
 shall be guided by the general laws and the act submitting 
 this amendment until legislation shall be especially provided 
 therefor. 
 
 Authority is hereby given the general court to empower 
 the cities of the state to apply the principles of the initiative 
 and the referendum to the acts of their legislative assemblies. 
 
 All parts of the Constitution shall be construed in accord' 
 with this amendment. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was laid 
 upon the table to be printed and taken up as a special order 
 immediately following that of Mr. Chandler of Concord, re- 
 lating to " Trusts," whenever that might be. 
 
206 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Briggs of Manchester, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 1 - (The President in the chair.) 
 
 The reading of the journal of the preceding day was begun, 
 when, on motion of Mr. Barton of Newport, the further read- 
 ing was dispensed with. 
 
 The President addressed the Convention as follows: 
 
 Gentlemen of the Convention: We have learned with 
 deep regret of the decease of one of the most distinguished 
 statesmen of the country. And it seems that some recog- 
 nition of that fact should be taken by this Convention. 
 
 To that end the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Hollis, 
 offers the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That this Convention has learned with profound 
 sorrow of the sudden death at . Washington of the Hon. 
 Thomas B. Eeed, who although then a private citizen, has 
 been distinguished as a representative in congress and speaker 
 of the national house of representatives. His profound integ- 
 rity, his fearlessness of conduct, and his high character in 
 every respect, commanded wide admiration, and his death, 
 at the height of his intellectual powers, is recognized by us 
 as a national loss. 
 
 The resolution was unanimously adopted by a rising vote 
 of the Convention. 
 
 The President appointed the following Committee on 
 Mileage: 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 207 
 
 Mr. Knight of Milford. 
 Mr. Walker of Newmarket. 
 Mr. Leighton of Dover. 
 Mr. Clarke of Center Harbor. 
 Mr. Hersey of Wolfeborough. 
 Mr. Miller of Pembroke. 
 Mr. Wright of Keene. 
 Mr. Burpee of Grantham. 
 Mr. Glazier of Landaff. 
 Mr. Bipley of Stewartstown. 
 
 The President appointed the following Committee on 
 Finance: 
 
 Mr. Clement of Manchester. 
 
 Mr. Melvin of Lyme. 
 
 Mr. Emery, S. P., of Portsmouth. 
 
 Mr. Nealley of Dover. 
 
 Mr. Pulsifer of Laconia. 
 
 Mr. Hobson of Conway. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord. 
 
 Mr. Davis of Winchester. 
 
 Mr. Ide of Croydon. 
 
 Mr. McKellips of Northumberland. 
 
 Mr. Howe of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that the 
 house of representatives shall consist of 250 members, which 
 shall be apportioned by the legislature, at the first session 
 after a United States census, to the several counties of the 
 state, equally, as nearly as may be, according to their popu- 
 lation as ascertained at the next preceding United States 
 census. The state board of equalization shall seasonably, 
 after each assignment of representatives to each county, pro- 
 ceed to divide the counties into representative districts of 
 contiguous territory, so as to apportion the representatives 
 assigned to each county, equally, as nearly as may be, accord- 
 
208 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ing to the relative population in the several districts of each 
 county, and such districts shall be so formed that no town 
 or ward shall be divided therefor. Districts may be formed 
 for one or more representatives as the contiguity of territory 
 or the physical and social relations of the towns or wards may 
 warrant. The superior court, at the next term in each 
 county after such division of the counties into representative 
 districts, may, upon appeal by a town or ward, or twenty- 
 five voters thereof, examine the classification of that town 
 or ward, and change the district lines of that county in 
 accordance with the provisions of this article if it shall appear 
 that injustice has been done. And the supreme court may 
 review the action of the superior court as in other cases. 
 
 Keferred to Committee of the Whole to be considered with 
 resolutions of a like character. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, it was voted to 
 have printed for the use of the Convention the following 
 papers: A Eeview of Organic Law Development, by Mr. 
 Justice William M. Chase; Memorandum by Mr. Chandler, 
 concerning the prohibition of Trusts and Monopolies by the 
 Constitutions and Laws of the various states of the Union; 
 Memorandum by Mr. Chandler, concerning the prohibition 
 of Free Passes on Eailroads by the Constitutions and Laws 
 of the various states of the Union. 
 
 A EEVIEW OF OEGANIC LAW DEVELOPMENT. 
 (By Mr. Justice William M. Chase.) 
 
 The form of government established by Great Britain for 
 the colony of New Hampshire came to an end in 1775. Gov- 
 ernor Wentworth and some of his councilors then fled from 
 the colony and the people were left to govern themselves. 
 A Convention convened in Exeter in May, composed of dele- 
 gates from 102 towns which, in accordance with the advice 
 of the general congress, called a Convention to establish a 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 209 
 
 iorm of government. It provided that the electors of repre- 
 sentatives to this Convention should possess real estate of, 
 at least, 20 value, 'and that each candidate for representative 
 should possess real estate of the value of 300; that towns 
 should be entitled to one representative for each group of 
 100 families; and that the representatives should be empow- 
 ered by their constituents to assume government as recom- 
 mended by the general congress. Bepresentatives having 
 been chosen accordingly, they met in convention or congress, 
 as they termed it, at Exeter, and, on the 5th day of January, 
 1776, adopted a plan of government or .Constitution, ft has 
 been asserted that Virginia was the first of the colonies to 
 adopt a written Constitution; but its Convention did not 
 assemble until May, 1776, and New Hampshire is entitled to 
 that distinction. This Constitution is very brief, containing 
 only about 900 words, and nearly one half of these are in the 
 preamble. Its brevity is more apparent when it is compared 
 with the present Constitution, which contains nearly 11,000 
 words. It deals with few subjects, and is very general in its 
 terms. After setting forth some of the wrongs the people 
 had suffered under British rule, and noting the fact of the 
 sudden departure of Governor Wentworth, and the absence 
 of legislative and executive authority resulting therefrom, 
 the preamble continues as follows: " Therefore for the pres- 
 ervation of peace and good order, and for the security of the 
 lives and properties of the inhabitants of this colony, we con- 
 ceive ourselves reduced to the necessity of establishing a form 
 of government, to continue during the present unhappy and 
 unnatural contest with Great Britain, protesting and declar- 
 ing that we never sought to throw off our dependence upon 
 Great Britain, but felt ourselves happy under her -protection 
 while we could enjoy our Constitutional rights and privileges, 
 and that we shall rejoice if such a reconciliation between us 
 and our parent state can be effected as shall be approved by 
 the continental congress, in whose prudence and wisdom we 
 confide." 
 
 Its first provision was in these words: " Accordingly, 
 14 
 
210 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL* CONVENTION. 
 
 pursuant to the trust imposed in us, we do resolve that this 
 congress assume the name, power and authority of a house 
 oi representatives, or assembly for the colony of New Hamp- 
 shire. And that said house then proceed to choose twelve 
 persons, being reputable freeholders and inhabitants within 
 this colony, . . . to be a distinct and separate branch 
 of the legislature, by the name of a council." 
 
 Its other principal provisions were in substance, that no 
 act or resolve should be valid unless passed by both branches 
 of the legislature; that all bills, resolves or votes for raising, 
 levying and collecting money should originate in the house 
 of representatives; that all civil officers of the colonies and 
 the counties, except clerks of court, county treasurers and 
 recorders of deeds, and all general and field officers of the 
 militia and all officers of the army except in cases of emer- 
 gency, should be appointed by the two houses; that the clerks 
 of court should be appointed by the justices thereof; that a 
 county treasurer and recorder of deeds should be chosen 
 annually by the people of each county; and that precepts 
 should issue on or before the first day of November in each 
 year, for the choice of a council and house of representatives, 
 to be returned by the third Wednesday in December then 
 next ensuing. 
 
 It will be noticed that there was no provision for separate 
 executive and judicial departments of government, and that 
 no restraints were placed upon the council and assembly in 
 any direction. These two bodies had full power to exercise 
 all the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of govern- 
 ment. This was in accordance with a theory of government 
 then entertained by some of the leading men of the times. 
 It is said that Franklin and Samuel Adams favored it; and 
 the principle was adopted in the first Constitutions of Penn- 
 sylvania and Georgia. 
 
 This Constitution was not submitted to the people; but, as 
 has already been intimated, went into effect upon its adoption 
 by the Convention, the members of which were clothed with 
 full authority for the purpose. Although adopted as a tern- 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBEE 8, 1902. 211 
 
 porary measure, it continued in force until the first Wednes- 
 day of June, 1784, a period of nearly eight years and a half. 
 The council and assembly while in session exercised executive 
 authority; and at every adjournment they appointed a Com- 
 mittee of Safety, consisting of from six to sixteen persons, to 
 act during the recess. By an act passed July 5, 1776, they 
 established courts of law. They changed the name from the 
 colony of New Hampshire to the state of New Hampshire, 
 September 19; and early in the next year, to remove all 
 doubts on the subject, they reestablished the general system 
 of laws that was in force when the Constitution was adopted, 
 in so far as the laws were not repugnant to the provisions of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 During the existence of this Constitution, the legislature 
 raised money by taxation and loans and appropriated it to 
 public uses, and passed laws relating to marriages, the care 
 of paupers, the regulation of highways, the establishment and 
 regulation of the militia, the punishment of crimes, in 
 short, acted upon all subjects that required legislative action. 
 The statutes so passed covered more than 300 quarto printed 
 pages. The maintenance of civil government under a funda- 
 mental law so incomplete, imperfect, and weak as was this 
 Constitution, for so long a period, during which the stress 
 and demoralization attending a war of revolution existed, 
 shows that the people generally recognized and respected the 
 rights of individuals and were able to control their ambitions 
 and jealousies for the common good. Notwithstanding they 
 had rebelled against the existing government, they were a law- 
 abiding people. 
 
 A second Constitutional Convention was called by a vote 
 of the assembly, February 25, 1778, and met at Concord, 
 June 10. Nearly all of the towns were represented. Among 
 the delegates were George Atkinson, John Langdon, 
 Nathaniel Folsom, Matthew Thornton, John Bell, Timothy 
 Walker, Timothy Farrar, and Joseph Badger. Atkinson was 
 the president. The convention agreed upon a Constitution 
 June 5, 1779. This contained a preamble referring to the 
 
212 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Declaration of Independence, a declaration of rights con- 
 taining seven articles, and a plan of government containing 
 thirty-two articles. The declaration of rights asserted the 
 independence of the people from the crown of Great Britain, 
 their title to life, liberty, and property, and to the immunities 
 and privileges theretofore enjoyed, and that the entire power 
 of government must be derived from the people. It also 
 provided that the common and statute laws of England 
 adopted and used here should continue in force; that no 
 laws should be made to infringe the rights of conscience or 
 any other of the natural and unalienable rights of man, or 
 be contrary to the laws of God, or against the Protestant 
 religion; that the right of trial by jury as theretofore used 
 in the state should be preserved inviolate forever; and that 
 the extent of the territory of the state should be the same 
 as that which was under the government of Gov. John Went- 
 worth, reserving the claim of the state of New Hampshire 
 grants on the west side of the Connecticut river. The plan 
 of government provided that the supreme power of the state 
 should be invested in a general court composed of a council 
 of twelve members and a house of representatives. The 
 members of the council and house of representatives were 
 apportioned among the counties and towns substantially the 
 same as under the temporary Constitution. The president 
 of the council was to hold correspondence with other states 
 or persons, call the council together whenever occasion 
 required, and, with the advice of three or more members of 
 the council, call the house together. The other provisions 
 related to the manner of conducting elections, the appoint- 
 ment of officers, and other details of government. While 
 the plan of government was set forth more in detail than in 
 the temporary Constitution, it did not differ in principle 
 from the plan therein set up. This Constitution was rejected 
 by the people. 
 
 A third Convention was called by the concurrent action of 
 the council and assembly, April 6, 1781. It met in Concord 
 on the second Tuesday of June, and continued in existence 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 213 
 
 until October 31, 1783, a period of two years and four 
 months. It held seven sessions and submitted three drafts 
 of a Constitution to the people, the first two of which were 
 rejected and the last was adopted. The first draft, which 
 was the basis of the other two, was modeled after the Con- 
 stitution adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780. In 
 fact, the most of its provisions were copied from that Con- 
 stitution almost word for word. The authorship of the 
 Massachusetts Constitution is therefore a matter of special 
 interest to us. 
 
 The original draft of that Constitution was prepared by 
 John Adams, and but few changes were made in it prior to 
 its adoption by the people. Governor Bullock, in an address 
 before the American Antiquarian society in 1881, said con- 
 cerning Mr. Adams' qualification for this work: "As con- 
 stitutionalist and publicist, all other men of his day came at 
 long intervals behind him. Madison and Hamilton were a 
 development of the ten years which followed the full mani- 
 festations of his powers. Beyond all of his associates in 
 mastery of the whole subject of government, grasping and 
 applying the lessons of historical studies with a prehensile 
 power at that time unprecedented on this continent, and 
 adding to them the original conception of a mind of the 
 highest order, he proved of all his contemporaries fittest for 
 Constitutional architecture. Having discerned five years be- 
 fore, in advance of everybody, the solution of independence 
 in directing the colonies to establish local governments, he 
 became doctrinaire to the delegates at Philadelphia. In {he 
 confusion and chaos of thought relating to these subjects 
 which brooded over their minds his counsel was sought by 
 delegates from North Carolina, from Virginia, from New 
 Jersey, to each of whose delegations he furnished formulas 
 of state government; and when he came to the front in the 
 preparation of a Constitution for his own state, his mind 
 was already stored for the emergency. His share in framing 
 our own government, and his subsequent writings in defense 
 of the general system adopted by the American states, in 
 
214 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 refutation of the theories of M. Turgot, this defense being- 
 published just in time to bear upon the question of the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution of the United States, furnish suffi- 
 cient excuse, if, indeed, excuse were needed, for his boastful 
 declaration, found in the Warren correspondence 
 ( I made a Constitution for Massachusetts which finally made 
 the Constitution of the United States/ " 
 
 It certainly is not discreditable to the New Hampshire 
 Convention that they availed themselves of the fruits of this 
 masterly mind. 
 
 The first part of each Constitution prepared by this Con- 
 vention consisted of a Bill of Eights containing thirty-eight 
 articles, and was substantially the same in the three drafts. 
 The rights and principles declared in it are the fruitage of 
 history. It would be unnecessary to assert many of them at 
 the present day in a plan of government, for they would be 
 recognized and respected without such assertion. It wan 
 probably unnecessary to declare some of them at that time; 
 but, suffering as the people of the state and their ancestors 
 had from the denial of rights which were natural and inher- 
 ent, they thought it prudent to guard them explicitly from 
 future encroachment. They founded their government on 
 the consent of the governed. They recognized the fact that 
 in giving consent and entering into government the people 
 must surrender some of the rights they might otherwise 
 enjoy, in order to protect other; but they attempted to 
 limit the surrender to the absolute requirements of the 
 change. Some of the rights declared are traceable to the 
 great charter of King John, granted in 1215. Articles four- 
 teen and fifteen correspond with articles thirty-nine and 
 forty of that charter, which are as follows: 
 
 "39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or dis- 
 missed, or outlawed, or banished, or any ways destroyed, nor 
 will we pass upon him, nor will send upon him, unless by the 
 lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. 
 
 "40. We will sell to no man, we will not deny to any 
 man, either justice or right." 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 215 
 
 The sixth article, recognizing the dependence of the gov- 
 ernment's safety upon the morality and piety of its citizens, 
 empowered the legislature to authorize towns, parishes, and 
 religious societies to select and maintain Protestant teachers 
 of piety, religion, and morality, with the limitation that no 
 person should be compelled to contribute to the support of 
 the teacher of a denomination or sect to which he did not 
 belong, and that all denominations and sects should stand 
 on the same footing before the law. This article differed 
 from the corresponding article in the Massachusetts Bill of 
 Rights in this: By the latter, the legislature was empowered 
 to require towns, etc., to select and maintain such teachers, 
 and to enjoin upon all the subjects of the state an attendance 
 upon their instructions. Evidently, Puritanism did not have 
 quite so strong a hold upon the people of this state as it did 
 in the state it had so great a part 'in settling and founding. 
 With the exception of this article, and the articles (seven, 
 eighteen, and twenty-one) declaring the right of the people 
 to govern themselves, the correspondence that should exist 
 between the punishment and the nature of the crime to 
 which it is affixed, and the care that should be taken in select- 
 ing jurors, the Bill of Rights was substantially the same as 
 that of the Massachusetts Constitution, although the phrase- 
 ology and the order of arrangement were in some parts 
 slightly changed. It included all the declarations of the Bill 
 of Rights in the Constitution prepared by the prior Con- 
 vention. 
 
 The principle on which the plan of government is con- 
 structed in the three drafts is the division of the functions 
 of government into three distinct departments, each inde- 
 pendent of the others, 4he legislative, the executive, and 
 the judicial. The details of the plan are like those of the 
 Massachusetts Constitution except in a few particulars, mostly 
 attributable to the differences in the population and other 
 circumstances of the two states. The Massachusetts Consti- 
 tution empowers the legislature to impose and levy reasonable 
 duties and excises. This power was never delegated to the 
 
216 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 legislature in this state. Nor did any of the Convention's 
 drafts provide for a lieutenant-governor, an officer required 
 by the Massachusetts Constitution. 
 
 In all three drafts the supreme legislative power within 
 the state was vested in a senate consisting of twelve members, 
 and a house of representatives, each of which had a negative 
 upon the other, and both of which were to assemble on the 
 first Wednesday of June in each year. The principal differ- 
 ence in the provisions of the three on this subject related to 
 the number of members in the house of representatives. By 
 the first draft the number was fixed at fifty, to be chosen by 
 county conventions composed of delegates elected by the 
 towns, they being entitled to one delegate for every fifty 
 ratable polls in the town. By the other two, towns were 
 entitled to one representative if they had 150 ratable polls, 
 two representatives if they had 450, and one additional repre- 
 sentative for each additional number of 300 polls. If they 
 had less than 150 ratable polls they were to be classed. This 
 made the number of members variable, increasing as the 
 population increased. 
 
 The supreme executive power was lodged in an officer 
 entitled " governor " in the first two drafts, and " president " 
 in the last. The veto power was conferred upon him in the 
 first two drafts, but was withheld in the last. The follow- 
 ing curious provision appears in the second draft: " To pre- 
 vent an undue influence in this state, which the first magis- 
 trate thereof may acquire by the long possession of the im- 
 portant powers and trusts of that office, as also to stimulate 
 others to qualify themselves for the service of the public in 
 the highest stations, no man shall be eligible as governor of 
 this state more than three years in* any seven." The neces- 
 sity for a stimulus of this kind has long since ceased, if in- 
 deed it was then required. By the last draft, the governor, 
 or, as the officer was then named, the president, was to pre- 
 side in the senate, and had the same right to vote therein as 
 the senators had. Appointments to office were made by the 
 president and council, instead of by the president with the 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 217 
 
 advice of the council. The members of the council were 
 chosen by the legislature by joint ballot, two of them from 
 members of the senate, and three from members of the house. 
 
 The judicial powers and duties were alike in the three 
 drafts. The tenure of office of judicial officers was during 
 good behavior, but they were subject to removal by the gov- 
 ernor and council upon address by both houses of the legis- 
 lature. 
 
 Among the other provisions were the requirement in the 
 first one of a property qualification to entitle one to vote, 
 the having of an estate of 100, and the requirement in all 
 that persons to be eligible to the office of governor, senator, 
 and representative must be of the Protestant religion, and 
 must be seized of an estate of a certain value. In the first 
 draft the value was 1,000 for the office of governor, 400 for 
 the office of senator, and 200 for the office of representative; 
 and in the other two, the values were one half these sums. 
 All three drafts provided that the senate and house of repre- 
 sentatives should elect delegates to congress to serve for one 
 year. They also contained a provision making it the duty 
 of legislators and magistrates to cherish the interest of litera- 
 ture and the sciences and all seminaries and public schools, 
 to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and 
 general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and 
 economy, honesty and punctuality in dealings, sincerity, so- 
 briety, and all social affections and generous sentiments 
 ^mong the people. 
 
 The last draft submitted by this Convention was approved 
 by the people in 1783, and went into effect on the first Wed- 
 nesday of June, 1784. It has been amended from time to 
 time in certain particulars, and, as amended, is still the Con- 
 stitution of the state. People sometimes speak of " the Con- 
 stitution of 1792," but a new Constitution was not adopted 
 in that year, and the designation is a misnomer. The state 
 has had only two Constitutions, that of 1776 and that of 
 1783. 
 
 A Convention for revising the Constitution duly called, 
 
218 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 assembled at Concord, September 7, 1791, and adjourned 
 from time to time until September 5, 1792, when it dissolved. 
 This Convention first submitted to the people seventy-two 
 amendments, forty-six of which were approved; but as some 
 of these were so connected with others that were rejected, it 
 became necessary to submit further amendments to make the 
 provisions consistent with each other. The amendments last 
 submitted were approved. The principal changes affected 
 by these amendments were the substitution of " governor " 
 for " president " in the title of His Excellency; the taking 
 away of the governor's right to sit and vote in the senate; 
 the grant to him of authority to veto bills and resolves passed 
 by the legislature; the substitution of a council consisting of 
 five members elected by the inhabitants divided into council- 
 or districts, in the place of the former council elected by the 
 legislature; the limitation of the tenure of office of judges 
 and sheriffs to the time when they shall attain the age of 
 seventy years; the substitution in the qualification of voters 
 of the fact that the inhabitant is not a pauper or excused at 
 his own request from paying taxes, for the former require- 
 ment that he should pay a poll tax; the grant of power to 
 the legislature to give justices of the peace jurisdiction in 
 civil causes in which the damages demanded do not exceed 
 four pounds, and the title to real estate is not concerned; the 
 introduction of a provision for dividing a county into two 
 districts for registering deeds; and the abolition of the pro- 
 vision for electing delegates to congress. Among the amend- 
 ments rejected there was one for changing the time of the 
 sessions of the legislature to the last Wednesday of October, 
 and one for changing the number of members of the senate 
 to thirteen. 
 
 Nearly sixty years elapsed before another Constitutional 
 Convention was held, that of 1850, which assembled at 
 Concord, November 6. Of this Convention Franklin Pierce 
 was president and Col. Thomas J. Whipple was secretary. 
 It proposed many radical changes, among which were: the 
 adoption of biennial elections and biennial sessions of the- 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 219 
 
 legislature; the increase of the senate to thirty members, to 
 be elected by fifteen districts; the creation of the office of 
 lieutenant-governor; the abolition of the council; the election 
 by the people of secretary of state, treasurer, judges of the 
 supreme, county, police, and probate courts, attorney-general, 
 railroad commissioners, superintendent of schools, and com- 
 missioner of agriculture; the limitation of the tenure of office 
 of judges of the supreme court to six years; and the require- 
 ment that a sum not less than $125 for every dollar of state 
 taxes should be assessed and collected each year for the sup- 
 port of free common schools. All the amendments upon 
 these subjects were rejected by the people by votes varying 
 from the ratio of nearly two to one to that of five to one. 
 This Convention later submitted three amendments, one 
 abolishing the religious test, one abolishing the property 
 qualification of persons for election to the office of governor, 
 senator, and member of the house, and one as to future 
 amendments. The one relating to the property qualification 
 only, was approved. 
 
 me fifth Convention assembled at Concord, December 6, 
 1876, and was in session 11 days. Daniel Clark presided over 
 it. It submitted thirteen propositions to the people, all of 
 which were approved save two. The results were the aboli- 
 tion of the religious test as a qualification for office; the 
 adoption of biennial elections and biennial sessions of the 
 legislature; the change of the time of holding state elections 
 from March to November; the increase of the senate to 
 twenty-four members; a substantial reduction in the member- 
 ship of the house; the grant of authority to the general court 
 to provide for the trial of appeals from justices of the peace 
 and of causes in which the value in controversy does not 
 exceed $100 and title to real estate is not concerned, with- 
 out the intervention of a jury, and also authority to increase 
 the jurisdiction of justices of the peace to $100; the election 
 of registers of probate, solicitors, and sheriffs by the people; 
 and the prohibiting of the legislature from authorizing towns 
 to loan or give their money or credit to corporations. 
 
220 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The sixth, and last Convention began its deliberations 
 January 2, 1889,, and adjourned January 12. Charles H. 
 Bell was its president. It submitted seven amendments, all 
 of which were approved save one. These amendments made 
 the sixth article of the Bill of Rights non-sectarian, changed 
 the time of the biennial sessions of the legislature from June 
 to January, adopted a fixed salary for members of the legis- 
 lature, authorized the speaker of the house of representatives 
 to act as governor in case of vacancies in the offices of gover- 
 nor and president of the senate, provided for filling vacancies 
 in the senate by a new election, and made a change in the 
 Tepresentation of classed towns. The rejected proposition 
 was the insertion of an article prohibiting the manufacture 
 or sale, or keeping for sale, of alcoholic or intoxicating liquors 
 as a beverage. It was rejected by a vote of 30,976 as against 
 25,786. Apparently the majority against such a proposition 
 ivould be much larger now. 
 
 It is apparent to all who think upon the subject that there 
 .are still serious defects in our Constitution. The one which 
 attracts the most attention and which has been the main 
 inducing cause of the previous attempts to amend it, is the 
 basis of representation in the house of representatives. There 
 are very few citizens that do not feel that the house is too 
 large to secure the best quality of membership and the best 
 results of deliberation. As has been said, in the first draft 
 of the Constitution prepared by the Convention of 1781-'83, 
 the number was fixed at fifty. Perhaps this number was too 
 small then, and it would be too small now. The method of 
 selection also was objectionable, because of its complication 
 and cumbersomeness. The effort made in the plan finally 
 adopted to give each of the smaller towns a representative 
 an effort that has been repeated in later Conventions when 
 the subject has been considered is the principal cause of .the 
 existing defect. Viewing the question from the standpoint 
 -of justice, if 600 inhabitants ought to have one representative, 
 1,200 ought to have two, and so on. But the adoption of 
 such a rule in connection with town representation would 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 221 
 
 make the house unwieldly, and hence it became necessary to- 
 give the larger towns a less representation relatively than is 
 given to the smaller towns. Under the present provision,. 
 Bow with a population of 617 is entitled to one represen- 
 tative, while Ward five in Concord, with a population of 
 2,609 more than four times that of Bow is entitled to only 
 two the mean increasing number of inhabitants for each 
 additional representative above one being 1,200. This in- 
 equality cannot be removed until the people are ready to 
 ignore town lines in fixing the basis of representation. Mass- 
 achusetts has done this, limiting the number of members of 
 the house to 240, and providing that they shall be appor- 
 tioned among districts so as to approximate equality of repre- 
 sentation. This state will probably sometime again imitate- 
 the action of Massachusetts by adopting a similar basis of 
 representation, but the people are not ready for it yet. Their 
 attachment to their respective towns and the ambition of 
 individuals to be representatives are too strong to allow such 
 a change to be made. All that can now be hoped for is the 
 adoption of some compromise basis that will reduce the Jiouse 
 to a number which can be reasonably accommodated in the 
 representatives' hall. 
 
 I am inclined to think that the change introduced by the 
 Convention of 1876, making the offices of register of probate, 
 county solicitor, and sheriff elective instead of appointive was 
 a step backwards. The incumbents of these offices should 
 be selected with care, and the selection should depend upon 
 their qualification, inclination, and fitness to perform 
 the duties of the office. It is doubtful, to say the least, if 
 the Convention of a political party, influenced as it is so 
 liable to be by the efforts of individuals seeking office, and 
 by considerations of partisan policy, should be entrusted with 
 making the selection of such officers. 
 
 But these are minor defects, comparatively speaking. They 
 do not threaten the stability of government. They relate 
 to forms, rather than substance. There are questions of far 
 greater moment awaiting solution, questions as to the rela- 
 
222 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tion between capital and labor; the restraint of power arising 
 from the accumulation of great wealth, whether by corpora- 
 tions or individuals; the prevention of monopolies and the 
 stimulation and regulation of competition among producers 
 and manufacturers so that all may enjoy equality of privilege; 
 the raising of money for public uses so that the burden shall 
 be distributed equitably among the inhabitants; the preven- 
 tion of extravagance in the expenditure of the public moneys, 
 and many other subjects. 
 
 Such was the immediate origin of our Constitution; such 
 has been its development; and such are some of its defects. 
 As has been intimated, the ultimate discovery of some of 
 the principles on which it is founded occurred many cen- 
 turies ago. Indeed, it would be difficult to trace them back 
 to the time of their first recognition, they have been so 
 slowly and imperceptibly evolved from the experiences of 
 man as he has laboriously made his way from a state of bar- 
 barism to his present state of civilization. And even now 
 the end has not been reached. The millennium is still far 
 distant. There is opportunity and necessity for study and 
 efforts by this and many future generations to improve tem- 
 poral government. The results will depend largely upon the 
 education and moral sense of the community. The church 
 and the schools are the most effective institutions in the great 
 work. When knowledge and learning, in a large and broad 
 sense, have become generally diffused through the com- 
 munity, and the moral sense of its members has become sensi- 
 tive to the requirements of the Golden Eule and causes will- 
 ing compliance therewith, most of the defects in government 
 will cease, and the dawn of the millennium will be reached. 
 If Christ does not then rule in person, His spirit will govern 
 the civil as well as the spiritual relations of mankind. 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 223 
 
 MEMORANDUM PRESENTED BY MR, CHANDLER OF 
 CONCORD, CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION OF 
 TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES BY THE CONSTITU- 
 TIONS AND LAWS OF THE VARIOUS STATES OF 
 THE UNION. 
 
 Alabama The laws of 1883, page 152, prohibit the pooling 
 of freights by railroads " whereby trade is restrained by the 
 establishment of extortionate rates and the prevention of 
 free competition/ 7 
 
 By the act of February 18, 1897, combinations by insurers 
 to raise rates of insurance are forbidden. 
 
 Arkansas The laws of 1897, article forty-six, and the laws 
 of 1899, article forty-one, prohibit combinations of trusts 
 and corporations, and provide for the punishment of pools, 
 trusts, and conspiracies to control prices. 
 California None. 
 Colorado None. 
 Connecticut None. 
 Delaware None. 
 Florida None. 
 
 Georgia The act of December 23, 1896, has the following 
 title: 
 
 An act to declare unlawful and void all arrangements, con- 
 tracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations made with a view 
 to lessen, or which tend to lessen, free competition in the 
 importation or sale of articles imported into this state, or in 
 the manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or of 
 domestic raw material; to declare unlawful and void all 
 arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations 
 between persons or corporations, designed, or which tend to 
 advance, reduce or control the price of such product or article 
 to producer or consumer of any such product or article; to 
 provide for forfeiture of the charter and franchise of any 
 corporation organized under the laws of this state, violating 
 any of the provisions of this act; to prohibit every foreign cor- 
 
224 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 poration violating any of the provisions of this act from doing 
 business in this state; to require the attorney-general of this 
 state to institute legal proceedings against any such corpora- 
 tions violating the provisions of this act, and to enforce the 
 penalties prescribed; to prescribe penalties for any violation 
 of this act; to authorize any person or corporation damaged: 
 by any such trust, agreement, or combination, to sue for the 
 recovery of such damage, and for other purposes. 
 
 Idaho Constitutional provision: Article eleven, section 
 eighteen. No incorporated company, or any association of 
 persons or stock company, in the state of Idaho, shall directly 
 or indirectly combine or make any contract with any other 
 incorporated company, foreign or domestic, through their 
 stockholders or the trustees or assignees of such stockholders, 
 or in any manner whatsoever, for the purpose of fixing the 
 price or regulating the production of any article of commerce 
 or of produce of the soil, or of consumption by the people;. 
 and that the legislature be required to pass laws for the 
 enforcement thereof, by adequate penalties, to the extent, if 
 necessary for that purpose, of the forfeiture of their property 
 and franchise. 
 
 [Adopted August 6, 1889.] 
 
 Illinois By law of June 11, 1891, and law of June 20, 
 1893, pools, trusts, combines, and conspiracies against trade 
 are prohibited. 
 
 Indiana By law of 1897, chapter 104, and law of 1899, 
 chapter 148, trusts or combinations to lessen free competition^ 
 or to control the price of products, are prohibited. 
 
 Iowa By the code of 1897, sections 5060 to 5067, combi- 
 nations to regulate or fix prices, or to lessen production -or 
 manufacture, are prohibited. 
 
 Kansas By law of March 5, 1887, combinations to fix the 
 price of grain or animals are forbidden, and by acts of March 
 2, 1889, March 8, 1897, and March 4, 1899, trusts and combi- 
 nations in restraint of trade and production are forbidden 
 and punished. 
 
 Kentucky By act of May 20, 1890, pools, trusts, and con- 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 225 
 
 spiracles for fixing prices or limiting production are for- 
 bidden and punished. 
 
 The Constitution of Kentucky contains the following sec- 
 tion: 
 
 198. Trusts and combinations to be suppressed. It shall 
 be the duty of the general assembly from time to time, as 
 necessity may require, to enact such laws as may be necessary 
 to prevent all trusts, pools, combinations or other organi- 
 zations from combining to depreciate below its real value 
 any article, or to enhance the cost of any article above its 
 real value. 
 
 Louisiana The Constitution, article 190, provides that it 
 shall be unlawful for persons or corporations, or their legal 
 representatives, to combine or conspire together, or to unite 
 or pool their interests for the purpose of forcing up or down 
 the price of any agricultural product or article of necessity, 
 for speculative purposes; and the legislature shall pass laws 
 to suppress it. 
 
 Maine Chapter 266, Session Laws of 1889, prohibits 
 trusts and combinations that are contrary to public policy. 
 
 Maryland None. 
 
 Massachusetts None. 
 
 Michigan The law of July 1, 1889, act 225, and the law 
 of September 22, 1899, prohibit and punish combinations to 
 limit production, prevent competition, or fix prices. 
 
 Minnesota The law of April 20, 1891, chapter 99, and 
 the law of April 21, 1899, chapter 359, prohibit and punish 
 trusts to control prices or production, or to destroy compe- 
 tition. 
 
 Mississippi The code of February 22, 1890, chapter 140, 
 prohibits and punishes trusts and combines to affect prices 
 or production or to hinder competition. 
 
 The Constitution, section 198, is as follows: 
 
 The legislature shall enact laws to prevent all trusts, com- 
 binations, contracts, and agreements, inimical to the public 
 welfare. 
 
 [Adopted November 1, 1890.] 
 15 
 
226 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Missouri Pools, trusts, and conspiracies to control prices 
 are prohibited and punished by the statutes of 1899, chapter 
 128, and by the laws of May 10, 1899, May 4, 1899, another 
 of May 4, 1899, and of May 23, 1899. 
 
 Montana The statutes of 1895, section 321 of the penal 
 code, prohibit trusts. 
 
 The Constitution, section 20, article 15, adopted August 
 17, 1889, is as follows: 
 
 No incorporation, stock company, person or association of 
 persons in the state of Montana, shall directly or indirectly 
 combine or form what is known as a trust, or make any con- 
 tract with any person, or persons, corporation or stock com- 
 pany, foreign or domestic, through their stockholders, trus- 
 tees, or in any manner whatever, for the purpose of fixing the 
 price, or regulating the production of any article of com- 
 merce, or of the product of the soil, for consumption by the 
 people. The legislative assembly shall pass laws for the 
 enforcement thereof by adequate penalties to the extent, if 
 necessary for that purpose, of the forfeiture of their prop- 
 erty and franchises, and in case of foreign corporations pro- 
 hibiting them from carrying on business in the state. 
 
 Nebraska Trusts and conspiracies against trade and busi- 
 ness intended to fix prices, production, or prevent competi- 
 tion, are prohibited by the laws of 1897, chapters seventy- 
 nine, eighty, and eighty-one. 
 
 Nevada None. 
 
 New Hampshire None. 
 
 New Jersey None. 
 
 New York Monopolies whereby competition in the supply 
 or price of commodities is restrained are prohibited by the 
 law of 1897, chapter 384, and by the law of May 25, 1899. 
 chapter 690. 
 
 North Carolina Constitutional provision " Perpetuities 
 and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state and 
 ought not to be allowed." Article one, section thirtj^-one. 
 
 Statutes. Law of March 11, 1889, chapter 374, law of 
 March 8, 1899, chapter 666. 
 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 227 
 
 North Dakota Coi>stitutional provision, article seven, 
 Section 146. Any combination between individuals, corpora- 
 tions, associations or either, having for its object or effect 
 the controlling of the price of any product of the soil or any 
 article of manufacture or commerce, or the cost of exchange 
 or transportation, is prohibited and hereby declared unlaw- 
 ful and against public policy; and any and all franchises here- 
 tofore granted or extended, or that may hereafter be granted 
 or extended in this state, whenever the owner or owners 
 thereof violate this article, shall be deemed annulled and be- 
 come void. 
 
 [Adopted October 1, 1889.] 
 
 The statutes of North Dakota punish trusts and combi- 
 nations. Revised codes, chapter one; law of March 9, 1897, 
 chapter 141. 
 
 Ohio The law of April 19, 1898, defines trusts and pun- 
 ishes corporations and persons connected with trusts and 
 requires free competition in commerce and all classes of 
 business in the state. 
 
 Oregon None. 
 
 Pennsylvania None. 
 
 Rhode Island None. 
 
 South Carolina The law of February 25, 1897, prohibits 
 trusts and combinations and provides penalties. The Con- 
 stitution contains the following: 
 
 Article nine, section thirteen. The general assembly shall 
 enact laws to prevent all trusts, combinations, contracts, and 
 agreements against the public welfare; and to prevent abuses, 
 unjust discriminations, and extortion in all charges of trans- 
 porting and transmitting companies; and shall pass laws for 
 the supervision and regulation of such companies by commis- 
 sion or otherwise, and shall provide adequate penalties, to 
 the extent, if necessary for that purpose, of forfeiture of their 
 franchises. 
 
 [Adopted December 4, 1895.] 
 
 South Dakota Punishes combinations and trusts by laws 
 of March 7, 1890, and March 1, 1897. 
 
228 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The Constitution contains the following: 
 
 SECT. 20. Monopolies and trusts shall never be allowed in 
 this state and no incorporate'd company, co-partnership, or 
 association of persons in this state shall directly or indirectly 
 combine or make any contract with any incorporated com- 
 pany, foreign or domestic, through their stockholders or 
 trustees or assigns of such stockholders or with any co-part- 
 nership or association of persons, or in any manner whatever 
 to fix the prices, limit the production or regulate the trans- 
 portation of any product or commodity so as to prevent com- 
 petition in such prices,, production or transportation or to 
 establish excessive prices therefor. 
 
 The legislature shall pass laws for the enforcement of this 
 section by adequate penalties, and in the case of incorporated 
 companies, if necessary for that purpose may, as a penalty, 
 declare a forfeiture of their franchises. 
 
 Tennessee The laws of April 6, 1889, March 30, 1891, 
 April 30, 1897, and another law of April 30, 1897, prohibit 
 and punish trusts and monopolies " as destructive of full and 
 free competition and a conspiracy against trade/' 
 
 The Constitution contains the following: 
 
 Article one, section twenty-two. Perpetuities and monop- 
 olies are contrary to the genius of a free state, and shall not 
 be allowed. 
 
 [Adopted February 23, 1870.] 
 
 Texas Constitutional provision. 
 
 SECT. 2G. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the 
 genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed. 
 
 .The anti-trust laws are April 30, 1895, chapter 83; May 25, 
 1899, chapter 146. 
 
 Utah Statutes against pools and trusts, 1898, title 54. 
 
 Constitutional provision, article twelve, section twenty. 
 Any combination by individuals, corporations, or associations, 
 having for its object or effect the controlling of the price of 
 any products of the soil, or of any article of manufacture or 
 commerce, or the cost of exchange or transportation, is pro- 
 hibited, and hereby declared unlawful, and against public 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 229 
 
 policy. The legislature shall pass laws for the enforcement 
 of this section by adequate penalties, and in case of incor- 
 porated companies, if necessary for that purpose, it may de- 
 clare a forfeiture of their franchise. 
 
 [Adopted May 8, 1895.] 
 
 Vermont None. 
 
 Virginia Constitution, article twelve, section 165. The 
 general assembly shall enact laws preventing all trusts, com- 
 binations, and monopolies inimical to the public welfare. 
 
 Washington Constitutional provision, article twelve, sec- 
 tion twenty-two. Monopolies and trusts shall never be 
 allowed in this state, and no incorporated company, co-part- 
 nership, or association of persons in this state shall directly 
 or indirectly combine or make any contract with any other 
 incorporated company, foreign or domestic, through their 
 stockholders, or the trustees, or assignees of such stockhold- 
 ers, or with any co-partnership or association of persons, or 
 in any manner whatever, for the purpose of fixing the price 
 or limiting the production or regulating the transportation of 
 any product or commodity. The legislature shall pass laws 
 for the enforcement of this section by adequate penalties, and 
 in case of incorporated companies, if necessary for that pur- 
 pose, may declare a forfeiture of their franchise. 
 
 [Adopted, 1899.] 
 
 West Virginia None. 
 
 Wisconsin The statutes against trusts and monopolies 
 intended to restrain or prevent competition, or control prices, 
 or limit production are the laws of April 17, 1893, chapter 
 219, and of April 27, 1897, chapter 357. 
 
 Wyoming None. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Prohibited by Constitution in states 14 
 
 Prohibited by statute in states 25 
 
 Prohibited by both Constitution and statute in states 10 
 
 Not prohibited in states 16 
 
230 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 MEMORANDUM PRESENTED BY MR. CHANDLER OF 
 CONCORD, CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION OF 
 FREE PASSES ON RAILROADS BY THE CONSTI- 
 TUTIONS AND LAWS OF THE VARIOUS STATES 
 OF THE UNION. 
 
 Alabama Prohibited by the Constitution of September 3, 
 1901. Article thirteen, section 244, as follows: 
 
 No railroad or other transportation company or corpora- 
 tion shall grant free passes or sell tickets or passes at a dis- 
 count, other than as sold to the public generally, to any 
 member of the legislature or to any officer exercising judicial 
 functions under the laws of this state; and any such member 
 or officer receiving such a pass or ticket for himself, or pro- 
 curing the same for another, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and, upon conviction, shall be fined not exceeding five hun- 
 dred dollars, and at the discretion of the court trying the 
 case, in addition to such fine, may imprison for a term not 
 exceeding six months, and upon conviction, shall be subject 
 to impeachment and removal from office. The courts having 
 jurisdiction shall give this law specially in charge to the 
 grand juries, and when the evidence is sufficient to authorize 
 an indictment, the grand jury must present a true bill. The 
 circuit court or any court of like jurisdiction in any county 
 into or through which such member or officer is transported 
 by the use of such prohibited pass or ticket, shall have juris- 
 diction of the case, provided only one prosecution shall be 
 had for the same offense; and provided further, that the trial 
 and judgment for one offense shall not bar a prosecution for 
 another offense when the same pass or ticket is used; and 
 provided further, that nothing herein shall prevent a mem- 
 ber of the legislature who is a lona fide employe of a rail- 
 road or other transportation company or corporation at the 
 time of his election, from accepting or procuring for himself 
 or another, not a member of the legislature, or officer exercis- 
 ing judicial functions, a free pass over the railroads or other 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 231 
 
 transportation company or corporation by which he is em- 
 ployed. 
 
 245. No railroad company shall give or pay any rebate, 
 or a bonus in the nature thereof, directly or indirectly, or 
 do any act to mislead or deceive the public as to the real 
 rates charged or received for freights or passage; and any 
 such payments shall be illegal and void, and these prohibi- 
 tions shall be enforced by suitable penalties. 
 
 Arkansas Prohibited by the statutes. 
 
 California The Constitution prohibits the granting of 
 passes or free tickets to any person holding any office of 
 honor, trust, or profit, and the acceptance thereof makes a 
 forfeiture of his office. 
 
 Colorado None. 
 
 Connecticut None. 
 
 D elawar e None . 
 
 Florida The Constitution prohibits state officials from 
 using free passes. 
 
 Georgia None. 
 
 Idaho None. 
 
 Illinois None. 
 
 Indiana None. 
 
 Iowa None. 
 
 Kansas None. 
 
 Kentucky Prohibited by Constitution, section 197, as 
 follows: 
 
 Free passes Issuance or acceptance of forbidden. No 
 railroad, steamboat, or other common carrier, under heavy 
 penalty to be fixed by the general assembly, shall give a free 
 pass, or passes, or shall, at reduced rates not common to the 
 public, sell tickets for transportation to any state, district, 
 city, town, or county officer, or member of the general assem- 
 bly, or judge; and any state, district, city, town, or county 
 officer, or member of the general assembly, or judge, who 
 shall accept or use a free pass, or passes, or shall receive or 
 use tickets or transportation at reduced rates not common 
 to the public, shall forfeit his office. It shall be the duty 
 
232 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of the general assembly to enact laws to enforce the pro- 
 visions of this section. 
 
 Louisiana Prohibited by the Constitution as follows: 
 
 AET. 191. No member of the general assembly, or public 
 officer, or person elected or appointed to a public office under 
 the laws of this state, shall directly or indirectly demand, 
 accept, receive or consent to receive, for his own use or bene- 
 fit, or for the use or benefit of another, any free pass, free 
 transportation, franking privilege, or discrimination in pas- 
 senger, telegraph or telephone rates, from any person or cor- 
 poration, or make use of the same himself or in conjunction 
 with another. 
 
 Any person who violates any provision of this article shall 
 forfeit his office, at the suit of the attorney-general, or the 
 district attorney, to be brought at the domicile of the defend- 
 ant, and shall be subject to such further penalty as may be 
 prescribed by law. 
 
 Any corporation, or officer, or agent thereof, who shall give, 
 or offer, or promise, to a public officer, any such free pass, 
 free transportation, franking privilege, or discrimination, 
 shall be liable to punishment for each offense by a fine of 
 five hundred dollars, to be recovered at the suit of the attor- 
 ney-general, or district attorney, to be brought at the 'domi- 
 cile of the officer to whom such free pass, free transportation, 
 franking privilege, or discrimination was given, offered, or 
 promised. 
 
 No person, officer, or agent of a corporation, giving any 
 such free pass, free transportation, frankling privilege, or 
 discrimination, hereby prohibited, shall be privileged from 
 testifying in relation thereto; but he shall not be liable to 
 civil or criminal prosecution therefor, if he shall testify to 
 the giving of the same. 
 
 Maine None. 
 
 Maryland None. 
 
 Massachusetts Forbidden by legislature as follows: 
 
 An act relating to the issuing of railroad passes and the 
 compensation of members of the legislature: 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 233 
 
 SECTION 1. No railroad corporation shall issue to the 
 governor,, lieutenant-governor, any member of the council, 
 any judge of the supreme judicial court, or the superior court, 
 probate court, municipal or district court, or county com- 
 missioners, or any member or member-elect of the legis- 
 lature, any free pass, or any ticket entitling him to transpor- 
 tation at a less rate of fare than is demanded of the public 
 generally. 
 
 SECT. 2. Any officer, agent, of employee of a railroad 
 corporation who issues, delivers, or offers to any person men- 
 tioned in section one of this act, or to or for any other per- 
 son at the request, solicitation, or procurement of any per- 
 son mentioned in section one, any free pass or any ticket 
 entitling him to transportation at a less rate of fare than is 
 demanded of the public generally, shall be punished by a 
 fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand 
 dollars. 
 
 SECT. 3. Any person mentioned in section one of this 
 act who requests, for himself or another, accepts or uses any 
 free pass upon a railroad, or any ticket entitling him to 
 transportation upon a railroad, for which he has paid a less 
 price than is demanded of the public generally, shall be pun T 
 ished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than 
 one thousand dollars. 
 
 SECT. 4. Each member of the senate and house of rep- 
 resentatives shall receive seven hundred and fifty dollars for 
 the regular annual session for which he is elected, and two 
 dollars for every mile of ordinary traveling distance from 
 his place of abode to the place of the sitting of the general 
 court; and the president of the senate and the speaker of the 
 house shall receive double the compensation provided for 
 members, and two dollars for every mile of ordinary travel- 
 ing distance from his place of abode as aforesaid. 
 
 SECT. 5. This act shall take effect upon its passage. [Ap- 
 proved March 14, 1892.] 
 
 Michigan None. 
 
 Minnesota None. 
 
234 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mississippi Not heard from. 
 
 Missouri Prohibited by Constitution, article twelve, sec- 
 tion twenty-four, as follows: 
 
 Free passes, granting to state officers, forfeiture. No rail- 
 road or other transportation company shall grant free passes 
 or tickets, or passes or tickets at a discount, to members of 
 the general assembly, or members of the board of equalization, 
 or any state or county or municipal officers; and the accept- 
 ance of such pass or ticket, by a member of the general as- 
 sembly, or any such officer, shall be a forfeiture of his office. 
 
 Montana None. 
 
 Nebraska None . 
 
 Nevada None. 
 
 New Hampshire Free transportation is allowed to stock- 
 holders at annual meetings, officers of the railroad and of 
 connecting railroads, persons in charge of mails and express, 
 and poor persons and persons in misfortune who are unable 
 to pay the fare and others to whom passes have been granted. 
 
 New York Prohibited by Constitution, article thirteen, as 
 follows: 
 
 SECT. 5. No public officer, or person elected or appointed 
 to a public office, under the laws of this state, shall directly 
 or indirectly ask, demand, accept, receive or consent to re- 
 ceive for his own use or benefit, or for the use or benefit of 
 another, any free pass, free transportation, franking privilege 
 or discrimination in passenger, telegraph or telephone rates, 
 from any person or corporation, or make use of the same 
 iiimself or in conjunction with another. A person who vio- 
 lates any provision of this section shall be deemed guilty of 
 a misdemeanor and shall forfeit his office at the suit of the 
 attorney-general. Any corporation, or officer or agent 
 thereof, who shall offer or promise to a public officer, or per- 
 son elected or appointed to a public office, any such free pass, 
 free transportation, franking privilege or discrimination 
 shall also be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to 
 punishment except as herein provided. No person, or officer 
 or agent of a corporation, giving any such free pass, free 
 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 235 
 
 transportation, franking privilege or discrimination hereby 
 prohibited, shall be privileged from testifying in relation 
 thereto and he shall not be liable to civil or criminal prose- 
 cution therefor if he shall testify to the giving of the same. 
 
 SECT. 6. Any district attorney who shall fail faithfully 
 to prosecute a person charged with the violation in his county 
 of any provision of this article which may come to his knowl- 
 edge, shall be removed from office by the governor, after due 
 notice and an opportunity of being heard in his defense. The 
 expenses which shall be incurred by any county, in investi- 
 gating and prosecuting any charge of bribery or attempting 
 to bribe any person holding office under the laws of this state 
 within such county, or of receiving bribes by any such per- 
 son in said county, shall be a charge against the state, and 
 their payment by the state shall be provided for by law. 
 
 North Carolina Not heard from. 
 
 North Dakota None. 
 
 Ohio None. 
 
 Oregon None. 
 
 Pennsylvania Prohibited by Constitution, article seven- 
 teen, section eight, as follows: 
 
 No railroad, railway or other transportation company shall 
 grant free passes, or passes at a discount, to any person ex- 
 cept officers or employes of the company. 
 
 Ehode Island None. 
 
 South Carolina The statutes prohibit the use of free 
 railroad passes. 
 
 South Dakota None. 
 
 rennessee None. 
 
 Texas None. 
 
 Utah The law prohibits free railroad passes, but there is- 
 no penalty attached to a violation of the statute, and it is not 
 generally observed. 
 
 Vermont None. 
 
 Virginia Prohibited by Constitution of 1901-'02, as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 SECT. 161. No transportation or transmission company 
 
236 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 doing business in this state shall grant to any member of the 
 general assembly, or to any state, county, district, or munici- 
 pal officer, except to members and officers of the state cor- 
 poration commission for their personal use while in office, 
 any frank, free pass, free transportation, or any rebate or 
 reduction in the rates charged by such company to the gen- 
 eral public for like services. For violation of the provisions 
 oi this section the offending company shall be liable to such 
 penalties as may be prescribed by law; and any member of 
 the general assembly, or any such officer, who shall, while in 
 office, accept any gift, privilege or benefit as is prohibited by 
 this section, shall thereby forfeit his office, and be subject 
 to such further penalties as may be prescribed by law; but 
 this section shall not prevent a street railway company from 
 transporting free of charge any member of the police force 
 or fire department while in the discharge of his official du- 
 ties, nor prohibit the acceptance by any such policeman or 
 fireman of such free transportation. 
 
 Washington Not heard from. 
 
 West Virginia None. 
 
 Wisconsin Prohibited by amendment to article thirteen 
 of the Constitution, adopted November 4, 1902, as follows: 
 
 SECT. 11. No person, association, co-partnership or cor- 
 poration, shall promise, offer, or give for any purpose, to 
 any political committee, or any member or employee thereof, 
 to any candidate for, or incumbent of any office or position 
 under the Constitution or laws, or under any ordinance of 
 any town or municipality of this state, or to any person at 
 the request or for the advantage of all, or any of them, any 
 free pass or frank, or any privilege withheld from any per- 
 son, for the traveling accommodation or transportation of 
 any person or property, or the transmission of any message 
 or communication. No political committee, and no member 
 or employee thereof, no candidate for, and no encumbent of 
 any office or position under the Constitution or laws, or under 
 any ordinance of any town or municipality of this state, shall 
 ask for, or accept, from any person, association, co-partner- 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 237 
 
 ship, or corporation, or use, in any manner, or for any pur- 
 pose, any free pass or frank, or any privilege withheld from 
 any person, for the traveling accommodation or transporta- 
 tion of any person or property, or the transmission of any 
 message or communication. Any violation of any of the 
 above provisions shall be bribery and be punished as provided 
 by law, and if any officer or any member of the legislature be 
 guilty thereof, his office shall become vacant. No person 
 within the purview of this act shall be privileged from testi- 
 fying in relation to anything therein prohibited; and no per- 
 son having so testified shall be liable to any prosecution or 
 punishment for any offense concerning which he was required 
 to give his testimony or produce any documentary evidence. 
 The railroad commissioner and his deputy in the discharge 
 of duty are excepted from the provisions of this amendment. 
 "Wy omi ng None. 
 
 SUMMAEY. 
 
 Prohibited by Constitution in states 9 
 
 Prohibited by statutes in states 5 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth offered the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 Resolved, That article ninety-three of part second of the 
 Constitution of this state be amended by inserting after the 
 word " viz.," in the third line of said article, the following: 
 
 " Judge of the supreme court or of any inferior court, at- 
 torney-general, county solicitor, secretary of state, state treas- 
 urer, adjutant-general/' so that said section when amended 
 shall read as follows: 
 
 ART. 93. No person shall be capable of exercising at the 
 same time more than one of the following offices within this, 
 state, viz., judge of the supreme court or of any inferior 
 court, attorney-general, county solicitor, secretary of state, 
 state treasurer, adjutant-general, judge of probate, sheriff, 
 register of deeds; and never more than two offices of profit,. 
 
238 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 which, may be held by appointment of the governor, or gov- 
 ernor and council, or senate and house of representatives, or 
 superior or inferior courts, military offices and offices of jus- 
 tices of the peace excepted. 
 
 V 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the Committee on the Ju- 
 dicial Department. 
 
 Mr. Colby of Hanover offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article six of the Bill of Rights of the Con- 
 stitution be amended by striking out in lines one and two 
 of the first paragraph the words " rightly grounded on evan- 
 gelical principles," and in line thirteen of the same para- 
 graph the word " Protestant," so that as amended the said 
 article six shall read as follows: 
 
 ART. 6. As morality and piety will give the best and 
 greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts 
 of men the strongest obligations to due subjection, and as 
 the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated 
 through a society by the institution of the public worship of 
 the Deity and of public instruction in morality and religion, 
 therefore, to promote these important purposes, the people 
 of this state have a right to empower, and do hereby fully 
 empower, the legislature to authorize, from time to time, 
 the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious 
 societies within this state to make adequate provision, at their 
 own expense, for the support and maintenance of public 
 teachers of piety, religion, and morality. Provided, nottvith- 
 standing, that the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, 
 or religious societies shall at all times have the exclusive 
 right of electing their own public teachers, and of contract- 
 ing with them for their support and maintenance. And no 
 person of any one particular religious sect or denomination 
 shall ever be compelled to pay toward the support of the 
 teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or denomina- 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 239 
 
 tion. And every denomination of Christians, demeaning 
 themselves quietly and as good subjects of the state, shall be 
 equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination 
 of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be 
 established by law. And nothing herein shall be understood 
 to affect any former contracts made for the support of the 
 ministry; but all such contracts shall remain and be in the 
 same state as if this Constitution had not been made. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the Committee on the Bill 
 of Eights and Executive Department. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I desire to present the fol- 
 lowing resolution, proposing an amendment to the Consti- 
 tution with reference to trusts: 
 
 Resolved, That an amendment to the Constitution be sub- 
 mitted as follows: 
 
 The legislature shall have power to define, regulate, pro- 
 hibit, or dissolve trusts, monopolies, or combinations, whether 
 existing in the form of a corporation or otherwise. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I wish to state, for the infor- 
 mation of the Convention, that the proposition is in the exact 
 form in which it was voted on in the house of representatives 
 in congress, on June 1, 1900, except that the word " con- 
 gress " was used instead of the word " legislature." That 
 proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States 
 received 154 votes and 132 votes were cast against it, so there 
 not being a two-thirds vote in its favor, it did not go from 
 the house of representatives to the senate. 
 
 The reason that it was not adopted was because the Demo- 
 crats, with substantial unanimity, objected, not so much to 
 giving that power to congress, as they did to taking the power 
 to regulate the trusts away from the states. So, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, it was fairly to be inferred that every one of the mem- 
 bers of the house of representatives would be in favor of this 
 
240 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 resolution, declaring that the legislatures of the states should 
 have this power with reference to trusts, and it has occurred 
 to me that perhaps this Convention would prefer this propo- 
 sition which 154 members of the national house of represent- 
 atives voted for, and to which the 132 Democrats objected 
 only because they feared it would deprive the states of gower. 
 They would undoubtedly all have been willing to grant that 
 power to the legislatures of their states, and they would 
 undoubtedly be in favor of urging their legislatures in accord- 
 ance with the substance of this resolution. 
 
 I ask that this resolution be printed and considered with 
 the other resolutions in relation to trusts. 
 
 Mr. Worcester of Milford offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article ninety-six of the Constitution be 
 amended by striking out the words " silver at six shillings 
 and eight pence per ounce," and inserting in place thereof the 
 following: "the standard coinage of the United States of 
 America," so that said article shall read as follows:- 
 
 AET. 96. In all cases where sums of money are mentioned 
 in this Constitution, the value thereof shall be computed in 
 the standard coinage of the United States of America. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and other Proposed 
 Amendments. 
 
 Mr. Clyde of Hudson offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended as to pro- 
 vide for the election biennially of one representative from 
 each and every town and from each and every ward of the 
 cities throughout the state, and that the Constitution be 
 further amended so that five per cent, of the qualified voters 
 of the state, upon petition, may invoke either the initiative or 
 the referendum and a majority of the people thereupon by 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 241 
 
 direct vote enact any measure that has by such initiative peti- 
 tion been proposed or reject and veto any measure that has 
 been by their general court passed and by reason of such ref- 
 erendum petition to them referred. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole, 
 to be considered with other resolutions relating to like sub- 
 jects. 
 
 Mr. Newell of Keene offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article eleven, part second of the Constitu- 
 tion of this state be amended by striking out the word " six," 
 and inserting instead thereof the word " eight," so that it 
 shall read as follows: 
 
 Whenever any town, or city ward, shall have less than 
 eight hundred such inhabitants, the general court shall au- 
 thorize such town, place, or ward to elect and send to the 
 general court a representative such proportionate part of thf 
 time as the number of its inhabitants shall bear to 800, but 
 the general court shall not authorize any such town, place, or 
 ward to elect and send such representative, except as herein 
 provided. 
 
 Referred to Committee of the Whole, to be taken up with 
 other resolutions of like character. 
 
 Mr. Russell of Plymouth offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article forty-seven, part second, be amended 
 by adding to it the words " provided, that no person shall be 
 so nominated and recommended until he shall have been 
 examined and found duly qualified by an examining board 
 appointed by the governor," so that the said article forty- 
 seven will read as follows: 
 
 ART. 47. The captains and subalterns in the respective 
 regiments shall be nominated and recommended by the field 
 16 
 
242 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 officers to the governor, who is to issue their commissions 
 immediately on receipt of such recommendation: provided, 
 that no person shall be so nominated or recommended until 
 he shall have been examined and found duly qualified by an 
 examining board appointed by the governor. 
 
 That article fifty-three and article fifty-six, part second, be 
 stricken out. 
 
 That article sixty-six, part second, be amended by striking 
 out the words " commissary-general " and inserting the 
 words " and the " between the word " secretary " and the 
 word "treasurer/ 7 so that the said article sixty-six will read 
 as follows: 
 
 ART. 66. The secretary and the treasurer shall be chosen 
 by joint ballot of the senators and representatives assembled 
 in one room. 
 
 Eeferred to Committee on Future Mode of Amending the 
 Constitution and other Proposed Amendments. 
 
 Mr. Starr of Manchester offered the following amendment 
 to the Constitution: 
 
 Amend article eighty- two by adding thereto the following: 
 
 And, further, full power is hereby granted to the said 
 general court to enact laws to prevent, by civil and criminal 
 process, the operations within the state of any trust or cor- 
 poration, foreign or domestic, which endeavors to raise the 
 price of any article of commerce by restraint of trade, monop- 
 oly, or other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts 
 of all corporations doing business within the state, and pre- 
 vent their encroachments upon the liberties of the people. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the appropriate committee. 
 
 Eeferred to Committee on the Legislative Department. 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 243 
 
 Mr. Starr of Manchester offered the following resolution: 
 Amend article five, part two, by adding: 
 
 And said general court is authorized and directed to enact 
 statutes which shall prevent the giving or issuing of railroad 
 passes, except to actual railroad officials or employees, and 
 poor persons in misfortune. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the proper committee. 
 
 Referred to Committee on the Judicial Department. 
 
 Mr. Starr of Manchester offered the following proposed 
 amendment to the Constitution: 
 
 Strike out article sixty-six, part two, and insert in place 
 thereof the following-: 
 
 e* 
 
 The secretary, treasurer, labor commissioner, and railroad 
 commissioners shall be chosen by vote of the people at the 
 same time and in the same manner as the governor is chosen; 
 all police and other commissioners having to do \vith city or 
 town affairs shall be chosen at local elections by the citizens 
 of the town or cit}- which said commissioners are to serve. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the appropriate committee. 
 
 Referred to the Committee on the Legislative Department. 
 Mr. Baker of Bow offered the following resolution: 
 
 Amend part second of the Constitution by striking out 
 articles ninety-eight and ninety-nine, and inserting in lieu 
 thereof the following: 
 
 ART. 98. Any amendment or amendments to this Consti- 
 tution may be proposed in either branch of the legislature; 
 and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the mem- 
 bers elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amend- 
 
244 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with 
 the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legis- 
 lature to be chosen at the next general election, and shall be 
 published in some newspaper in each county of the state for 
 three months previous to the time of holding such election; 
 and if, in the legislature so next chosen, such proposed 
 amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority 
 of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the 
 duty of the legislature to submit such proposed amendment 
 or amendments to the people, in such manner, and at such 
 time, as the legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall 
 approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a 
 majority of the electors voting thereon, such amendment or 
 amendments shall become part of the Constitution; provided, 
 that if more than one amendment be submitted at the same 
 time, they shall be submitted in such manner that the people 
 may vote for or against such amendments separately. 
 
 ART. 99. If at any time a majority of the senate and 
 house shall deem it necessary to call a Convention to revise 
 or change this Constitution, they shall recommend to the 
 electors to vote for or against a Convention at the next elec- 
 tion for members of the legislature. And if it shall appear 
 that a majority of the electors voting thereon have voted 
 for a Convention, the legislature shall, at its next session, 
 provide for calling such Convention. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and other Proposed 
 Amendments. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow offered the following resolution: 
 
 Amend article seven, part second, title " General Court/' 
 of the Constitution by adding thereto as follows: 
 
 .Nor shall the general court pass any local, private, or 
 special law, regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 245 
 
 -changing the rules of evidence in any judicial -proceeding or 
 inquiry before courts, justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, 
 commissioners, arbitrators, or other tribunals, or providing 
 or changing methods for the collection of debts Or the en- 
 forcement of judgments or prescribing the effect of judicial 
 .sales of real estate; 
 
 Regulating the fees or extending the powers and duties .of 
 justices of the peace, sheriffs, constables, or other officers; 
 
 Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of 
 officers in counties, cities, towns, election or school districts; 
 
 Changing the law of descent or succession; 
 
 Affecting the estates of minors or persons under disability; 
 
 Exempting property from taxation; 
 
 Fixing the rate of interest; 
 
 Regulating labor, trade, mining or manufacturing; 
 
 Creating corporations or granting corporate powers or 
 privileges, or amending, renewing, extending or explaining 
 the charter thereof; 
 
 C4ranting to any corporation, association or individual any 
 special or exclusive right, privilege or immunity, or to any 
 corporation, association or individual the right to la}^ down 
 a railroad track; 
 
 Extending the time for the assessment or collection of 
 taxes, or otherwise relieving any assessor or collector of 
 taxes from the due performance of his official duties, or his 
 securities from liability; 
 
 Legalizing the unauthorized or invalid acts of any officer 
 or agent of the state or of any county, town or municipality 
 thereof; 
 
 Authorizing the creation, extension or impairing of liens, 
 the adoption of, or legitimation of, children or the granting 
 of divorces; 
 
 Changing the venue in civil or criminal cases, the law for 
 the punishment of crimes, or the names of persons or places; 
 
 Giving effect to informal or invalid wills, deeds, or other 
 instruments, summoning grand or petit juries, or for the 
 limitation of actions at law or in equity; 
 
246 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Declaring any person of age or authorizing any minor to 
 sell, lease or encumber his or her property; 
 
 Providing for the management of common or public 
 schools; 
 
 Restoring to citizenship persons convicted of infamous 
 crimes; 
 
 Relating to cemeteries, graveyards, or public grounds, not 
 of the state and in all other cases where a general law can 
 be made applicable, 110 local or special law shall be enacted; 
 and whether a general law could have been made applicable 
 in any case is hereby declared a judicial question, and as 
 such shall be judicially determined without regard to any 
 legislative assertion on that subject. Nor shall the general 
 court indirectly enact such special or local law by the partial 
 repeal of a general law; but laws repealing local or special 
 acts may be passed. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to the Committee on the Legis- 
 lative Department. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That articles nine and ten of part second of the 
 Constitution be amended as follows: (1) Limit the repre- 
 sentation of the people, in the house of representatives, to 
 301; (2) in the apportionment of this number among towns 
 and wards, adhere to the existing proportion between the 
 number of inhabitants requisite for one, or the first, and the 
 number required for the second, or any additional represent- 
 ative, that is, the number of inhabitants required for a 
 second, or any additional representative, shall be three times 
 the number required for one, or the first, representative, so 
 that the mean increasing number for any additional repre- 
 sentative shall be twice the number required for one repre- 
 sentative; (3) towns and wards having 400 inhabitants, or 
 more, but less than the number required for one, shall be 
 authorized to elect a representative such proportionate part 
 
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1902. 247 
 
 of the time as the number of its inhabitants shall bear to 
 the number required for one representative; (4) contiguous 
 towns, or towns and wards having, respectively, less than 
 400 inhabitants, but whose inhabitants in the aggregate 
 equal, or exceed, the number necessary for one representative, 
 may, if each so decides, by major vote, in meetings called for 
 that purpose, be authorized to unite for the purpose of elect- 
 ing a representative: and the votes of such united towns, or 
 wards, shall be cast, returned, counted, and declared, as votes 
 for senators are now cast, returned, counted, and declared; 
 and such towns as are not contiguous, or do not thus vote, 
 shall be allotted representation such a proportionate part of 
 the time as the number of their inhabitants, respectively, 
 bears to the number required for one representative; -(5) fol- 
 lowing each general census of the United States, should the 
 increase of population, in the different towns and wards, be 
 so disproportionate as to require a reapportionment of the 
 301 members, in order to preserve the proportion and ratio 
 here established, the legislature shall make such reappor- 
 tionment of representatives; but the same must be done by a 
 strict adherence to the basis, proportion, and ratio here 
 recognized. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole, 
 to be taken up at the proper time with other resolutions of 
 a like character. 
 
 Mr. Harmon of Effingham offered the following resolution: 
 
 Amend articles nine and ten of part second of the Consti- 
 tution by striking out both articles and inserting the follow- 
 
 A census of the legal voters of each city and town, on the 
 first day of May, shall be taken and returned into the office 
 of the secretary of state, on or before the first day of June 
 in the year one thousand nine hundred and five, and every 
 tenth year thereafter. The enumeration aforesaid shall de- 
 
248 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 termine the apportionment of representatives for the periods 
 between the taking of the census. 
 
 The house of representatives shall consist of 300 members, 
 which shall be apportioned by the legislature, at its first ses- 
 sion after the return of each enumeration, as aforesaid, to 
 the several counties of the state, equally, as nearly as may be, 
 according tc their relative number of legal voters as ascer- 
 tained by the preceding enumeration, and it shall be the duty 
 of the secretary of state to certify, as soon as may be after 
 it is determined by the legislature, the number of repre- 
 sentatives to which each county shall be entitled, to the 
 board authorized to divide each county into representative 
 districts. The county commissioners in each county or in 
 lieu of the county commissioners in each county, such board 
 of special commissioners in each county, to be elected by the 
 people of the county, as may for that purpose be provided by 
 law shall on the first Tuesday of June next, after each 
 assignment of representatives to each count} r , assemble at a 
 shire town of their respective counties, and proceed, as soon 
 as may be, to divide the same into representative districts of 
 contiguous territory, so as to apportion the representatives 
 assigned to each county, equally, as nearl}' as may be, accord- 
 ing to the relative population in the several districts of each 
 county, and such districts shall be so formed that no town or 
 ward shall be divided therefor. Districts may be formed for 
 one or more representatives as the contiguity of territory or 
 the physical and social relations of the towns or wards may 
 warrant. The legislature at the next session after such di- 
 vision of the counties into representative districts may, upon 
 appeal by a town or ward, examine the classification of that 
 town or ward, and change the district lines of that county in 
 accordance with the provisions of this article if it shall ap- 
 pear that injustice has been done. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole, 
 to be considered with resolutions relating to a like subject. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow moved that when the Convention ad- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 249 
 
 journs it adjourn to meet at 8 o'clock in the evening. Mo- 
 tion declared lost on a viva voce vote. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Demeritt of Alton, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 
 The journal was read and approved. 
 Mr. Xorris of Portsmouth offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article five, part two of the Constitution be 
 amended in its fourth clause so that said clause shall read: 
 " and to impose and levy proportional and reasonable assess- 
 ments, rates, and taxes upon all the inhabitants of, and resi- 
 dents within, the said state, and upon all the estates and 
 franchises within the same, to be issued and disposed of by 
 warrant, under the hand of the governor of this state for the 
 time being, with the advice and consent of the council, for 
 the public service, in the necessary defense and support of 
 the government of this state and the protection and preserva- 
 tion of the subjects thereof, according to such acts as are, or 
 shall be, in force within the same." 
 
 Eeferred to the Committee on the Legislative Department 
 and ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Xorris of Portsmouth offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article six, part two of the Constitution be 
 amended so that it shall read: 
 
 ART. G. The public charges of government or any part 
 thereof may be raised by taxation upon polls and estates and 
 
250 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 such other methods as may be deemed equitable and just; 
 and there shall be a valuation of the estates within the state 
 taken anew once in every five years, at least, and as much 
 oftener as the general court shall order. 
 
 Referred to the Committee on the Legislative Department 
 and ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article six, part second of the Constitution 
 be amended by adding the following: 
 
 Moneys may also be raised by taxation in such other method 
 as may be equal, equitable, and just. 
 
 Eeferred to the Committee on the Legislative Department 
 and ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Ham of Portsmouth offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the constitution be amended by adding at 
 the end of article five of part second the following: "And 
 further full power and authority are hereby given and granted 
 to the said general court to impose and levy assessments, 
 rates, and taxes upon the estates of deceased persons, or 
 upon bequests, devises or inheritances, exceeding $10,000, 
 said rates and taxes to be graded or proportioned in such 
 way or manner as said general court may direct; but said 
 rates and taxes shall never exceed five per cent, of said estates, 
 bequests, devises or inheritances comprised of a less sum than 
 $20,000." 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to Committee on the Legis- 
 lative Department. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Eastman of Exeter, the following statis- 
 tics and tables submitted by Mr. Baker of Bow, relating to 
 the legislative department of the government of the state, 
 were ordered printed: 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 
 
 251 
 
 TABLE I. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 Population. 
 
 Number of Senators. 
 
 No. of Representatives. 
 
 . 
 
 Ratio of Population. One 
 Representative to each. 
 
 Has a Lieut. Governor. 
 
 Elects Secretary of State, 
 State Treasurer, Attor- 
 ney-General, etc., in what 
 manner. 
 
 New Hampshire 
 Alabama. 
 
 411,588 
 1 828 697 
 
 24 
 35 
 
 393 
 105 
 
 1,045 
 17 416 
 
 No. 
 Yes 
 
 Legislature. 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 1,311 564 
 
 35 
 
 100 
 
 13 115 
 
 it 
 
 tt 
 
 California 
 
 1 485 05.3 
 
 40 
 
 80 
 
 18 563 
 
 tt 
 
 ii 
 
 Colorado 
 
 539 700 
 
 35 
 
 64 
 
 8 432 
 
 ii 
 
 ii 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 908,420 
 
 24 
 
 255 
 
 3 562 
 
 ii 
 
 ii 
 
 Delaware 
 
 184,735 
 
 17 
 
 35 
 
 5 278 
 
 it 
 
 Appointed 
 
 Florida, 
 
 528 542 
 
 32 
 
 68 
 
 7 772 
 
 No 
 
 People 
 
 Georgia 
 
 2 216 331 
 
 44 
 
 175 
 
 I 9 664 
 
 
 it 
 
 Idaho . 
 
 161 772 
 
 21 
 
 46 
 
 4 494 
 
 Yes 
 
 < 
 
 Illinois 
 
 4 821 550 
 
 51 
 
 153 
 
 31 513 
 
 14 
 
 i 
 
 Indiana 
 
 2 516 462 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 25 164 
 
 14 
 
 i 
 
 Iowa . 
 
 2 231 853 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 22 318 
 
 14 
 
 i 
 
 Kansas 
 
 1,470,495 
 
 40 
 
 125 
 
 11 763 
 
 14 
 
 i 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 2 147 174 
 
 38 
 
 100 
 
 21 471 
 
 II 
 
 i 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 1 381 625 
 
 39 
 
 114 
 
 12 119 
 
 || 
 
 i 
 
 Maine 
 
 694,466 
 
 31 
 
 151 
 
 4 599 
 
 No. 
 
 Legislature 
 
 Maryland 
 
 1 188 044 
 
 27 
 
 101 
 
 11 762 
 
 14 
 
 Appt or El 
 
 Alassachusetts . . . 
 
 2 805 346 
 
 40 
 
 240 
 
 11 689 
 
 Yes 
 
 People 
 
 Michigan 
 
 2 4 9 982 
 
 32 
 
 100 
 
 24 209 
 
 ii 
 
 u 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 1 751,394 
 
 63 
 
 118 
 
 14 842 
 
 ii 
 
 II 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 1 551 270 
 
 33 
 
 107 
 
 14 497 
 
 ii 
 
 ^^ 
 
 Missouri 
 
 3 106 665 
 
 34 
 
 142 
 
 22 190 
 
 14 
 
 II 
 
 Montana 
 
 243,329 
 
 26 
 
 72 
 
 4 424 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 1 066 300 
 
 33 
 
 100 
 
 10 663 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 Nevada 
 
 42 335 
 
 18 
 
 36 
 
 1 176 
 
 (I 
 
 II 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 1 883 669 
 
 21 
 
 60 
 
 31 394 
 
 ll 
 
 Appointed 
 
 New York 
 
 7 268 894 
 
 50 
 
 150 
 
 48459 
 
 tl 
 
 People 
 
 North Carolina 
 North Dakota 
 Ohio 
 
 1,893.810 
 319,146 
 4 157 545 
 
 50 
 31 
 31 
 
 120 
 62 
 110 
 
 15,781 
 5,147 
 37 776 
 
 II 
 
 l 
 14 
 
 ii 
 ii 
 
 Oregon 
 
 413 536 
 
 30 
 
 60 
 
 6 892 
 
 No. 
 
 ii 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 Rhode Island 
 
 6,302,115 
 428 556 
 
 50 
 
 38 
 
 204 
 
 72 
 
 30,892 
 5 952 
 
 Yes. 
 
 ** 
 People 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 1 340 316 
 
 37 
 
 124 
 
 10 809 
 
 ii 
 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 401 570 
 
 45 
 
 87 
 
 4 615 
 
 it 
 
 ii 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 2 020 616 
 
 33 
 
 99 
 
 20410 
 
 No 
 
 Legislature. 
 
 Texas 
 
 3 048 710 
 
 31 
 
 150 
 
 20*325 
 
 Yes 
 
 People 
 
 Utah . 
 
 276 749 
 
 18 
 
 
 6 149 
 
 ii 
 
 ii 
 
 Vermont 
 
 343 641 
 
 30 
 
 245 
 
 1*403 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 Virginia 
 
 1 854 184 
 
 40 
 
 100 
 
 18 541 
 
 14 
 
 ii 
 
 Washington 
 
 518 103 
 
 34 
 
 78 
 
 6 642 
 
 || 
 
 14 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 958 800 
 
 24 
 
 65 
 
 14*750 
 
 No 
 
 Appt or El 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 2 069 042 
 
 33 
 
 100 
 
 20 690 
 
 Yes 
 
 People 
 
 \Vvomin fr 
 
 92 531 
 
 16 
 
 33 
 
 2 803 
 
 No 
 
 tf 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^,ouo 
 
 
 
 ' Treasurer by people, others appointed. 
 
252 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 MEMORANDA. 
 
 No state has any religious test or limitation except New Hamp- 
 shire. See Bill of Rights, Article 6. 
 
 Tiie only states having an executive council are Maine, New Hamp- 
 shire, and Massachusetts. 
 
 Only nine states have more than one representative for each 5,000 
 inhabitants. Of these New Hampshire has one representative for 
 each 1,047 inhabitants, being the highest representation of any state 
 in the Union. In more than one third of the states there is only one 
 representative for a population exceeding 15,000. See table herewith. 
 
 If the number of our representatives should be reduced to 100 there 
 would then be only four states having a higher per capita representa- 
 tion than New Hampshire. See table herewith. 
 
 In Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont every town is repre- 
 sented in the legislature each year. In New Hampshire the small 
 towns elect a representative for such part of the time as their popu- 
 lation is in proportion to 600. In all other states representatives are 
 elected by counties or election districts. 
 
 All but nine states elect a lieutenant governor. See table herewith. 
 
 Thirty-five states elect a larger number of senators than New 
 Hampshire. See table herewith. 
 
 A plurality, or the highest number of votes, elects in all the states 
 except New Hampshire, Georgia, and Vermont. In those states a 
 majority is required. 
 
 Amendments to the constitution are submitted by the legislature 
 directly to the people in a large majority of all the states. Only in a 
 small number of them is there provision for amendment through con- 
 ventions specially elected for that purpose. 
 
 Elections are biennial in all the states except Massachusetts, New 
 Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. 
 
 In all the states the sessions of the legislature are biennial except 
 in Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, 
 and South Carolina. 
 
 In four states Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming women have 
 the full elective franchise. In many others they vote on questions 
 pertaining to the public schools. 
 
 The sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited by the constitutions 
 of the states of Maine, Kansas, and North Dakota. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 
 
 TABLE II. 
 
 258 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 I 
 
 iSagtS 
 
 C3 J C8 -M 
 
 I 1 S.S I 
 
 le *-i c .2 
 
 7^ r-n-s a 
 
 Rockiugham county 
 
 51,118 
 
 Atkinson 442 
 
 Auburn 682 
 
 Brentwood 957 
 
 Candia 1,057 
 
 Chester 8fil 
 
 Danville 615 
 
 Deerfield 1,162 
 
 Derry 3,583 
 
 East Kingston 496 
 
 Epping 1,641 
 
 Exeter 4,922 
 
 Fremont 749 
 
 Greenland 607 
 
 Hampstead 823 
 
 Hampton 1,209 
 
 Hampton Falls 560 
 
 Kensington 560 
 
 Kingston 1,132 
 
 Londonderry 1,408 
 
 Newcastle 581 
 
 Newfields 647 
 
 Newington 390 
 
 Newmarket 2,892 
 
 Newton 924 
 
 North Hampton 812 
 
 Northwood 1,304 
 
 Nottingham 638 
 
 Plaistow 1,027 
 
 Portsmouth 10,637 
 
 Ward 1 2,644 
 
 Ward 2 3,105 
 
 Ward 3 ,391 
 
 Ward 4 ,843 
 
 Ward 5 ,654 
 
 Raymond ,100 
 
 Rye ,142 
 
 Salem 2,041 
 
 Sandown 400 
 
 Seabrook 1,41)7 
 
 South Hampton 297 
 
 Stratham 718 
 
 Windham. . . 641 
 
 .6 
 
 .4 
 .9' 
 L 
 
 .5 
 .5 
 
254 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 I 
 
 .KiM 
 
 a'd ft 
 
 -2pfi.2* 
 
 P" S -u -w 
 
 Ill-Til 
 
 M* _s ^J (^ W 
 
 Straff ord county 39,337 
 
 Barrington 1,208 
 
 Dorer 13,207 
 
 Ward 1 2,387 
 
 Ward 2 3,018 
 
 Ward 3 2,384 
 
 Ward4 3,851 
 
 Ward 5 1,567 
 
 Durham 
 
 Farmington 2,265 
 
 Lee 545 
 
 Madbury '. . . . 
 
 Middleton 300 
 
 Milton 1,625 
 
 New Durham 625 
 
 Rochester 8,466 
 
 Ward 1 131 
 
 Ward 2 ,222 
 
 Ward3 ,510 
 
 Ward 4 901 
 
 Ward 5 964 
 
 Ward 6 ,738 
 
 Rollinsford ,701 
 
 Somerswortli 023 
 
 Wardl ,285 
 
 Ward 2 ,167 
 
 Ward3 ,104 
 
 Ward 4 2,183 
 
 WardS 1,284 
 
 Strafford 1,040 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 255 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 PHI 
 
 *3 rt 'O .^ 
 
 O e e8 -a 
 r^ t n O .,5 o> 
 
 . - 
 'S 3 B*d 
 
 'y*~-*i 
 
 llj^ssl 
 
 Belknap county 19,526 
 
 Alton 1,500 
 
 Barnstead 1,072 
 
 Belmont 1,294 
 
 Centre Harbor 422 
 
 Gilford 661 
 
 Gilmanton 1,100 
 
 Laconia 8,042 
 
 Ward 1 417 
 
 Ward 2 1,465 
 
 Ward 3 1,073 
 
 Ward 4 1,465 
 
 Ward 5 1,485 
 
 Ward 6 2,137 
 
 Meredith 1,713 
 
 New Hampton 852 
 
 Sanbornton 944 
 
 Tilton 1,926 
 
 .4 
 
256 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 * fl o S-g 
 
 _. r-! p, C3 ^ C 
 ^ M T r t^ '^ ^ 
 
 e a 
 
 Jpl 
 
 Carroll county 16,895 
 
 Albany 210 
 
 Bartlett 1,013 
 
 Brookfield 296 
 
 Chatham 
 
 Conway ; 3, 154 
 
 Eaton 365 
 
 Effingham | 600 
 
 Freedom I 594 
 
 Hart's Location 38 
 
 Jackson 622 
 
 Madison 529 
 
 Moultonborough 901 
 
 Ossipee 1,479 
 
 Sandwich 1,077 
 
 Tamworth 1,050 
 
 Tuftonborough 663 
 
 Wakefield 1,645 
 
 Wolfeborough 2,390 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 
 
 257 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 3 0,0 o Is 
 
 Merrimack county 52,430 
 
 Allenstown 1,496 
 
 Andover 1,179 
 
 Boscawen 1,455 
 
 Bow 617 
 
 Bradford 805 
 
 Canterbury 821 
 
 Chichester 598 
 
 Concord 19,632 
 
 Ward 1 1,911 
 
 Ward 2 753 
 
 Ward 3 1,043 
 
 Ward 4 3,644 
 
 Ward 5 2,609 
 
 Ward 6 3,390 
 
 Ward 7 3,178 
 
 Ward 8 1,212 
 
 Ward 9 1,892 
 
 Danbury 654 
 
 Dunbarton 551 
 
 Epsom 771 
 
 Franklin 5,846 
 
 Ward 1 1,572 
 
 Ward 2 2,365 
 
 Ward 3 1,909 
 
 Henniker 1,507 
 
 Hill 603 
 
 Hooksett 1,665 
 
 Hopkinton 1,652 
 
 Loudon 960 
 
 Newbury 424 
 
 New London 768 
 
 Northfield 1,227 
 
 Pembroke 3,183 
 
 Pittsfield 2,129 
 
 Salisbury 604 
 
 Sutton 776 
 
 Warner 1,358 
 
 Webster 496 
 
 Wilmot 653 
 
 .5- 
 .6 
 .6- 
 .5 
 
 .5 
 
 17 
 
258 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 * 2 -S .i 
 
 -s 2 .2 -g .i 
 
 s 
 
 <ce 
 
 Hillsborough county 112,640 
 
 Amherst 1,231 
 
 Antrim 1,366 
 
 Bedford 1,148 
 
 Bennington 667 
 
 Brookline 606 
 
 Deering 486 
 
 Francestown 693 
 
 Goffstown 2,528 
 
 Greenfield 605 
 
 Greenville 1,608 
 
 Hancock 642 
 
 Hillsborough 2,254 
 
 Hollis 910 
 
 Hudson 1,261 
 
 Litchfield 243 
 
 Lyndeborough 686 
 
 Manchester 56,987 
 
 Ward 1 3,625 
 
 Ward 2 5,501 
 
 Ward 3 7,320 
 
 Ward 4 6,922 
 
 Ward 5 9,094 
 
 Ward 6 4,880 
 
 Ward 7 1,757 
 
 Ward 8 5,508 
 
 Ward 9 7,986 
 
 Ward 10 4,394 
 
 Mason 358 
 
 Merrimack 1,234 
 
 Milford 3,739 
 
 Mont Vernon 453 
 
 Nashua 23,898 
 
 Ward 1 * 2,384 
 
 Ward 2 2,274 
 
 Ward 3 3,476 
 
 Ward 4 1,570 
 
 Ward 5 1,651 
 
 Ward 6 1,440 
 
 Ward 7 3,477 
 
 Ward 8 3,082 
 
 Ward 9 4,544 
 
 New Boston 1,002 
 
 New Ipswich 911 
 
 Pelham 875 
 
 Peterborough 2,527 
 
 Sharon 122 
 
 Temple '..... 313 
 
 Weare 1,553 
 
 Wilton 1,696 
 
 Windsor 38 
 
 .5 
 
 .3 
 
 .0 
 
 .0 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 259 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 ^Frt 03 -U I 
 
 - " 
 
 o g 
 .- ce 
 
 sstii 
 
 . 
 
 lfl 
 
 
 Cheshire county 31,321 
 
 Alstead 799 
 
 Chesterfield 981 
 
 Dublin 620 
 
 Fitzwilliam 459 
 
 Oilsum 590 
 
 Harrisville 791 
 
 Hinsdale 1,933 
 
 Jaffrey 1,891 
 
 Keene 9,165 
 
 Ward 1 2,488 
 
 Ward 2 1,896 
 
 Ward 3 1,926 
 
 Ward 4 1,384 
 
 Ward 5 1,471 
 
 Marlborough 1,524 
 
 Marlow 488 
 
 Nelson 295 
 
 Richmond 987 
 
 Rindge 855 
 
 Roxbury 100 
 
 Stoddard 367 
 
 Sullivan 287 
 
 Surry 250 
 
 Swanzey 1,570 
 
 Troy 1,527 
 
 Walpole 2,693 
 
 Westmoreland 875 
 
 Winchester 2,274 
 
260 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 o *3 
 
 I 
 
 IP' 
 
 
 PH .* QJ u_, fl O 
 
 ^ S^^ l'43 
 
 Sullivan county 18,009 
 
 Acworth : 594 
 
 Charlestown.! 1,473 
 
 Claremont 6,498 
 
 Cornish 962 
 
 Croydon 372 
 
 Goshen 345 
 
 Grantham 374 
 
 Langdon 
 
 Lempster 391 
 
 Newport 3,126 
 
 Plainfield 1,114 
 
 Springfield 439 
 
 Sunapee 946 
 
 Unity 572 
 
 Washington 464 
 
 .6 
 
 .5 
 
 .4 
 
 .4 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 261 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 i 
 
 ! 
 
 
 i 
 
 Grafton county 40,844 
 
 Alexandria 630 
 
 Ashland 1,289 
 
 Bath 1,006 
 
 Benton *. 209 
 
 Bethlehem 1,261 
 
 Bridgewater 244 
 
 Bristol 1,600 
 
 Campton 999 
 
 Canaan 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 Easton 249 
 
 Ellsworth 107 
 
 Enfield 1,845 
 
 Franconia 655 
 
 Grafton 748 
 
 Groton 346 
 
 Hanover 1,884 
 
 Haverhill 3,414 
 
 Hebron 214 
 
 Holderness 
 
 Landaff 500 
 
 Lebanon 4,965 
 
 Lincoln 541 
 
 Lisbon 2,221 
 
 Littleton 4,066 
 
 Liverraore 191 
 
 Lyman 426 
 
 Lyme 1,080 
 
 Monroe 545 
 
 Orange 213 
 
 Orford 890 
 
 Piermont 637 
 
 Plymouth 1,972 
 
 Rumney 837 
 
 Thornton 552 
 
 Warren 799 
 
 Waterville 50 
 
 Wentworth 617 
 
 Woodstock 
 
 .6 
 
 .8 
 .6 
 .8 
 .0 
 .6 
 .6 
 
 .1 
 .3 
 
 .8 
 .4 
 .1 
 .7 
 .5 
 [ 
 
 .6 
 .5 
 .6 
 .0 
 .5 
 .5 
 
262 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 TABLE II Continued. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 . , 
 
 
 
 1 * 3 3 g 
 
 s 
 
 O a 
 
 - 5 
 
 =* * 
 
 g-2 s*.l* 
 
 Coos county 29,468 
 
 Berlin 8,886 
 
 Ward 1 3,076 
 
 Ward 2 3,324 
 
 Ward 3 2,486 
 
 Cambridge 20 
 
 Carroll 710 
 
 Clarksville 307 
 
 Colebropk 1,876 
 
 Columbia. ... 
 
 Crawford Purchase 10 
 
 Dal ton 592 
 
 Dartmouth College Grant 13 
 
 Dixville 15 
 
 Dummer 349 
 
 Errol 305 
 
 Gorham 1,797 
 
 Green's Grant 13 
 
 Jefferson 1,080 
 
 Kilkenny 47 
 
 Lancaster 3,190 
 
 Milan 1,135 
 
 Millsfield 41 
 
 Northumberland 1,977 
 
 Pinkham's Grant 4 
 
 Pittsburg 687 
 
 Randolph 137 
 
 Shelburne 283 
 
 Stark 733 
 
 Stewartstown 1,150 
 
 Stratford 
 
 Success 220 
 
 Thompson and Meserve Purchase 18 
 
 Went worth's Location 58 
 
 Whitefield 2,157 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 263 
 
 TABLE III. 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 upon the basis of 1,000 
 population for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 II 
 
 Rockingham 
 
 37.2 
 
 31.5 
 
 Strafford . ... 
 
 25.7 
 
 23.5 
 
 Belknap 
 
 14.3 
 
 13 
 
 Carroll 
 
 13.1 
 
 10.4 
 
 Merrimack 
 
 36.1 
 
 30.4 
 
 Hillsborough 
 
 65.6 
 
 54.3 
 
 Cheshire 
 
 21 
 
 18.9 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 12.8 
 
 10.4 
 
 Graf ton . ... . 
 
 29.4 
 
 .23.7 
 
 Coos . . 
 
 19 9 
 
 14.8 
 
 
 
 
 Total for state 
 
 275.1 
 
 230.9 
 
 
 
 
 TABLE IY. 
 
 If the state should be districted as a whole, every inhabitant would 
 be represented all the time, and each district would have a popula- 
 tion of 
 
 1,372 for 300 representatives. 
 
 1,497 
 1,646 
 1,829 
 2,057 
 2,351 
 2,744 
 3,212 
 4,115 
 
 275 
 250 
 225 
 200 
 175 
 150 
 125 
 100 
 
264 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover offered the following resolution: 
 Amend article four, part two, by adding the following: 
 
 " Provided, however, that the supreme court, as now estab- 
 lished, shall continue to be the final court for the determina- 
 tion of questions of law, and the superior court, as now estab- 
 lished, shall continue to be the final court for the determina- 
 tion of questions of fact. The number of judges upon each 
 of said courts may be changed only by adding to said num- 
 ber no more than two at any one session of the general court, 
 and the salary of said judges shall not be diminished during 
 their term of office. 
 
 Eef erred to the Committee on the Judicial Department 
 and ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article twenty-eight, part first of the Bill 
 of Rights be amended by adding thereto the following: 
 
 No city or town shall hereafter have authority to vote to 
 exempt from taxation any property used for purposes of 
 profit or gain. 
 
 Referred to Committee on the Legislative Department and 
 ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux of Nashua offered the following resolution: 
 Amend article five, part two, by adding the following: 
 
 Upon the written petition of ten per cent, of the qualified 
 voters of the state, reckoning the percentage upon the total 
 number of votes cast for governor at the last biennial election, 
 the general court shall refer any measure by it enacted to the 
 people; and no enactment thus referred shall become a law 
 until it is approved by a majority of the qualified voters 
 present and voting on the subject. Upon the written peti- 
 tion of ten per cent, of the qualified voters reckoned as afore- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 265 
 
 said, any measure may be laid before the general court and 
 voted upon in both houses without amendment, and if a 
 majority of both houses shall vote in favor of such measure, 
 it shall become a law without the signature or approval of 
 the governor. It shall be the duty of the general court to 
 frame laws which shall render effective the initiative and 
 referendum as herein provided. 
 
 Eeferred to the Committee on the Legislative Department 
 and ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Ledoux of Nashua offered the following resolution: 
 Amend article eighty-two by adding thereto the following: 
 
 The general court is authorized and directed to pass such 
 laws as will most effectually prevent monopoly, the stifling of 
 competition, the artificial raising of prices, and any unfair 
 methods of trade; to control and regulate the acts of all 
 corporations doing business within this state, and to prevent 
 their encroachments upon the liberties of the people. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and made a special order to be taken up with 
 other resolutions of like character. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article twenty-five of the second part of the 
 Constitution be amended by striking out the words " and, in 
 making this division, they shall govern themselves by the 
 proportion of direct taxes paid by the said districts," so that 
 the article shall read as follows: 
 
 ART. 25. And that the state may be equally represented 
 in the senate, the legislature shall from time to time divide 
 the state into twenty-four districts, as nearly equal as may be 
 without dividing towns and unincorporated places, and timely 
 make known to the inhabitants of the state the limits of each 
 district. 
 
266 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Referred to the Committee on the Legislative Department 
 and ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That articles twenty-four and twenty-five, part 
 two of the Constitution, relating to the senate, be amended 
 by striking out the words " twenty-four " in both said articles 
 and inserting in place thereof the words " thirty-one." 
 
 Referred to the Committee on the Legislative Department 
 and ordered printed. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow offered the following resolution: 
 
 Amend part second, title " Executive Power, Governor,'* 
 by striking out article forty-eight and inserting in lieu there- 
 of as follows: 
 
 AET. 48. A lieutenant-governor shall be chosen at the 
 same time, in the same manner, for the same term, have the 
 same qualifications, and be subject to the same provisions, as 
 the governor; he shall be president of the senate, but shall 
 have no vote unless the senate be equally divided. He shall 
 receive for his services a salary of $500 per annum. 
 
 In case the person elected governor shall die or become dis- 
 qualified before the commencement of his term of office, or 
 shall refuse to take the same, or in case of the removal of the 
 governor from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability 
 to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the lieu- 
 tenant-governor shall then be governor; and in case of the re- 
 moval, death, resignation, or inability of both the governor 
 and lieutenant-governor, the president pro tempore of the sen- 
 ate, if any, shall be governor; and in the event of his removal, 
 death, resignation, or inability, then the speaker of the house 
 of representatives shall act as governor until the disability of 
 the officers aforesaid is removed, or a governor shall be duly 
 elected and qualified; provided, that when the president pro 
 tempore of the senate, or the speaker of the house, shall exer- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 267 
 
 else the office of governor, he shall not hold his office in the 
 senate or house, as the case may be. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to the Committee on the 
 Bill of Eights and Executive Department. 
 
 Leave was granted to the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment to sit during to-day's session of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord, from the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department, to whom was referred the resolution 
 offered by Mr. Wingate of Stratham, proposing an amend- 
 ment to article thirty-two of part second of the Constitution, 
 reported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution 
 as proposed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, the report was 
 accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, from the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department, to whom was referred the resolution 
 offered by Mr. Baker of Bow, pertaining to the establishment 
 of more than one place of public meeting within the limits 
 of each town or ward in the state for the casting of votes, 
 reported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved,, That the resolution be adopted. 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution was adopted 
 and the amendment was referred to the Committee on Time 
 and Mode of submitting to the People the Amendments 
 agreed to by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I call for the special order. 
 
 The President The gentleman from Concord calls for the 
 special order. 
 
268 JOUBNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I wish to say that the special 
 order is subject, by its terms, to the consideration oi propo- 
 sitions before the Convention concerning the reduction of 
 the house of representatives and the basis of representation. 
 This last subject is to be voted on at 12 o'clock to-morrow, 
 and I think the gentlemen desiring to discuss it should have 
 the whole of the time from now until the time of voting, if 
 they wish. Therefore, I ask the postponement of this special 
 order in accordance with its terms, and move that the Con- 
 vention resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for the 
 purpose of considering the various resolutions with reference 
 to representation. 
 
 (Motion prevails.) 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Jewett of Laconia in the chair.) 
 
 The Chairman The Chair would suggest that the business 
 before the Committee of the Whole is the resolutions with 
 reference to the reduction of the house of representatives 
 and the basis of representation. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
 of the Committee. As the subject under consideration is the 
 amendment of articles nine and ten of part two, relating to 
 representation in the house of representatives, and as no 
 other person seems to be desirous of being heard at this par- 
 ticular time, I will ask the indulgence of the committee and 
 its consideration of the resolution which I introduced yester- 
 day upon this subject. 
 
 Mr. Eogers of Tilton The proposition of the gentleman 
 who has the floor has not been printed and distributed, or 
 at least it has not been distributed in this part of the hall. 
 Now, perhaps the members of the Convention will understand 
 the proposition better, and understand the gentleman better, 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 269 
 
 if he will postpone his remarks until the resolution is printed 
 and distributed. 
 
 The Chairman I would suggest that the gentleman from 
 Concord be pleased to read his resolution, so that the gentle- 
 man from Tilton will know what it is, and then perhaps the 
 gentleman from Tilton may be able to arrange the matter 
 with the gentleman from Concord. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord When I arose, I supposed the 
 resolution had been printed and distributed. I have a copy 
 of it which I will, with the indulgence of the committee, 
 read. (Mr. Mitchell reads resolution.) Therefore, Mr. 
 Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention, this proposition 
 is, first, that the number of representatives be reduced, and 
 while I name the stated number as 301, that number is purely 
 arbitrary. Whether it is 299, 277, 305, or any other number, 
 perhaps up to 325, is, to my mind, practically immaterial, so 
 long as we fix it within a reasonable limit and make it perma- 
 nent, and fix at the same time, if possible, the apportionment 
 and reapportionment of that number in the event that upon 
 the basis established on account of the increase of the popu- 
 lation it becomes necessary to reapportion in the future. 
 
 The second proposition is that we adhere to the existing 
 proportion. That is, after having fixed the number neces- 
 sary for one representative, the first, multiply that by three 
 as the number necessary for the next, which proportion has 
 been the proportion recognized since the foundation of the 
 government as the basis for the second and additional mem- 
 bers. 
 
 The proposition submitted by the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Lyford, to establish the district system, although a 
 fair, equitable, and simple basis for the distribution of the 
 number which may be fixed, is a complete and radical depar- 
 ture from the method established at the foundation of the 
 government in 1784 and since adhered to. In 1784, when 
 the Constitution was adopted, the number of representatives 
 was determined by fixing as the basis for the first representa- 
 
270 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tive 150 ratable polls, and 450 for the second, thus making 
 300 the mean increasing number for any additional number. 
 That was the basis from 1784 to 1876. By the Convention 
 of 1876 the only change made was a substitution of popula- 
 tion for ratable polls the same proportion, the same mean 
 increase, established in 1784 was adhered to by the Conven- 
 tion and people in 1876. 
 
 The district system, though never submitted to the peo- 
 ple, was proposed, and fully discussed in the first Constitu- 
 tional Convention called to amend the Constitution in 1792. 
 
 The proposition at that time was, that the membership 
 of the house of representatives be limited to sixty, to be 
 elected by districts, based upon population. 
 
 The proposition was made by William Plummer, a distin- 
 guished statesman, subsequent governor and United States 
 senator. He made and argued that proposition, but it was 
 overwhelmingly rejected by the Convention and the basis 
 established in 1784 was adhered to. 
 
 The Convention of 1851 adopted and submitted to the peo- 
 ple a proposition to change this basis; but this was rejected 
 by the people by a vote of about 34,000 against it and only 
 about 6,000 for it. 
 
 This was the idea of equality fixed by the founders of our 
 government, and the one since recognized and adhered to. 
 
 We are informed by history that at the time of the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution in 1784, there existed the same dis- 
 parity of population between municipalities, places, and par- 
 ishes that now exists. At that time the upper house that 
 was created, the senate, consisted of twelve members, appor- 
 tioned to the five counties of the state in this way: Eockiiig- 
 ham county, five; Cheshire, Hillsborough, and Straff ord, two 
 each, while Grafton had but one. The other five of the ten 
 present counties having been created subsequently to that 
 time. That was the order of the Convention with respect 
 to the distribution of the senators, based upon property and 
 population. So that the conditions confronting the founders 
 of this government at that time differs only in degree from 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 271 
 
 those that confront us. They recognized it and met it by 
 providing 150 ratable polls as the basis for the first representa- 
 tive, twice that number for the second and other additional 
 representatives. 
 
 The people of New Hampshire are a conservative people. 
 This characteristic is a merit. It is a virtue to be conserva- 
 tive; to proceed slowly, carefully, and cautiously, whether as 
 a state, a municipality, or an individual. Radical changes 
 should be made only after much consideration and for good 
 reason. 
 
 Suppose we were to-day, as we are not, to make a new 
 Constitution; to fix a new basis for representation, we would 
 have before us the different systems that have been proposed; 
 that proposed by the gentleman from Concord, 'Mr. Lyford, 
 which is in most universal use; that established by the found- 
 ers of this government; that established by the people of 
 Maine, where they require 1,500 population for the first rep- 
 resentative, 3,750 for the second representative, 6,750 for 
 the third, 10,500 for the fourth, 15,000 for the fifth, 20,500 
 for the sixth, and 26,500 for the seventh, limiting the number 
 of representatives that any municipality can have to seven; 
 or, we might have the basis of representation that exists in 
 the states of Connecticut and Vermont, i. e., one representa- 
 tive for each municipality without reference to its size. 
 
 We would have those different systems to select from. The 
 relative merits of those different plans would be a subject on 
 which the members of this Convention would undoubtedly 
 differ. While the district system has its attractions, its sim- 
 plicity, its uniformity, its apparent equality, yet, consider- 
 ing our present condition and diversity of opinion, 1 am in- 
 clined to think that the system established by the founders 
 of this government may be quite as good as any for our pur- 
 poses. But we are not at liberty to do that which, if every- 
 thing was undone, we could do. We have behind us a his- 
 tory, association, supposed rights and privileges, and every- 
 thing that goes to make up a man or a people, the growth of 
 over one hundred years. Those are elements we cannot 
 eliminate if we would. 
 
272 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The policy of the people of New Hampshire from the estab- 
 lishment of our government has been to tolerate, if not delib- 
 erately provide for a reasonably large body in the lower 
 house. At the beginning, considering the population at that 
 time, the number was large when compared with the num- 
 ber that other commonwealths then fixed, or have since fixed, 
 as their representation in the lower or popular branch of the 
 legislature. So I think we may well say that the people in 
 this state for all time have been, and at the present time are, 
 willing to have a reasonably large house, but not one as large 
 as at present. It is now too large. So that the proposition 
 before the Convention, the desire of the people, is not so 
 much to change the basis of representation as it is to pro- 
 vide for a re'duction of the membership of the house. If we 
 can contrive in some way to make a reduction that will reduce 
 the membership to 300 approximately, I believe the people 
 of the state will accede to that proposition and adopt it, 
 and then I believe if we adhere to the existing method of de- 
 termining that number, namely, twice as many for the second 
 and additional representatives as that required for the first, 
 the people will be content with that and adopt it. 
 
 Now it has been figured out, as I recollect, by the figures 
 presented by the gentleman from Concord,, Mr. Lyford, tak- 
 ing the basis for the first at 800, and for the second at 2,400, 
 i. e., the mean increase being 1,600, on the present popu- 
 lation it would decrease the size of the house to 313. And 
 then, if I recollect right, or have rightly enumerated the 
 towns and wards that would be effected by reducing the 
 house to about 300, or perhaps one or two under 300, there 
 would be fourteen towns and wards which would be affected 
 by increasing the mean proportion from 1,600 to 2,000. In 
 other words, if you start with the basis of 800 for the first 
 representative and 2,000 as the mean increasing proportion, 
 making 2,800 for the second and additional representatives, 
 you would get a house of 298 or 299, as I have examined the 
 figures of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord If the gentleman from Concord, 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 273 
 
 Mr. Mitchell,, will allow me, I would say that I gave no 
 figures on the basis of 2,000 as the mean increasing number. 
 I think the gentleman must refer to some figures given by 
 the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord No, gentlemen of the com- 
 mittee, I reached the conclusion by taking the tables figured 
 by Mr. Lyf ord giving the population, and selecting the towns 
 and wards from that tabulation that would be less than the 
 required number if the basis for the second representative 
 was 2,800. 
 
 So that, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 upon this basis, adhering to the existing method of appor- 
 tionment, we can work out and decrease the house of repre- 
 sentatives by fixing the basis for the first member at 800; for 
 the second member at 2,400, or 1,600 as the mean increasing 
 proportion, which would give us a house of 313, or enlarging 
 the second number to 2,000, we could reduce the house to 
 299, or 298, as I figure it. 
 
 Now, in the proposition which I introduced, there is a 
 provision for prorating all towns above the population of 
 400, and less than the required number for one, and those 
 less than 400 are to be prorated unless they themselves vote 
 to form a district for the purpose of electing representatives. 
 That proposition is not original with me. I took it from the 
 system adopted in the state of Maine in providing for small 
 towns those not having the the requisite number of inhabi- 
 tants for one representative. 
 
 This system will avoid the necessity of bringing together 
 a Constitutional Convention again to reduce the number. 
 When the increase in population makes it necessary to change 
 this proportion, I have suggested that the legislature be 
 authorized when the population of the different municipali- 
 ties becomes so large and the membership of the house be- 
 comes so large that a new apportionment is necessary 
 to reapportion the members upon exactly the same 
 basis that is now suggested. In other words, fix at 
 18 
 
274 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the present time the number of representatives to be elected 
 to the legislature, and in the future, when, on account of 
 the increase in the population a reapportionment is required, 
 authorize the legislature to make it, adhering to the basis 
 that is now fixed, and the basis that has always been estab- 
 lished and recognized. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin I rise simply to ask the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, if he will not explain a little 
 more fully what the requisite number would be under his 
 system for the third and subsequent representatives. As I 
 understand his explanation, he would keep the ratio as it is, 
 1,200 for each additional representative. If that is not cor- 
 rect, I would like to have him state what it is. Also I would 
 like to inquire of the gentleman whether he can inform us 
 what size house his bill would produce as it stands now. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of 
 the Committee: I do not in my proposition undertake to fix 
 the number for the first representative. I did fix the size 
 of the house, but it is purely arbitrary. I fixed the number 
 301 as the size for the house of representatives, and the propo- 
 sition is to work out that result, namely, to have a member- 
 ship of the house consisting of 301 by adhering to the exist- 
 ing proportion between that necessary for the first and that 
 necessary for the second and the subsequent representatives. 
 To work out that result, as I undertook to state to the com- 
 mittee, in order to get a membership of 313 and adhere to 
 the proportions already existing, you would take 800 for the 
 first representative and 1,600 as the mean increasing ratio 
 for the second and subsequent representatives, or 2,400 popu- 
 lation would be necessary for the two representatives. Then, 
 if you desire to reduce the house to a membership of 300, 
 or 299, or 298, as I figure the tables, you can accomplish that 
 result by making the mean increasing proportion 2,000 in- 
 stead of 1,600. In other words, for the two representatives 
 you must have 2,800 population. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 275 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham I merely rise to ask if anyone 
 has considered the propriety of taking for the third repre- 
 sentative a greater number than is required for the second 
 representative. It seems to me that by that course we could 
 meet some of the objections offered by the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Lyford. The larger places do not need as 
 many representatives in proportion to their population as 
 the smaller towns. Take, for instance, the representatives 
 from two contiguous wards of a city, Wards five and six, in 
 Manchester, for instance, I think any one of those repre- 
 sentatives would be familiar with the requirements of Wards 
 five and six, whereas one gentleman would not be as able to 
 represent two towns where the population is scattered over 
 so large a territory. If the third representative was elected 
 by a still larger population in proportion, it strikes me that 
 the cities would even then be well represented. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of 
 the Committee: I came here without any definite plan for 
 the reduction of the present house. I am in favor of a pretty 
 large house. That, as has been said by the gentlemen who 
 have preceded me, was the course pursued by the men who 
 founded the government. It has worked well, so far as I have 
 observed, and to-day we come here to discuss this proposition, 
 and the objections which are raised to the town system and 
 to retaining it may be reduced to these: First, it is said that 
 there is no legislative body in the world so large at the house 
 of representatives. Second, that it is so large it appears ridic- 
 ulous when compared with the legislatures of other states. 
 In the third place, we are cramped for room; we have not 
 the requisite facilities for housing so many men. 
 
 Granted all these objections exist, and they do exist, what 
 is the force of those objections? Does any one come hero 
 and say that the legislatures of New Hampshire have not 
 acted wisely in the various acts which have been passed? 
 Does not the legislation which has been enacted by the legis- 
 latures of New Hampshire compare favorably with that of 
 
276 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 any other state? It may be conceded that perhaps some 
 legislatures may have made mistakes, as has been suggested 
 here, but they have been corrected by subsequent legislation, 
 as you all know. So far as I have observed, I do not know 
 of any legislation when enacted that was detrimental to the 
 state of New Hampshire, and if there has been such it has 
 been promptly corrected. So that, as far as the house is con- 
 cerned, we are not suffering from maladministration. 
 
 But it is desirable that the house should be reduced to some 
 extent. I do not believe that the number should be reduced 
 below 300. It seems to be generally conceded by all the 
 gentlemen who have addressed us that the number should 
 remain about 300 perhaps a few above 300, or may be a few 
 less. 
 
 There have been different plans proposed here, and they 
 certainly evince investigation and thought on the part of the 
 gentlemen who have proposed them. There is the district 
 system, proposed by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford. 
 He has explained his system to you, and he has thoughtfully 
 and carefully worked out his plan, and has done it well, as 
 he does all matters which he takes under his advisement, and 
 he has presented his views here before you. Perhaps it is 
 to be said that if that system is adopted it may be in some 
 respects, and perhaps it would be in many respects, the most 
 equitable plan that could be adopted; but it is manifest that 
 it is the feeling of the majority of this Convention not to 
 depart from the town system, under which we have lived so 
 long. While I am not here to criticise the plan presented 
 by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, I must say that 
 at the present time it does not seem to me necessary to make 
 so radical a change in our system. The town system was 
 adopted by the gentlemen who made the Constitution and 
 founded this government, and, so far as is possible and prac- 
 ticable at this time to do so, we should follow the plan which 
 was adopted by them. 
 
 Now, among other proposed amendments which have been 
 suggested is the one offered by the gentleman from New- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 277 
 
 port, Mr. Barton. When I heard that proposition I thought 
 that it was not quite so fair, perhaps, to the large towns and 
 cities as it ought to be, and so that would be an objection. 
 The general plan struck me favorably, however. I thought 
 perhaps it would be well to increase the first factor from 600 
 to 800, and then make the next increasing factor 2,000. 
 That is, that they should have 2,000 additional population 
 for each representative after the first. But on reflection it 
 seems to me that there is not so much inequality as seemed to 
 be at first. We are confronted with certain conditions here 
 in the state of New Hampshire which are beyond all dis- 
 pute. These conditions are that in the rural districts the 
 population is constantly falling off. In those towns there is 
 not going to be any call for an increase of representation if 
 you keep it where it now is, at 600. Those towns are not 
 going to be in position to have an additional number of repre- 
 sentatives even on that basis. Instead of their being in a 
 position to send more representatives, their population will 
 probably continue to decrease, and they are going to be pro- 
 rated, or a good many of them will be. Now the population 
 is increasing in the large towns and in the cities, and their 
 representation will increase. Under the method proposed, 
 they will have additional representatives as their population 
 increases, so that while under the present regulation they 
 may not receive quite as much consideration as the smaller 
 towns apparently do, as a general result, considering the con- 
 ditions which exist in the state, I submit it is, on the whole, 
 a pretty fair proposition. 
 
 I have looked over the figures a little to see how that di- 
 vides the representation. I come as one of the representa- 
 tives from the town of Exeter. I came, also, originally, 
 from one of the little back towns, but the population of that 
 little town is falling off. It is a prorated town to-day, and, 
 as is the case with a large number of these back towns, it is 
 constantly decreasing in population, so I have the feeling that 
 while T am here representing one of the larger towns of the 
 state, yet some consideration should be given by me and by 
 
278 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the other members of the Convention who are from the larger 
 towns and cities to these smaller towns. 
 
 Now apply the proposition proposed by the gentleman 
 from Newport, Mr. Barton, to Exeter. While I am a repre- 
 sentative from that town, I have not consulted with and do 
 not know what the feeling of my colleagues upon this ques- 
 tion is. I do not think, however, the citizens of Exeter would 
 be dissatisfied, but on the other hand would be perfectly con- 
 tent, with three representatives, and a town of that size can 
 get all the representation it requires by sending three men. 
 If we cannot select three men big enough to come here and 
 take care of us we might as well, as the saying is, " go out of 
 business." 
 
 Applying the rule to the town of Claremont, which is the 
 largest town, as I recollect it, in the state of New Hampshire, 
 I think they lose one representative, or perhaps two. As 
 suggested by a gentleman, they now have six, and they would 
 then have three representatives. I do not know how many 
 they want in that town, I only speak for Exeter; but probably 
 three good men, such as they have selected to come to this 
 Constitutional Convention, could take care of the town of 
 Claremont in any legislature that we shall have, and do it 
 well. 
 
 Then the town of Newport, which is the next to the largest 
 town in the county of Sullivan, would lose one representative 
 and would have two. And I believe that, going through the 
 state, upon the figures as they have been tabulated and pre- 
 sented here, the proportion of loss to the larger towns would 
 be about the same. 
 
 As I figure it, under the rule which has been suggested Ly 
 the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, the county of 
 Rockingham would lose thirteen representatives, and on the 
 basis of 800 and 2,000 it would be twenty-three. But I am 
 not here to insist on any special standard. I am willing to 
 concede something to these larger towns if they feel as though 
 it is unjust to make the basis for the first representative 600, 
 and put it at 800. It may be the sense of the Convention 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 279 
 
 that it should be 800 and, 2,000, and if that is so, it would 
 certainly be satisfactory to me. I wish, however, simply to 
 say that the proposition of the gentleman from Newport, 
 Mr. Barton, is a fair one, taking into consideration the con 
 ditions existing in the state. If you adopt the rule of GOO 
 and 2,000, Rockingham county would lose thirteen. 
 
 Then, take it in Strafford county. On the basis of 600 and 
 2,000, it would lose seven, and on the basis of 800 and 2,000 
 it would lose only one additional representative. That is, 
 the population of the towns is such that they would lose only 
 one representative in the county if you should raise the num- 
 ber for the first representative from 600 to 800, so, under the 
 conditions existing in that county to-day, it makes little dif- 
 ference whether you call the first figure 800 and the second 
 2,000, or the first figure 600 and the second 2,000. 
 
 In Strafford county they would lose seven on the basis of 
 600 and 2,000, and one additional on the basis of 800 and 
 2,000. 
 
 In Belknap county, as I have figured it, and I think I am 
 correct although I may have made a mistake, on the basis of 
 600 and 2,000, there would be a loss of two, and on the basis 
 of 800 and 2,000 a loss of five. 
 
 In Merrimack county there would be a loss on the basis 
 of 600 and 2,000 of ten, and on the basis of 800 and 2,000 of 
 eighteen. It makes quite a difference in some of the coun- 
 ties, because they have a number of small towns that have 
 600 population, or a little over, and if you place the number 
 for the first representative at 600 they would still be able to 
 send one representative, but if you call it 800 it strikes off 
 quite a number of those towns, whereas in some counties, like 
 Strafford, the population is such that it makes but little 
 difference. 
 
 In Hillsborough county, on the basis of 600 and 2,000 they 
 would lose twenty-nine; on the basis of 800 and 2,000, thirty- 
 six. 
 
 In Cheshire county, on the basis of 600 and 2,000, they 
 would lose six, and on the basis of 800 and 2,000, nine. 
 
280 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 In Sullivan county, on the basis of 600 and 2,000, there 
 is a loss of three; 011 800 and 2,000, it would be the same. 
 That is, the representatives that they would send on one 
 basis or the other would be the same for that county, and 
 therefore it will not make any difference to them which basis 
 is adopted. 
 
 In Grafton county, on the basis of 600 and 2,000, seven 
 would be lost, and on the basis of 800 and 2,000 there would 
 be a loss of fifteen. 
 
 In Coos county, on the basis of 600 and 2,000, there would 
 be a loss of six, and on 800 and 2,000, a loss of ten. 
 
 Now the figures have been presented to you here and are 
 before you in regard to the number of prorated towns. On 
 the basis of 600 inhabitants for the purpose of choosing one 
 representative, there are sixty-nine of those towns; but rais- 
 ing the number to 800, it makes forty-two more towns which 
 would have to be prorated, or 111 in all, in place of sixty- 
 nine. 
 
 As I said in the outset, I am not here strenuously advo- 
 cating what the ratio should be, but it seems to me that 
 whatever ratio is adopted, the true system is the system which 
 was adopted by the framers of the Constitution. There are 
 a great many things to be said in its favor. In the first place, 
 it is more democratic, and you secure the representatives from 
 a wider territory. You choose representatives who are in 
 sympathy with the ideas of their locality and who know what 
 their towns need. These back towns are places of a good deal 
 of importance. "VVe have a good deal of summer business in 
 those towns, and there are matters of consequence that come 
 before the legislature in every session relating to those town?, 
 and if we do not have some one in the legislature who knows 
 their needs and who is fully acquainted with them, somebody 
 will have to be sent there in order to inform the legislature 
 as to what is needed in those localities. This town system is 
 a democratic system, and is a system required for the bene- 
 fit of the towns and the state, and I say, gentlemen of the 
 Convention, that those towns should be represented so far 
 as is practicable. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 281 
 
 Now, then, there is another thing in regard to this system. 
 I know it sounds strange, perhaps, to most men to have a 
 man stand up here and argue in favor of this system, and that 
 it ought to be preserved because it affords a good school for 
 the people and one worth all it costs, and for that reason if 
 for nothing else, we should retain it. If I stood here alone 
 upon this proposition you might laugh at me, because, per- 
 haps, my opinion would not carry much weight in this 
 matter. I am not much of a statesman, never having been 
 in the legislature but once, and that was a good many years 
 ago, so perhaps I have forgotten all that I learned back in 
 1876; but when this proposition has been advanced by such 
 men as the late Chief Justice Doe and the late Gilman Mars- 
 ton, I think you will agree that it is a proposition that should 
 be well considered and weighed, and it is one that, with those 
 gentlemen behind it, I feel as though I had something to 
 fall back upon. I know what the sentiment of those gentle- 
 men was, because they have stated it a great many times, 
 and my old partner would say to whoever suggested that on 
 account of the increased expense and the difficulty in trans- 
 acting business in a legislature of three or four hundred 
 men, which might as well all be done by a legislature of one 
 hundred he would say that it was worth all it cost as a 
 school. And how is it. When I came here to the legisla- 
 ture in 1876, from one of the back towns, I had seen none 
 of the great men of the state, and had probably heard of no 
 more than a half dozen of them. The rest of them were all 
 unknown to me. I saw these men, and I heard what they 
 had to say, I learned something, and I got a great many ideas 
 from them. I am only speaking now, of course, of my own 
 personal experience. I learned things, and I know that it 
 was a benefit to me, and I know it is a benefit to other men 
 who come here from the small towns. They learn about 
 what is being done and how to do it. They learn about the 
 machinery of government and what the state needs, and how 
 to supply those needs, and all those things that are necessary 
 and essential in the law-making body of the state. And not 
 
282 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 only is it profitable to the gentlemen from the back towns 
 to come here, but it is profitable to the gentlemen who sit 
 on the front rows, to the statesmen of the legislature who 
 are here year after year, and who lead the sentiment and the 
 course of legislation. These men learn some things from 
 the gentlemen from the back towns. Some farmer gets up 
 in the legislature and makes a proposition, or a motion, a 
 motion or a suggestion that technically is all out of order, 
 but there is something in it, and he wants to get it before the 
 legislature and finally does so. 
 
 He hits what he is after right in the eye; the legislature 
 concludes that the gentleman from Cranberry Corner is 
 right. So the statements of all others, when he advances his 
 proposition, are voted down, sometimes perhaps unjustly, 
 and sometimes justly, but all learn something they learn 
 that the front row does not have it all their own- way. And 
 by learning that, the front row don't lose anything. It is a 
 good thing, as good in a way as a college education. It is 
 the atrition of men's minds, one with another, that helps in 
 the education in a college and also in the education that is 
 received here. If a man sends his boy to college and that 
 boy has ability and some power of observation, he comes 
 out with the cobwebs pretty well rubbed off from his brain, 
 and the same thing takes place with the gentlemen who come 
 here to the legislature. So I say it is a good school. At first 
 blush you might think that this proposition didn't amount 
 to anything. But I say, gentlemen, it amounts to a good 
 deal. So here is a reason why the suggestion that it is not 
 essential for the state to have such a large legislature, such 
 a large house of representatives, ought to be well considered. 
 We should not reduce the house to a very small number, but 
 it should be continued with a reasonably large number of 
 members. 
 
 I have talked longer than I intended in regard to this 
 subject, but it seems to me that we should, on the whole, 
 adopt the town system upon the basis presented by the 
 gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, and perhaps the 
 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 283 
 
 same basis is also embodied in other resolutions that have 
 been presented here. I presume they come practically to 
 the same thing, only I have not had the opportunity of look- 
 ing them over or noting their results in regard to the figures. 
 If that is all there is to it, it seems to me we ought to agree 
 to that proposition and conclude that part of the business, 
 finish up the other business, and go home. We have had 
 a great many matters brought to the attention of the Con- 
 vention, and most of them are all right, but we cannot adopt 
 all of them and expect the people to ratify them, because, 
 as was suggested by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Chandler, on the first day of the Convention, if we submit 
 a long string of amendments for the consideration of the 
 people they will not adopt any of them. Consider how it is 
 yourselves. We go to the town meeting, and a paper of 
 twenty or thirty amendments to the Constitution is pre- 
 sented. What does Mr. A, or B, or C, know about them, 
 and when he does not know, what is he to do ? He will think 
 that the best thing to do is to do nothing, and I believe that 
 that is what he will do if we furnish too many amendments 
 for his ratification. 
 
 So, then, I say let us agree upon some plan which will be 
 fair and just, and I believe if we do that the people will 
 ratify our action. In what I have said I have not intended, 
 and do not intend, to cast any reflection upon the propo- 
 sitions that have been submitted here for the purpose of 
 amending the Constitution in the several respects proposed; 
 but I must say that a great many of them will be, and will 
 have to be, rejected by this Convention if we expect to have 
 anything done by the people at the polls. 
 
 It is suggested, gentlemen of the committee, that I did not 
 state how many representatives the house would consist of 
 under the plan which has been suggested here and which I 
 approve. Mr. Barton has been through with the figures and 
 printed them and they are before you, so you can verify his 
 statements. Under his proposition, I think there would be 
 317 members of the house, and if it is placed on the basis of 
 
284 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 800 and 2,000 there will be a little less I imagine a little 
 under 300; but whether fifteen above or eight or ten below 
 300 is not very material, but it is advisable, I think, to fix 
 upon a number somewhere near 300. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough I had a few words more that 
 I designed to say upon this matter before we came to action. 
 It seems to me that if the several gentlemen who have 
 presented plans here design to be heard, and we are to follow 
 out the suggestions which have been made that a vote in 
 the Committee of the Whole may be taken so this matter 
 may go to the proper standing committee to-morrow, some 
 of us must rise and address ourselves to the subject under 
 consideration now, notwithstanding the house may not be 
 quite full in consequence of the condition of the roads. 
 
 I am quite pleased, for when I presented my proposition 
 the other day before the house, I stood practically alone in 
 the suggestion which I made in regard to keeping the popu- 
 lation for the first representative at 600, and also for the 
 increase which I gave as 3,000. I presented my plans which 
 I had drawn, giving the house of representatives precisely 
 the same as it stands now, by the basis of 600 for the first 
 and 1,200 additional for the increase. I also figured it upon 
 the basis of 2,000 for the increase, which is Mr. Barton's bill 
 exactly, and when I came here it was with the resolution 
 drafted which I intended to present to the house, on the 
 basis of an increase of 2,000. But before I did that, Mr. 
 Barton presented the same proposition, and then I put in 
 my resolution upon the basis of a 3,000 increase. I did it 
 in order that this whole matter might be before the Con- 
 vention, and when these tables were printed every member 
 of the Convention could see exactly what the facts were. 
 
 Every one knows that upon the present basis of 600 
 population for the first representative and 1,200 additional 
 for each additional representative, the present number of 
 representatives would be 347. Of course there must be added 
 to that forty-six representatives, which is the number that 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 285 
 
 has been returned from the prorated towns, which makes 
 the entire legislature which will meet here next month 393, 
 and that, I find from the secretary of state, is exact. Now 
 upon the basis of an increase of 2,000 I have it, and it is 
 correct because it has been examined and re-examined and it 
 is exact the whole number given in my figures under that 
 will be 271. That is, keeping the 600 basis for the first 
 representative and 2,000 for each additional one. To that, 
 of course, must be added the forty-six representatives which 
 come from the prorated towns, and that will give you, as 
 has been stated by the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Bar- 
 ton, 317. 
 
 Xow, thinking that perhaps it might be the desire to reduce 
 the legislature still more, and that the Convention might 
 think 317 too large, as, if your population increases it will 
 before a great many years be again as large as it is now, I 
 have carried out other figures on the basis of a 3,000 increase 
 for the second representative. On that basis you would 
 have 240 returned from the towns and wards of the cities, 
 and to that of course must be added the forty-six that come 
 from the prorated towns, and that would give you a legis- 
 lature of 286, which is very close to the number that the 
 gentlemen have hit upon in the several plans presented here 
 a legislature of about 300. That gives you, at the present 
 time, a legislature of 286, and when the next census is taken 
 on account of the increase of population you would undoubt- 
 edly have a trifle in excess of 300, or just about 300. For 
 my own part, I am not certain that this is not the better plan 
 that the ratio of 3,000 for the second and each additional 
 representative should be adopted instead of 2,000, although 
 I originally intended to present my proposed amendment 
 with a 2,000 increase. 
 
 I am in favor of either one of these propositions that for 
 a 3,000 increase or that for a 2,000 increase. I am perfectly 
 willing to concede, if the gentlemen from the cities are will- 
 ing to do their share I am willing to concede to the reduc- 
 tion for the number of the population necessary for trie 
 
286 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 second representative from a 3,000 to a 2,000 increase. Now 
 let us see how that will affect us. A great many of the 
 gentlemen from the cities who have spoken to me seem to 
 think that will discriminate unfairly against the cities. Take 
 my own town, which is the town of Peterborough, and which 
 loses one, and which could not have but one under this plan 
 for one hundred years at least, I think that our town loses 
 as much, or more, in proportion to its representatives as 
 any of the cities. 
 
 Here in Merrimack county at the present time, the city 
 of Concord has ten representatives. Is that correct, Mr. 
 Mitchell? 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester That is Portsmouth. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough Portsmouth, I would say, has 
 ten. I think that is correct. Under the basis of a 2,000 
 increase they would have eight, and would lose two repre- 
 sentatives only, or about one-fifth of its representation, while 
 the town of Peterborough under the increase from 1,200 to 
 2,000 would lose one, or one half of its representation. The 
 town of Hillsborough would lose one half, and the town of 
 Claremont, I think, would lose two representatives, and so 
 with all the larger towns in the state. It would be against 
 those larger towns more than against the cities that this plan 
 would operate. But we are not afraid of it. We come here 
 with the idea, as has been suggested, that these small towns 
 of 600 inhabitants need the favor of the people of this state 
 in this matter of representation. 
 
 Now how would this plan affect the city of Manchester, 
 which now has forty-nine representatives on the basis of 600 
 for the first and 1,200 increase. Under this bill of my friend 
 from Newport, Mr. Barton, Manchester would have thirty- 
 one. She has a population of 56,000, or a little, over, and 
 that would give her a representative certainly to every 3,000 
 of her population, while Peterborough has but one. Can 
 she complain that she will only have 31 representatives with 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 287 
 
 a population of 56,000, which she will have under the bill 
 of my friend from Newport, Mr. Barton? 
 
 The city of Nashua has twenty at the present time, and 
 under that arrangement she will come here with ten,. as her 
 population is a trifle rising 20,000. Can she find fault? 
 Towns of 3,000 inhabitants come here and are willing to give 
 the towns of only 606 inhabitants a representative while 
 such towns with 3,000 inhabitants would only have one repre- 
 sentative. Can Xashua find fault when she will have a repre- 
 sentative for a little over 2,000 in number of her population? 
 She would have ten under the Barton bill where she has 
 twenty now. 
 
 I hope before you decide on this matter you will look it 
 squarely in the face, and that you will be willing to show 
 charity to these small towns. 
 
 The gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Eastman, has suggested 
 a basis of 800 for the first representative. Take it upon that 
 basis, there are forty odd towns which are just now able to 
 send a representative here that would be taken out of those 
 towns sending a representative each year and be prorated. 
 The towns of Hancock, Bennington, Francestown, Lynde- 
 borough, and Greenfield are examples of this class. They run 
 in population from 605 to 690, and upon the basis of 800 
 of course they would all become prorated towns. And they 
 are important towns, gentlemen, and their representatives 
 have the interests of this state at heart as deeply as any 
 representative that may come from the cities or the larger 
 towns. It is right that these small towns should have this 
 representation, and they are then not represented any bet- 
 ter than the large towns or cities are, taking all the condi- 
 tions under which they exist under consideration. 
 
 It seems to me that we are as well prepared to enter upon 
 this matter now as we ever shall be. I am perfectly satisfied 
 that it is the disposition of this Convention to retain this 
 town system, and I am just as well satisfied that it is the 
 disposition of this Convention that the basis for the .first rep- 
 resentative shall be 600. And it is my belief that we may 
 
288 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 talk and discuss this matter during the whole time that we 
 are here and we will not be able to submit any other propo- 
 sition than one on the basis of 600 for the first representative 
 that will be satisfactory to our constituents. I will concede 
 the 2,000 for the second representative instead of 3,000, 
 which is on the line of Mr. Barton's bill. 
 
 Mr. Penniman of Plainfield I think in this excellent table 
 of Mr. Scott's there are two errors. There are six representa- 
 tives from Laconia, and I think there are seven in the 
 table; and also there is an error with reference to the town 
 of Northumberland, in Coos county. There should be two 
 representatives from that town instead of one, and I think 
 the number of representatives elected from prorated towns 
 is forty-four instead of forty-six, which would make the num- 
 ber in the house just the same. 
 
 Mr. Ashley of Dorchester I have come from one of the 
 poorest towns in the state, a town that is heavily in debt, and 
 we feel that we ought to be represented, of course, as well 
 as others. The conditions which exist in the town I come 
 from are similar to those that exist in nearly all the prorated 
 towns, except, perhaps, our debt may be a little larger. I 
 think like this in the matter before us, that the cities cannot 
 afford to ignore these small places. We are small, and if we 
 are crowded much further, and you keep us without any 
 better representation, or with less, there would not be much 
 of anything left as far as representation is concerned, and 
 a very small push would put us out of the way entirely. "We 
 have as good soil in our town as anywhere, even though we 
 cannot be represented as other places are. We still have in 
 our hearts the welfare of the state and of the community in 
 which we live, and we still think it is just that we should be 
 represented. We think that we ought to be encouraged in 
 this matter. A little encouragement goes a good ways with 
 us. We did get some little encouragement from the state. 
 The legislature appropriated us some school money, and we 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 289 
 
 added to that an appropriation of our own. The very first 
 appropriation we got for our schools we voted to raise more 
 ourselves rather than to take our usual expenses out of this 
 money. We began to hire a better class of teachers, and 
 then things did not seem to correspond, and we had to fix 
 up our schoolhouses, we clapboarded and painted and papered 
 the walls of our school buildings, and put curtains over the 
 windows and put in modern seats. We had a little encour- 
 agement, and we did more for ourselves on account of this 
 encouragement than we otherwise would or could have done, 
 and so we ask you to give us what encouragement you can, 
 if not from a sense of justice, then out of courtesy, toward 
 the small towns of the state. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Bedford I did not expect to speak at 
 all to-day, but there have been some questions raised by the 
 speech of the gentleman from Exeter that it seems to me we 
 ought to consider a little more fully than we have yet done. 
 I come from a country town that under any arrangement 
 which has yet been proposed will be entitled to one repre- 
 sentative and only one. The population in my town is a 
 little over 1,100. 
 
 When I came here, I came with the general impression that 
 the house was too large and ought to be reduced, but it 
 seemed to me that there would be some one here who would 
 be able to show affirmatively why it was too large, and would 
 show also affirmatively what number would be sufficiently 
 large and not more than sufficiently large. If the present 
 house of about 400 members is too large, what makes it too 
 large? Is it because the legislation enacted here costs more 
 to the state of New Hampshire than it should, or is it because 
 it takes more time to get legislation worked through so 
 numerous a body than should be the case? It appears that 
 in Massachusetts, where the legislature is much smaller than 
 here, they sit for six months in every twelve. The length 
 of their session is about twice the length of our session, and 
 while they are sitting six months in every twelve, to enact 
 19 
 
290 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the legislation necessary for Massachusetts, we are sitting 
 three months in every twenty-four to do the same for our 
 state. If the legislation costs more than it should in money, 
 it seems to me it is made entirely clear in debate here that 
 an equivalent has been found in the educational benefits that 
 accrue to the members, and that is a sufficient reason why it 
 might well cost more than what would be just sufficient to 
 get the work done and no more than sufficient. 
 
 If the purpose is to find an arbitrary number entirely irre- 
 spective of the representative idea on which the make-up of 
 the legislature has rested, which would be sufficient to do 
 the work, that is one thing. Judge Aldrich has pointed out 
 that the German parliament, sitting for 40,000,000 of peo- 
 ple, is a body of practically the same size as we have in this 
 state, about 400. By a parity of reasoning then, that would 
 bring our legislature down to perhaps ten or twelve mem- 
 bers. But if we are not to turn to some arbitrary number 
 as a number entirely sufficient to do the work which is to 
 be done, where shall we get information as to just what 
 should be the size of the house? I think that the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, has pointed the road out to us. 
 We have rested purely upon the theory which the fathers 
 declared when they first laid down our Constitution. The 
 representative idea that they set forth was to have delegates 
 from every one of these communities, these little political 
 entities scattered all over the state, that each small political 
 body might select one from their number and send him to 
 speak and vote for it in the general assembly. There are 
 objections to such a course at the present time, but I believe 
 that the objection of the expense involved is a comparatively 
 trifling objection. The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Ly- 
 ford, has shown us the way we can go on without the expense 
 of having more than 300 men to do the work; but what is 
 the reason why he stops at 300? Why is not 200 a good 
 number instead of 300, if we depart from the idea of repre- 
 sentation by the town system. The gentleman from Peter- 
 borough, Mr. Scott, has pointed out that the delegates from 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 291 
 
 the country towns are equal in information and in ability to 
 the delegates from any other places in the state; but after 
 all, Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of information and 
 ability in debate, it is a question of the number of votes. If 
 we are to punish the big cities for being so big by reducing 
 the number of their representatives here, will that be just 
 and right? Will it be just to submit them to the sacrifice 
 of their voting pow r er, a loss which under some conditions 
 would expose them to great danger. 
 
 The legislature which is to meet next month is to consider, 
 very likely, a bill which will be a complete departure from 
 our past methods of regulating the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors. The conditions which surround that traffic in Man- 
 chester and in the larger cities of the state are entirely differ- 
 ent from those which surround it in the country towns, and 
 such cities need relief from the present conditions; but they 
 may not have sufficient voting power to obtain such relief 
 if they are sacrificed to the smaller towns. It will be quite 
 difficult to explain to the gentlemen from our country towns 
 the evils that go on in Manchester because of the prohibitory 
 law, or the failure to enforce it. The gentlemen from the 
 country towns may be the equal or the superior of the gentle- 
 men from the city, in information and ability, but the ques- 
 tion with reference to representation is not one of informa- 
 tion and ability, it is one of voting power. 
 
 Now what relief can be given both to the men from the 
 country towns and to those from the city. It evidently will 
 be difficult if not impossible to change the basis of selecting 
 our representatives from the town system to the district sys- 
 tem. It is equally clear that this Convention will not vote 
 to greatly depart from the present number of the represen- 
 tatives in the house, and it is equally clear that a reduction 
 of 100 is not a sufficient reduction from the present number 
 of the house to bring us to an ideal situation. And so, for 
 the sake of enlightenment on this subject, I hope some man 
 will tell us why it is necessary to reduce the house at all, 
 and if it is necessary to reduce the house, to what extent it 
 
292 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 should be reduced, and why it should be reduced to that 
 extent. Why will it not be better to let the number in the 
 house continue at 393, as we find it, instead of making so 
 paltry a diminution as reduces it to about 313. 
 
 Mr. Collins of Portsmouth I am in the same frame of 
 mind as the gentleman who has just spoken. I wish to know, 
 and would like some of the men who can tell us and who 
 have submitted propositions for the reduction of the house, 
 why it is necessary to reduce the house, and then I will be 
 in a position to consider both sides of the question. 
 
 Mr. Wentworth of Plymouth I think this question has 
 been quite thoroughly discussed, but there is just one or two 
 things I wish to mention. The gentleman who has recently 
 spoken suggested that perhaps the cities would not be repre- 
 sented as fully as they ought to be, and he cited the liquor 
 question as one of importance to the cities. I think if we 
 stop to think we will see that the cities are and will be fairly 
 well represented as compared with the outlying towns. The 
 city of Manchester has forty-nine representatives, while the 
 county of Grafton has but forty-two representatives, and yet 
 the county of Grafton casts 211 votes more than the city of 
 Manchester, and has seven less representatives. So I think 
 the cities have no fault to find if their representation is 
 reduced more in proportion than that of the outlying towns. 
 Grafton casts 211 votes for each representative while the 
 city of Manchester casts only 197 for each representative, 
 so it seems to me that from that point of view the cities 
 have no fault to find with their representation. 
 
 One thing further. I think it has been proven that the 
 outlying towns vote for as wise laws on the liquor question 
 as those the cities vote for, and it seems to me that we have 
 no right to say that a city will not be fairly represented. As 
 to correcting laws which now exist on the liquor question, I 
 think this question has not been . voted upon in the legis- 
 lature for several years, whether we should have a license 
 or a prohibitory law, but the gentlemen from the city, as 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 293 
 
 I understand it, have been advocating a prohibitory law up 
 to the present time as well as the gentlemen from the coun- 
 try, and I think you will find a great many representatives 
 from the smaller towns who will come here next month with 
 the idea that they will vote for the license law. I know that 
 is so from many of the small towns, I know that the repre- 
 sentatives who have been elected are in favor of license, and 
 will vote for it, so the cities will have nothing to fear upon 
 that score. 
 
 I believe that the bill of the gentleman from Newport, Mr. 
 Barton, offers a pretty fair measure. We should remember 
 that New Hampshire does not want to discourage the small 
 towns. I don't believe it wants to discourage the people 
 irom living in the rural districts of the state. New Hamp- 
 shire is made up of a large amount of territory which is not 
 thickly settled, but from which a large amount of business 
 comes in the shape of summer visitors, and we want to en- 
 courage the living in these rural communities, we want to 
 encourage this summer business. The gentlemen who live 
 in the city cannot appreciate what it is to live in the small 
 country communities, and perhaps not get your mail for a 
 week or a fortnight, but if you should go there for awhile 
 and live you would appreciate that, and it is on account of 
 these difficulties under which the people of the country live, 
 who, I believe, should be encouraged. 
 
 As I have before said, we have a summer traffic here which 
 is one of the best things that New Hampshire has in the way 
 of bringing money into the state, and that should be encour- 
 aged. Let us, therefore, encourage the people who live in 
 these country towns. 
 
 There is another reason why the country towns should 
 have a larger representation in proportion to population than 
 the cities. In the outlying towns the number of voters are 
 greater in proportion to the population than in the cities. I 
 think statistics will show that the cities have as great repre- 
 sentation, or better if anything, than the smaller towns have 
 to-day. 
 
294 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua I take it that under any system 
 adopted there will be in the cities a greater surplus of popu- 
 lation above the number required for representation than in 
 the towns. I have given some time to this matter, and I 
 find that under the present system this surplus of popu- 
 lation in the towns amounts to 76,689. In the cities this 
 surplus under the present system is 34,389,, making the sur- 
 plus in the towns 42,300 more than the surplus in the cities. 
 On the basis of 600 for the first representative and 2,000 for 
 the second, there would be a surplus of population in the 
 towns of 82,889, and in the cities of 47,659, a loss to the 
 towns of 35,230. On the basis of 800 for the first represen- 
 tative and 2,000 for the second, the surplus in the towns 
 would be 54,140, and in the cities 41,786, leaving a loss to 
 the towns over and above that of the cities of 12,354. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the 
 towns request us to retain the present system, and it seems 
 to me from these figures, which I have made with some care, 
 that the loss is against the towns and not against the cities, 
 as has been suggested here, and this is true whether we retain 
 the present system and make the number 600 for the first 
 representative and 2,000 for the second, or 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for the second. It seems to me that we are all 
 members of one community, and we ought to work in har- 
 mony for the good of the state, and if the towns are willing 
 to sustain the loss, then I believe we should give to them the 
 system which they seem to desire, and which they are earn- 
 estly advocating here. Under the existing system the cities 
 are well represented, and under the change proposed the loss 
 does not fall upon the cities to the extent that it does upon 
 the towns. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord I may at a later date wish to 
 say a few things in regard to this matter, but I desire to 
 inquire at this time if, under Mr. Lyford's district plan, this 
 surplus which has already been spoken of at different times 
 would not rapidly and almost entirely disappear? Would 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 295 
 
 not these towns gain a larger representation than they now 
 have? I am of the opinion that there would be scarcely any 
 surplus unrepresented population at all under Mr. Lyford's 
 plan. 
 
 Mr. Shute of Wentworth I move that the committee do 
 now arise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Mo- 
 tion prevailed. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia, chairman, reported that the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole had had under consideration the mat- 
 ters which were made the special order for the morning re- 
 lating to the apportionment of the house of representatives, 
 and had in particular been discussing the resolution offered 
 by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, and also par- 
 ticular mention had been made of the resolution offered by 
 the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, and there had 
 been a general discussion upon the matters covered by the 
 special order. These matters had been discussed by the fol- 
 lowing speakers: The gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Mitchell; the gentleman from Stratham, Mr. Wingate; the 
 gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Eastman; the gentleman from 
 Peterborough, Mr. Scott; the gentleman from Dorchester, 
 Mr. Ashley; the gentleman from Bedford, Mr. Woodbury; 
 the gentleman from Plainfield, Mr. Penniman; the gentle- 
 man from Portsmouth, Mr. Collins; the gentleman from Ply- 
 mouth, Mr. Wentworth; the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. 
 Hamblett, and the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lamprey; 
 and having reported this progress the committee asked leave 
 to sit again. 
 
 Leave was granted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lamprey of Concord, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
296 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 AFTERNOON. 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That hereafter, when the sense of the people is 
 taken with reference to the necessity of calling a Constitu- 
 tional Convention, it shall not be the duty of the legislature 
 to call such a Convention unless the returns show that at 
 least one third of the legal voters of the state have voted in 
 favor of it. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and other Proposed 
 Amendments. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Starr of Manchester, the vote was recon - 
 sidered by which the resolution offered by that gentleman 
 yesterday, relating to trusts, was referred to the Committee 
 on the Legislative Department; and on motion of the same 
 gentleman, the resolution was referred back to the Conven- 
 tion and laid upon the table to be taken up in connection 
 with the resolution of Mr. Chandler on the same subject. 
 
 Mr. Clement of Manchester offered the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 Resolved, That when the Convention this afternoon con- 
 siders the proposed amendment relating to the suffrage for 
 women, all persons who are interested shall be admitted 
 within the chamber, so far as they can be comfortably accom- 
 modated. 
 
 Motion prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Smith of Hillsborough, from the Committee on the 
 Judicial Department, to whom was referred the resolution 
 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 297 
 
 offered by Mr. Sloane of Haverhill providing for the appoint- 
 ment of sheriffs by the judges of the superior court, reported 
 the same with the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution of the state ought not to 
 be amended as proposed. 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Whitefield offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That all of articles nine and ten, part second of 
 the Constitution be stricken out and the following sub- 
 stituted: 
 
 ARTICLE 1. Resolved, That the membership of the house 
 of representatives shall consist of one member from each 
 town and ward in the state. 
 
 ART. 2. No town or ward shall hereafter be so subdi- 
 vided as to increase its representatives. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole 
 to be considered with other resolutions of a like character. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that until 
 otherwise provided all towns and cities shall be entitled to 
 the same representation in the house of representatives as 
 now and no more. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole 
 to be considered with other resolutions of like character. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Little of Manchester, the Convention 
 resolved itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the 
 various resolutions relating to representation. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Briggs of Manchester in the chair.) 
 The Chairman Gentlemen, you are now in a Committee 
 
298 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of the Whole to consider the various resolutions that have 
 been introduced in relation to the apportionment of repre- 
 sentatives. The chair will await the action of the commit- 
 tee. 
 
 Mr. Little of Manchester I am aware that our time is 
 limited, and I do not propose to occupy but a few moments. 
 I feel that I should be derelict in my duty to my constituents 
 if I should fail to say a few words in regard to the subject of 
 representation in the house of representatives, which was so 
 ably and fully discussed here last Thursday. During the 
 forenoon I have been absent, attending to my duties as a 
 member of the Committee on the Judicial Department, and 
 what I have to say to you may in part, at least, have been 
 said by others. 
 
 Reference has repeatedly been made here to the country 
 towns of our state. I yield to no man upon the floor of this 
 Convention in respect and honor for the people of our coun- 
 try towns. I was born and reared in one of the old hill 
 towns of this county, a town which has had a most honorable 
 record, and I recognize the rights of those towns. I take 
 equal pride in the eleven cities of our state, and recognize 
 that they have some rights in this Convention. It seems 
 to me, gentlemen, that if we make the progress which we de- 
 sire, we must work in harmony. I very much regret that 
 several members of the Convention have spoken in slighting 
 terms of the foreign population of our cities, referring, I 
 suppose, to our naturalized citizens. I represent in part a 
 ward which has nearly 1,700 voters, quite a large proportion 
 of whom are natives of Canada and Sweden. In intelligence, 
 in devotion, and loyalty to the government of our state and 
 nation, they will compare favorably with the citizens of the 
 town of Nelson, or any country town in the state. Two of 
 my colleagues are not natives of this country, and yet there 
 are few people in the city of Manchester who are more highly 
 esteemed. In my opinion, there are no members here who 
 have more interest in the work of the Convention and are 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 299 
 
 more devoted to the best interests of our state than these 1 ,vo 
 gentlemen. 
 
 In the debate last Thursday, the gentleman from Temple 
 made the statement that in his opinion only the amendment 
 proposed by the gentleman from Newport, or some of the 
 amendments in that line, would be ratified by the people of 
 the state. I am equally certain that such an amendment will 
 not be ratified. The people of Manchester and other cities 
 are awake and alive to their interests. The gentleman from 
 Acworth has told us that the people of his town consider 
 the great end and object of life to be the privilege of sitting 
 in the legislature. The people of Manchester do not go quite 
 so far as that, but if you think that we are not alive to our 
 interests, you are mistaken. A gentleman said to me this 
 morning that almost any measure that may be approved by 
 the country towns will be ratified at the polls, because the 
 people of the cities will not be sufficiently interested to come 
 out and defeat it. I think this gentleman was mistaken. In 
 my opinion, if we pass an amendment here that makes the 
 inequality of representation very much greater than it now 
 is, you will find the people of the cities voting almost solidly 
 against it. 
 
 The gentleman from Newport comes here with the propo- 
 sition to make the basis of representation for the first repre- 
 sentative 600, and to make the mean increasing number for 
 additional representatives 2,000. The gentleman from 
 Peterborough proposes to make the mean increasing number 
 3,000, leaving the number- necessary for the first represen- 
 tative 600. Now, gentlemen, as you well know, there is a 
 large inequality in our representation to-day, and the country 
 towns have decidedly the advantage. 
 
 Is not this a fair proposition? If you make the mean 
 increasing number 3,000, make the basis of representation for 
 the first representative 1,000, and that will leave the ratio 
 as it is to-day. But a better plan, in my opinion, would be 
 this: Make the basis for the first representative 800, and 
 the mean increasing number 1,600, and that will also leave 
 
300 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the ratio as it is to-day, and will give us, as I understand it, 
 a house of about 300 members. 
 
 I recognize the regard, almost veneration, with which 
 many members of this Convention look upon the town sys- 
 tem, and have had somewhat of that feeling myself; but, gen- 
 tlemen, I can never vote to adopt any amendment that will 
 make the inequality of representation greater than it is to- 
 day. My constituents, and I have talked with many of them, 
 would much prefer to have the old system remain than to 
 have a change which will give a greater inequality of repre- 
 sentation, and I trust, gentlemen of the country towns, that 
 you will be willing to meet us half way. 
 
 Mr. Osgood of Nelson I do not wish to dispute any man's 
 word on the floor of this Convention, or anywhere; but I 
 have lived in a country town ever since the Civil War, where 
 we have now a representative once in four years under the 
 present apportionment. I have not, however, always lived 
 in a country town. For about six years previous to the 
 breaking out of the Civil War, I lived in the city of Lawrence. 
 I do not know how good the naturalized citizens of this state 
 are, and I do not know but they are as intelligent and as well 
 qualified to vote as the citizens of the country towns; but 
 they were far from being equal to the population of our 
 country towns at the time I speak of, and at that place. 
 Perhaps in this state they were better, and perhaps they have 
 improved much since. That is more than I know, but at 
 that time, I venture to say, if I am competent to judge, that 
 they were far from being as good citizens, as a whole, as the 
 native-born men. By what I said the other day I did not 
 mean to reflect although perhaps I did to some extent 
 upon the. character of these naturalized citizens. 
 
 For one, I cannot see from the nature of the case why such 
 a city as Manchester why thirty representatives would not 
 represent that city equally as well as forty-nine, which they 
 now have. It seems to me that there must be the same com- 
 munity of interests in a city that thirty men can represent 
 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 301 
 
 quite as well as forty-nine. But in relation to the country 
 towns it is quite different. The people are spread over a 
 wide territory, and they are more separated, and not as 
 compact as those in the cities, and they cannot have the same 
 community of interest from the nature of the case as those 
 who reside in the cities do, and I see no reason in my judg- 
 ment why the country towns should not be better repre- 
 sented proportionately than the larger cities. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord I wish to take up the time of 
 this Convention for about five minutes, and I hope I can get 
 through in that time. There are some things that ought 
 to be said in this connection. The state of New Hampshire 
 has sent us here, if it has sent us here for any one thing, to 
 reduce the number in the house of representatives. There 
 is no question about that. I have talked with the people in 
 the country and people in the city, and it is the unanimous 
 opinion, so far as I have been able to learn, that the house 
 of representatives should be reduced, and reduced essentially. 
 Now we make a proposition to the country towns, and they 
 tell us that they are willing to reduce the house of represen- 
 tatives, but they want to do it as the white man wished to 
 divide with the Indian. They had a crow and a turkey to 
 divide between them. The white man said, " You take the 
 crow and I will take the turkey, or I will take the turkey and 
 you may take the crow." The gentleman from Newport, 
 Mr. Barton, comes here and says, Yes, we will cut down the 
 representation, but we will keep what we have and cut you 
 down, or we will cut you down and keep what we have. 
 That is about the size of it. 
 
 The representation, as was said by a speaker who has 
 recently spoken, is now in favor of the towns, and I am will- 
 ing that it should remain there, but never will I, never will 
 my constituents, consent to take one step toward reducing 
 the house of representatives in such a way as to make the 
 disproportion larger than it is and bring this state to the 
 condition of Vermont and Connecticut. A democracy does 
 
302 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 not prevail in those states, but a kind of oligarchy. Five per 
 cent, of the people of Connecticut can rule the state, and 
 about the same is true in Vermont. That is not democracy; 
 it outrages the very principles upon which democracy is 
 founded, which is that one man is as good as another; that 
 a man in the city is as good as a man in the country not 
 that one man in the country is as good as two in the city, 
 as would seem to be the principle upon which the present 
 representation is based. If this amendment of the gentle- 
 man from Newport, Mr. Barton, passes, a man in the country 
 will count for as much as four in the city. 
 
 How long ago was it that we fought a great war, and the 
 principal cause of that war was that the South claimed a 
 right to have greater weight by the ballot than the people in 
 the North. They were not satisfied with voting man to 
 man with us, but wanted three fifths of the slaves repre- 
 sented, and we didn't consent to that. The war was fought, 
 and the North won, and we have put an amendment into 
 the Constitution which recognizes the principle that each 
 state shall have a representation in congress in proportion to 
 the voting population of the state. 
 
 This amendment proposed by the gentleman from New- 
 port, Mr. Barton, would be equivalent to enfranchising every 
 woman and child in the small country towns. I am in favor 
 of the enfranchisement of women; but if you are to enfran- 
 chise the women in the country, you should also enfran- 
 chise the women in the cities. I believe in fair play. 
 
 Our fathers took a step in the wrong direction when they 
 established the principle that a man living in the country 
 should count for more than one living in the cities. A great 
 deal has been said about reverence and veneration for our 
 forefathers. I believe that we should reverence them, but 
 I do not believe in going so far in that direction as to over- 
 look their mistakes, and they did make mistakes. They did 
 not make a Constitution that was perfect, and they didn't 
 look at it themselves in that way. The Constitution that 
 was first made had not been in force a great many years 
 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 303 
 
 before they gathered here and introduced seventy-two propo- 
 sitions to amend. That does not look as though they thought 
 they had reached the climax of equity, justice, and right in 
 this matter. 
 
 Another principle which seems to be upheld by the advo- 
 cates of the town system, and one which I think is wrong, 
 is that the representatives of the people should live on the 
 same hillside as the people they represent. That is an 
 exceedingly narrow way of looking at it. Let me give you 
 an example in national politics, which is only a wider field 
 than that of the state. You remember a few years ago this 
 district was looking around for a good man to represent them 
 in congress. The city of Concord, or any other city in this 
 district, might have come up and said that they would not 
 be properly represented if a man was chosen from any other 
 place than such city; but they did not do that. They 
 found a man down in Bow, in the person of Henry M. Baker, 
 and sent him to congress, and everybody, so far as I know, 
 was pleased with the manner in which he represented the 
 district. I do not think there is a man here who would say 
 that anybody suffered on account of Mr. Baker representing 
 the whole district. 
 
 I think it is conceded that thirty members would repre- 
 sent the city of Manchester as well as forty-nine; but I think 
 it is equally true that one man from five hill towns would 
 represent the five hill towns as well as six, or eight, or ten 
 men could do it. 
 
 There is one thing that has not been touched upon. The 
 gentleman from Bedford, Mr. Woodbury, spoke this morn- 
 ing about the interest the cities had in the question of the 
 prohibition of liquor, or the sale of it. That question is 
 coming before the legislature, and in the consideration of 
 such questions as that it is not sentiment that governs, but 
 facts, and the legislature will want to know, the facts. The 
 cities know the facts that concern them. Then there are 
 large financial interests centering in the cities that must 
 always center there, and the people of those cities have at 
 
304 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 least the same right to vote and to vote on equal terms on 
 such questions with the men from the country. 
 
 Let us be fair to all parties. The proposition of the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, is a fair proposition. 
 It gives every man in the state the opportunity to be counted 
 once, and once only; that is democracy; and anything else 
 tends towards oligarchy. 
 
 Mr. Starr of Manchester Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
 of the Committee: I have listened with close attention to the 
 various propositions that have been presented to this Con- 
 vention on this question of how we should reduce the repre- 
 sentation of the lower house of our legislative body. I came 
 here with no preconceived notions or. convictions as to what 
 limit should be placed upon the size of that body. I felt 
 that it was the duty of this Convention to answer the demand 
 throughout this state that the representation should be 
 reduced. 
 
 I think I state the feeling truly when I say that there is 
 every feeling of consideration and of kindness on the part 
 of the delegates from the cities towards every town in this 
 state. To approach this question in any but the most lib- 
 eral and tolerant spirit and on the broadest lines of equality 
 can meet with but one result and one action on the part of 
 this Convention, and that is its disapproval. Any attempt 
 to favor one locality or division of this state at the expense 
 of any other locality ought to meet, and will meet, with the 
 disapproval of this Convention. 
 
 This question of the reduction of our present house of 
 representatives is too momentous for politics or partisanship 
 to play hide-and-seek with, and it needs to be met on the 
 broadest lines of equality and right. This brings us face to 
 face with the consideration of the question, What is an equit- 
 able method of reducing our house of representatives? Every 
 resolution that has been presented to this Convention, with 
 a few exceptions, have been measures of expediency rather 
 than principle, and have not been based upon equality, but 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 305 
 
 upon expediency. With the single exception of the measure 
 introduced by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, I 
 think that is absolutely true, that all the propositions made 
 here have been on the basis of expediency rather than on the 
 basis of principle. 
 
 Now it must be admitted by the candid man of this Con- 
 vention that our present house of representatives is too large, 
 and it is growing constantly larger, and that a smaller body 
 would as easily do the work without any loss to the quality 
 of the work. I say that, I believe, will be admitted by the 
 great majority of the members of this Convention. Now 
 what measure will best meet the need and the wants of the 
 whole people of this state, and the demands for the reduction 
 of the house. Let us meet this question courageously. Let 
 us give to the people of this state a measure that will meet 
 the honest demand of every portion of this state on this 
 question; that will equally represent every man, woman, and 
 child within this state; that will not give to one town, because 
 it happens to have 601 or a few more inhabitants, a greater 
 voice in the legislation of this state than another portion of 
 the state. 
 
 I think the district system, or some modification of it, such 
 as has been presented by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Lyford, is the only fair, honorable, and just measure which 
 has been introduced into this house. 
 
 I want to say in answer to the gentleman from Nelson, Mr. 
 Osgood, that if it is true that the rural community of this 
 state represents a higher intelligence than the city, then his 
 argument falls to the ground, because if that is true, then 
 those benighted heathen, sitting in darkness in our cities, 
 should have a double representation in the legislative bodies 
 of our state, that they might be trained in self-government 
 and civic virtue. 
 
 Mr. Busiel of Laconia I am opposed to the present so- 
 called system of town representation. I think it is a mis- 
 nomer, because, outside of the state of Connecticut, which 
 
 20 
 
 
306 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 has been for a long time struggling with this problem, and 
 outside of Vermont, which has it to a less extent, the town 
 system, as I understand it, does not prevail anywhere. That 
 is to say, we do not admit that representation in the state of 
 New Hampshire is to-day, or ought to be, a simple town sys- 
 tem, that a town should be represented because it is a town, 
 and a ward because it is a ward. They have something 
 similar to that in the state of Connecticut, which they have 
 been trying to do away with, and supersede with a better 
 system, for a long time. They have gone there to such an 
 extent that that state may be cited as one of the states in 
 this nation which more nearly represents the town system 
 than any other, and, I am sorry to say, that it exists as the 
 worst example of state representation in the nation. I am 
 not in favor of inaugurating in the state of New Hampshire 
 ;any such system. 
 
 We already have the district system in New Hampshire in 
 the choice of senators, and I have yet to hear any complaint 
 from any source whatever that the system of choosing sena- 
 tors is not fair and equitable. There does not seem to be 
 any objection to it, to my mind, save one. There is a pro- 
 vision in the Constitution which provides that the districts 
 should be divided in proportion to the valuation of the prop- 
 erty, and I would gladly vote to strike that out. That is, 
 you divide the state of New Hampshire for representation 
 in what is called the highest body, not on the pinciple of 
 population, but on the principle of valuation, and I would 
 strike out forever, if I could have my way, the principle of 
 representation based upon valuation in any form. 
 
 I am in favor of dividing this state into districts. It is 
 not for me to say how many districts, but for this Convention 
 to say. 
 
 I may be entirely wrong, but I understand that the house 
 of representatives is not a body of men representing the 
 towns and cities of this state, but the people of the state. 
 This Convention is a body representing, not the towns and 
 cities of the state, but the people of the state. When the 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 307 
 
 people of the state made their Constitution, they reserved 
 to themselves one right the right of telling how they should 
 amend that Constitution, and they provided when it became 
 necessary to change the Constitution, that it should be done, 
 not by a vote of the majority of the towns and wards of the 
 state. There is nowhere in the Constitution, or in the laws, 
 anything which will enable any man justly and properly to 
 say, as I understand it, that these men who are to frame 
 amendments represent the cities or towns of the state of 
 New Hampshire, but I think that this body of men which 
 I see before me, represents the people of the state of New 
 Hampshire, and we are the delegates of the people of New 
 Hampshire. They cannot come here, and they have chosen 
 us as their delegates, not as representatives of cities and 
 towns, but as delegates representing the whole people, and 
 we are met here for the purpose of making a proposed amend- 
 ment that will reduce the house of representatives, and we 
 should do it with a view to the interests of the whole state 
 and not to the interests of any one town or city in the state. 
 
 I was sorry to see, when this debate began, a spirit on the 
 part of the men who come here from the small towns of the 
 state to bind themselves together. There was an attempt to 
 have a caucus, but the notice for it was withdrawn. I do not 
 believe in any such thing as drawing a line between those 
 who favor the town system and those who favor the district 
 system, and I hope it will not be done. 
 
 I was born in an agricultural town, and I wish to say here 
 in considering this question, gentlemen, that you will make 
 a mistake if you think there is any sanctity whatever in the 
 town and ward lines of this state. I was born in the town 
 of Gilford, which was taken from the town of Gilmanton, and 
 afterwards still another town was taken from the town of 
 Gilmanton. Still later, a portion of Gilford was annexed to 
 the town of Laconia, and still later a portion of Laconia was 
 annexed to the town of Gilford, and when the city of La- 
 conia was incorporated another part of Gilford was taken 
 and included within the city. Laconia, when it was first 
 
308 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 incorporated, was divided into six wards, and since then it 
 has been divided into four wards. That is an example, gen- 
 tlemen, from which you will see that very often in this state 
 the matter of town and ward lines has not been considered 
 of importance; that whenever the legislature for some good 
 reason believed that it was for the interest of the people of 
 the state to change the town or ward lines, they went ahead 
 and did it. 
 
 I have no sympathy whatever with this idea that you are 
 eradicating town lines if you divide the state into districts. 
 You are doing nothing of the sort. A man or men would 
 come from the rural towns and represent those towns just 
 the same if you should divide this state into districts of 4,000 
 people each, and you are not by so doing disproportionately 
 cutting off the influence or weight of any town in legis- 
 lation. Nor are you depriving a town from sending one of 
 its own citizens to the legislature, if there is a citizen in such 
 town who is expressly adapted for such duties. Other towns 
 will recognize the worth of such a man, and they will give 
 the people everywhere who are worthy of coming to Concord 
 the privilege of doing so, even though the town should be a 
 part of a district. They will give those people due consid- 
 eration, and will give them an election to the house just as 
 they do to-day, although perhaps not so many of them I 
 hope not. 
 
 The question was asked to have some one prove affirma- 
 tively that the house is too large. There are some things 
 that do not need to be proved affirmatively. If a man is 
 studying mathematics he knows that there are some things 
 that are axiomatic, and do not need to be proved. For in- 
 stance, a straight line is the shortest distance between two 
 points. It is axiomatic that this house is too large, and it 
 is too large why? Because it is perfectly evident that this 
 hall is not large enough to accommodate comfortably so 
 many, and the proposition has often been considered, and 
 considered seriously, to enlarge this state house so as to get 
 a bigger hall of representatives. Another reason that the 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 309 
 
 house is too large is because it is cumbersome. It is not an 
 easily governed body of men. I never have had much occa- 
 sion to find fault with the laws that they have made, or with 
 the representatives themselves. Those that sit in the front 
 seats of this house, as a rule, are men capable of directing 
 legislation, but they could more easily direct a smaller body. 
 I object to this principle of representation now in force 
 and as advanced by the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Bar- 
 ton, because it is utterly unjust and unequal. It is not a 
 great many years ago that the people of this country as- 
 sembled in Philadelphia and promulgated to the world the 
 doctrine of freedom and equality, the first thing of the kind 
 that ever saw light, and that was promulgated in the Decla- 
 ration of Independence. There they enunciated the doc- 
 trine which has shaken this earth from center to circumfer- 
 ence. They said that all men are created free and equal. 
 Then the state of New Hampshire, which was one of the 
 thirteen to ratify the Constitution, had to construct a Con- 
 stitution of its own, and in that Constitution the first pro- 
 vision says, " All men " not a man in Manchester, or a 
 man from the hillside, not a man in Coos, or in Sullivan, 
 but " all men are born equally free and independent." And 
 the second article starts with these words: "All men have 
 certain natural, essential, and inherent rights." There is 
 'no reservation about some men, but it means all men. 
 Straight through the Bill of Rights, and straight through 
 that Constitution, you will see the same principle. You will 
 not see any shadow of variation or turning from it until, Mr. 
 Chairman, you strike the article providing for a method of 
 representation. That is the first departure from this prin- 
 ciple. When you come to article eleven it says: "All elec- 
 tions ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the state hav- 
 ing proper qualifications has an equal right to elect, and be 
 elected, into office." There is nothing said here about a 
 man in the country town being equal to two men in the city. 
 There is nothing said here about the proposition to make a 
 man in the country town equal to four men in the city. But 
 
310 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the men who established the Constitution in every single 
 part of it, except in the part relating to legislative bodies, 
 very carefully enunciated the principle of equality. It was 
 equality and not discrimination. They did not raise the 
 question whether a man born on the hillside is better than 
 a man born at the seaside or in the city. They did not recog- 
 nize at all the question of immigration or how many genera- 
 tions back you would have to go before you found the essen- 
 tial qualifications that would enable a man to vote. They 
 did not inquire how many years back a man would have had 
 to come to this country to enable him to have the full privi- 
 leges of citizenship, but they enunciated the principles that 
 were enunciated years ago on the barren coast of New Eng- 
 land, at Plymouth Eock, by those who sought a country 
 where they would be freer than in the country which they 
 left. 
 
 It is, and ought to be, our boast that this is a country that 
 welcomes these people, who come here to better their condi- 
 tion, and there ought not to be any talk here about the 
 superiority of some people who came here before others. If 
 there was anything that the people of this country fought 
 for and strove to uphold, it was the principle of equality 
 among men. When our forefathers declared the independ- 
 ence of this country, that was the first time that the prin- 
 ciple of equality had a chance to assert itself; it was the first' 
 time that the people had courage to rise up against a despotic 
 and aristocratic government, and every one who did it put 
 his head into a hangman's noose, and especially those who 
 signed that immortal instrument, the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 This country was founded by men who came across the 
 water and landed here, and settled this country for the pur- 
 pose of gaining liberty and independence in political rights 
 and in religion and the right of worship, and those that have 
 come here since have come for similar purposes. 
 
 I have no sympathy with the argument here that one class 
 is better than another, not at all. I am engaged in manu- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 311 
 
 facturing. When I entered that business there was hardly a 
 person in the factory but what was native born. We had a 
 few Irishmen, but of Frenchmen there were none. Those 
 people that have come here since have come, why? Because 
 we sent out invitations for them to come here? Nothing of 
 the sort. Because we wanted them to come here to displace 
 our own people? Nothing of the sort. There is no manu- 
 facturer who will rise in this house and tell you that they 
 employed those people and sent invitations for them to come 
 here because they were better people than ours, or anything 
 of that kind. Those people came here for the same reason 
 that sent the people to this country in the first place, and 
 for the same reason that has been sending people here ever 
 since the country was founded to better themselves. Our 
 people could not furnish the help to run the looms in the 
 state of New Hampshire, and if manufacturing had to de- 
 pend upon the native population to run those looms they 
 would practically all stop. These people have come here, 
 as I have said, to better their condition, and we must not 
 discriminate against them. There is no sound reason why 
 we should assume here that 600 people out on the hillside 
 are better than 1,799 people somewhere else, but that is what 
 you are doing. That is what the Convention which came 
 here and said that 600 people should elect one representa- 
 tive but it should take 1,800 to elect two, did. Now shall 
 we fix it so that 600 people will be as good as 2,599 people? 
 That is what you would do if you accept the amendment 
 proposed by the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton. 
 
 This form of representation is vicious, and it was vicious 
 from the first. It never was right because never just. It 
 was never right because never equal. You cannot make 
 injustice and inequality right, I don't care what you do. 
 
 Now if you will take this matter and meet it courageously 
 and adopt a measure and place it before the people of New 
 Hampshire which will give them a house of reasonable size, 
 elected upon the district system, and then go among them 
 and sa} r , gentlemen, you must place yourselves in line with 
 
312 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the other people of this country, and put your house on the 
 basis of a district system, because that enables the representa- 
 tion in the legislature of every man, woman, and child all 
 of the time, and makes them equal, I have no fears that the 
 people will not ratify such a measure. If they do not, I 
 shall be very sorry, but I think they will ratify it. I hope 
 so. I do not think it becomes us to come here and say that 
 the people of the state are not intelligent and do not under- 
 stand this question. I think they do. 
 
 I am not contending here for any particular number of 
 which the house should be composed. In regard to that it 
 is not for me to say. I believe 100 members will do the 
 business of this state just exactly as well as 400. I have no 
 doubt about it at all. We have in this nation forty-five great 
 states, and out of those forty-five states there are only six 
 that have over 153 representatives in the popular branch of 
 the legislature, and two of those that have more than 153 
 are in New England. New England is the place, Mr. Chair- 
 man, from which the men started who have founded the 
 great Western states. The men who went from our New 
 England were perfectly familiar with our ideas, and many of 
 them have been in this very chamber and made laws for the 
 state of New Hampshire. There can be no question but what 
 they are intelligent and far-sighted. They have built up 
 the greatest empire that has ever been built upon this earth, 
 and some of those Western states have two, three, and four 
 millions of people in them. But they do not have a house 
 of five, six, seven, or eight hundred people to represent those 
 millions. They say that 100 people is sufficient, or a ma- 
 jority of the states do. The majority do not have more 
 than 100 representatives in the popular branch of their legis- 
 lature. Does any man say that the Western people are not 
 thoroughly represented in their house of representa- 
 tives by these 100 men. If so, I would like to 
 have them show me the particulars and show where 
 they fail. I do not think a man here can say that they are 
 not well represented. I think their laws are as good as ours, 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 313 
 
 and their property and individual rights are as well safe- 
 guarded. The great state of New York, with its six million 
 people, has a house of but 150 representatives, which would 
 be but one representative to every 40,000 of people. It is 
 no answer for any man to say on this floor that there has been 
 in the state of New York laws which were not good, and that 
 there have been things done in that state of which we do not 
 approve, or that there have been things done in the city of 
 Philadelphia and the state of Pennsylvania of which we do 
 not approve; it is no answer to say because they have had 
 trouble it has been due to faulty basis of representation. 
 Those evils have been inherent in their system of government, 
 as they are inherent in all systems of government. 
 
 I djo not come here with any remedy for all the evils which 
 exist in New Hampshire, or to offer any panacea whatever. 
 I come here believing thoroughly and honestly that this 
 state has always made a mistake about its representative 
 body. I come here believing that the system will never be 
 satisfactory, both because it is unequal and because it is not 
 and cannot be permanent. 
 
 Something has been said here with reference to increasing 
 the size of our senate. If it is necessary to increase the size 
 of the senate, I would be very glad to do it; but I say, by 
 all means, lessen the size of the house. I believe that to be 
 the popular demand in the state of New Hampshire. I be- 
 lieve that to be the demand of the people who caused this 
 Convention to assemble. If I had my way, I would cut this 
 body down so that it would not consist ever again of such 
 number of men as it has now, or has had in the past. If 300 
 is right, I will not object to that. I do not think, however, 
 it is right. I would rather have it 100, but if I cannot get 
 what I want, I will take what you gentlemen think is best, 
 but to whatever size we reduce it, let us reduce it on such a 
 system that the reduction will be permanent. I think that 
 this Convention should materially reduce the representation 
 in New Hampshire. I think that was the purpose' for which 
 it was created. I think we shall fail in our duty if we d6 
 
314 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 not submit to the people some method for so reducing it. 
 When you get away from here, if you adopt a measure that 
 will change the basis of representation but a little, you will 
 be asked, Why didn't you cut it open? Why didn't you cut 
 it in two? That is the question that will be asked. Every 
 time I go home, I am met by some of my constituents and 
 they speak something like this: " For God's sake, have n't 
 you got an opportunity now, and won't you do it now? 
 Won't you cut it in two? Don't let it be so big, there is no 
 need of it." 
 
 Some gentlemen have spoken about its educational value. 
 It has an educational value, and so would a representative 
 body of 100 men. But if I understand the people of New 
 Hampshire aright, I do not think it is necessary for\us to 
 educate intelligent men who live anywhere within the limits 
 of our state in such duties as they have to perform when they 
 meet in a representative body to enact the laws for the state. 
 Perhaps they may not have a thorough preparation in par- 
 liamentary law, Cushing's Manual may not be familiar to 
 them, but it is entirely possible for every one to post himself 
 sufficiently in matters pertaining to parliamentary law to en- 
 able him to enact the laws for our state without calling upon 
 the state of New Hampshire to pay for such education. 
 
 Now let us look at this from the standpoint of expense. 
 Do you stop to think what we are paying 400 men to come 
 here and legislate for us every two years? There was a time 
 not so very long ago when a member of the house was paid 
 three dollars a day, and at one session they were kept 101 
 days, and each member received $303. At that time the 
 pay-roll of that house was somewhere like $125,000 some- 
 where in that neighborhood. That appeared a little too 
 steep, and the people of the state didn't like it, and they did 
 succeed in amending the fundamental law of the state so 
 that the compensation of each member at any legislature was 
 $200, and that is what it now is, so that, taking the pay-roll 
 of the house as it is now, consisting of 397 members, and you 
 have almost $80,000 for the pay-roll of the members, to say 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 315 
 
 nothing of the officers and the other expenses of the legis- 
 lature. If you had a house of 300 members, your pay-roll 
 would be $60,000, and that would mean a great saving over 
 a membership of 400. But if you should cut it in two, and 
 have a house of say 150 members, you would save $30,000 
 additional in money from the pay-roll alone, not to speak of 
 the other expenses, which would amount to as much more. 
 And what is that for, what is the expense that we are now 
 incurring for? To enable 400 men to come here for a short 
 session and make laws. Is it not better to save that money 
 and prut it into your popular educational fund for the benefit 
 of the whole state? I think it is. I believe it is. Whether 
 that affects any particular man's pocket much or little is not 
 to be considered here, but how it will affect the whole state. 
 I can remember when the whole expense of the state of New 
 Hampshire, every expense of the carrying on of the state 
 government from one year's end to another, was only $60,000, 
 and by cutting the legislature down to 150 members you 
 can save as much money in one year nearly as it used to cost 
 the state of New Hampshire to run all of its departments. 
 
 I sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman, that the time is cer- 
 tainly coming in New Hampshire when we must make this 
 change to the district system, and why not make it now. 
 Why not make a new departure at this time. I think if we 
 adopt the proper system the people of New Hampshire will 
 endorse it. 
 
 There are certain things about the proposed amendment 
 offered by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, of 
 which I do not approve, and one of the most objectionable is 
 the method of redistricting the state. I do not think the 
 county commissioners, able men as they undoubtedly are, 
 the proper men to make the distribution. I think it ought 
 to be done by a different tribunal. But that is for some one 
 else to determine and not for me. I thank you for your at- 
 tention. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord After having been rebuked by 
 the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Eastman, for presuming to 
 
316 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 sit upon a front seat that was offered to me by one of my 
 friends in the Convention, and that, too, without comper^sa- 
 tion, it is with some embarrassment, but perhaps with en- 
 lightenment, that I address myself to this question again. 
 
 I am obliged to the gentlemen who have spoken here in 
 behalf of the town system for the arguments that they have 
 made in behalf of the district system. There is no stronger 
 argument for the district system than the argument presented 
 by the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. Hamblett, this morning, 
 when he pointed out to you the inequalities that have to be 
 adjusted if you preserve the town system. It is unequal as 
 it exists to-day, and it will be unequal however you may tcj 
 to obviate it. 
 
 The gentleman from Laconia has said that there are fea- 
 tures in the bill I have presented to which he objects. I am 
 glad the district system has reached that point of discussicr. 
 I presented this bill as a tentative bill. I presented as near 
 as I could what had been in existence in the state of Massa- 
 chusetts and been generally acceptable there for a period of 
 nearly fifty years. I did not know, nor do I now know, that 
 it would be exactly adapted to our circumstances and our 
 environments. The gentleman who is absent from his ,jat 
 to-day the gentleman from Franklin, Judge Blodgett 
 suggested to me an amendment which would take the making 
 of the district lines out of the hands of the county commis- 
 sioners and substitute for the county commissioners a board 
 to be appointed in each county by the superior court of the 
 state. That proposition, he said, would meet with his ap- 
 proval, and the approval of many others in this Convention 
 who object to the proposition as it stands. That amendment 
 would meet with no opposition from me. I am willing the 
 district system shall be perfected to accord with the ideas of 
 the people of this state, and be so adapted that it will fit into 
 our conditions and our environments. 
 
 The gentleman from Acworth, Mr. Mitchell, has said that 
 the only thing that cheers the men of the back towns as they 
 toil in the hot sun, working with the hoe and with the scythe, 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 317 
 
 is the thought that comes to them that sometime it may be 
 their turn to come to the legislature. I imagine that the 
 gentleman from Acworth has hit the nail more squarely on 
 the head than any man who has described the town system. 
 The gentleman from Peterborough., Mr. Scott, who has filled 
 every office within the gift of his town, who has been repre- 
 sentative and state senator, who has been high sheriff of his 
 county, who has been a member of several Constitutional 
 Conventions, and in all those places has brought honor to 
 himself and to his constituents, says that he is ready to sur- 
 render an additional representative from his town that the 
 country towns may get a larger proportion of representation. 
 If, as stated by the gentleman from Acworth, the one thing 
 consoling the men of the country towns and the only cheer 
 that they have is the prospect that it will come their turn 
 sometime to go to the legislature, does the gentleman from 
 Peterborough think this same condition does not exist in 
 large towns like Peterborough, and in cities like Manchester? 
 
 There was a man in a country town who had held the 
 office of third selectman, second selectman, and first select- 
 man, and other offices in the town, and had been represen- 
 tative, and when his party met in caucus the next campaign 
 this man was absent. His son was present, and one of the 
 leaders said to him, " Sonny, where is your father?" " Oh, 
 father? Father has held all the offices, and he has got done." 
 Now the gentleman from Peterborough, who has held all the 
 offices, perhaps has got done, but there are younger men 
 coming up behind him to whom this ambition of represent- 
 ing the town of Peterborough in the legislature is just as 
 dear and just as important as it was to him. 
 
 The gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Scott, and the 
 gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, have presented a 
 proposition here which provides for increasing the inequali- 
 ties of representation between the towns of more than one 
 representative and the small towns. What is the result of 
 that proposition carried to its logical sequence? The small 
 towns come here and say, You may make a reduction of this 
 
318 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 house, but you must take the reduction out of the cities and 
 the large towns. When you concede the point of reduction 
 ancf reject the district system, you have done nothing except 
 to provide a temporary expedient. At the end of ten, twenty, 
 or twenty-five years, you will come here again to consider 
 a method of reducing the house. How will you stand 
 then. You have given a disproportionate power to the small 
 towns and have taken from the large towns and cities the 
 strength they now have in their relation to the small towns. 
 You have in this way made progression toward the Connec- 
 ticut and the Vermont plans. When another reduction is 
 demanded the small towns will again say, Let it be taken from 
 the large towns and cities of the state, and it will only be a 
 few decades before you reach the situation of one represen- 
 tative for each town and each ward of a city, which is the 
 condition existing to-day in the states of Vermont and Con- 
 necticut, a condition that the majority of the people of those 
 states desire to abolish. 
 
 I did not suppose that the object of representation was 
 that men could take turns in going to the legislature, but that 
 it was the selection of men who, because of their qualifi- 
 cations and standing in town, would make better represen- 
 tatives for that locality than other men. That what was 
 sought were proper men to speak for the locality, men who 
 could vote intelligently because of their knowledge of affairs. 
 I supposed that that was the theory of selection of represen- 
 tatives instead of the system suggested here, that each man 
 should have his turn in going to the legislature. 
 
 Delegates have appealed to sentiment in connection with 
 the reduction of the house. Let me reply that it was not 
 sentiment that elected my friend from Lancaster, Mr. Kent, 
 when he was sent here by both parties. It was not senti- 
 ment that sent here my friend from Portsmouth, Mr. Norris, 
 it was not sentiment that sent here the gentleman from 
 Franklin, Judge Blodgett, nor sentiment that elected the 
 gentleman from Ward four, Concord, Mr. Mitchell. It was 
 not sentiment that sent these men here. They were elected 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 319 
 
 for practical reasons with the hope that they would rise above 
 sentiment and local feelings in working out amendments to 
 the Constitution and presenting them to the people. We 
 none of us were sent here to serve our towns alone, but to 
 serve the whole state. 
 
 If you will look into the proceedings of the Massachusetts 
 Convention of 1853, you will find Henry "Wilson was elected 
 from two towns, and several other members were elected from 
 two towns because they were men who could do the work of 
 that Convention well, or help do it. We stand here as repre- 
 sentatives of the whole state, and whatever we do here is for 
 the benefit of the whole state, is for the benefit of every tovni 
 in the state, directly or indirectly. 
 
 Something has been said here by the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Mitchell, and by others of the veneration we 
 should have for the present Constitution, because it was built 
 by the fathers. I maintain that we show no disrespect to 
 the fathers if we can improve the document, considering our 
 conditions and environments, which are different from what 
 they were at the time the Constitution was made. The gen- 
 tleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, said that the fathers 
 were confronted by the same conditions that confront us to- 
 day. I beg leave to differ with him. The inequality of rep- 
 resentation then was not such as now. There was no city in 
 the state. Manchester was not in existence, Concord was a 
 country village, smaller in size than Hopkinton, and Ports- 
 mouth was the principal town of the state. 
 
 Gentlemen admit here, one after another, that the district 
 system is a system of equality and justice, and if we had to 
 construct a Constitution, if we had to build anew, we should 
 build on the district system. The fathers themselves, if they 
 were here and had to deal with our conditions, would deal 
 with them as Mr. Plumrner, who was quoted by the gentle- 
 man from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, wished to deal with them 
 then, because he saw farther into the future than any other 
 of the delegates. He saw what has since happened that we 
 would grow to be a great state as well as a great nation, and 
 that the town system would be unequal and unjust. 
 
 
320 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Talk about the sacredness of the past and of what the 
 fathers built! In the state of Connecticut the people existed 
 as a state for forty years under their old colonial charter, 
 contending all the time for its revision, and it almost required 
 a revolution to bring about a change. Under that charter 
 there was not a house and senate, but the second branch was 
 called the council, and it consisted of twelve members. 
 Every act that was passed had to receive the sanction of 
 seven of that council. Every law that was repealed had to 
 receive their votes. Every appointment that was made from 
 the judges of the court down to the justices of the peace, had 
 to receive the sanction of those seven men. They not only 
 made all appointments, and made all the laws, but they sat 
 as a court to review the laws they had made, and most of 
 them practised as lawyers before that court. That condition 
 of affairs lasted because there were men in Connecticut who 
 had regard for the sacredness of the past and opposed changes 
 of unjust conditions for that reason. Do the gentle- 
 men who are talking about the sacredness of things know 
 that we have made progress every day since the state consti- 
 tutions were formed? There was a property qualification for 
 voting, and a higher property qualification for holding office 
 in all of them, but all of these things have been wiped out, 
 and it is no reflection upon the fathers that they have been 
 wiped out. 
 
 We are brought face to face here with an important ques- 
 tion. The first time I took the floor, I said to you, and I 
 repeat, that the facts as demonstrated by the tables presented 
 show how impossible it is to obtain any considerable reduc- 
 tion of this house under the town system that will not in- 
 crease the inequalities already existing and prorate half of the 
 towns of the state. Are we then to submit what we ourselves 
 disapprove? In the Convention which framed the federal 
 Constitution, when it seemed as though the attempt to frame 
 a Constitution would fail because some of the members set 
 the interests of the states higher than those of the nation, 
 its president, George Washington, made one of the few 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 321 
 
 speeches he ever made, a speech of five or six lines, which 
 ought to be emblazoned in letters of gold in every school- 
 house, and in every house of assembly in this country. 
 Standing there before that body, when it seemed as though 
 local jealousies would bring their work to naught, he said: 
 " It is all too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. 
 If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, 
 how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a 
 standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The 
 event is in the hands of God." 
 
 Is not this the spirit to actuate us? 
 
 Appeals have been made to the memory of the past. Let 
 me speak of the past and of those men who set aside their 
 individual opinions and helped frame our Constitution, and 
 who gave that assent by which New Hampshire became the 
 ninth state to adopt the federal Constitution, thus sealing 
 the work of the Convention. 
 
 New Hampshire was the first state to have a written Con- 
 stitution. It was on New Hampshire soil that the first overt 
 act of the Revolution took place and not at Lexington, Massa- 
 chusetts it was the taking of Fort Willliam and Mary by 
 the New Hampshire patriots under John Sullivan and John 
 Langdon. And there was secured the gunpowder which was 
 used at Bunker Hill. New Hampshire had more men at 
 Bunker Hill than Massachusetts. It was in Portsmouth har- 
 bor that the first warship of this country, the Ranger, was 
 built. The first time that the flag of the nation was raised at 
 a masthead it was raised at Portsmouth on this ship, and the 
 first time the flag was seen abroad was when John Paul Jones 
 in this ship carried the news of Burgoyne's surrender to 
 France. The first public library in this country and in the 
 world was that established in the town of Peterborough in 
 1833, and the first public library to open on Sunday was this 
 same Peterborough public library. The first state to make 
 an effort to encourage public libraries was the state of New 
 Hampshire, and the first state to make appropriations for 
 the building up of public libraries was the state of New 
 21 
 
 
322 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Hampshire, and the first state to have a state library was 
 the state of New Hampshire. The men of New Hampshire 
 who made the state first in these historic events were not men 
 of local prejudices, with visions warped by thoughts of how 
 their acts would affect their towns. If under the leadership 
 of the fathers and their descendants New Hampshire has 
 been first in great events, then I appeal to you as men and 
 leaders of to-day that by your acts she may not be the last 
 state to abrogate a system of representation which everybody 
 acknowledges to be unequal and unjust. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I had not thought to add 
 one word to this discussion, but it seems to me that the gen- 
 tlemen who have been depicted in such glowing terms by 
 the delegate who has just spoken that those men who have 
 accomplished all those wonders for the state of New Hamp- 
 shire, were brilliant enough to make us a Constitution under 
 which we have lived and shall continue to live. 
 
 It seems to me that the gentlemen who have been arguing 
 upon this question have wandered away from the principle 
 that the founders of our Constitution had. It seems to me 
 that it was the idea of the framers of this Constitution, and 
 for more than 100 years it has been the principle of New 
 Hampshire, that the little country towns had the right 
 equally with the larger towns to be heard in their own de- 
 fense in this, what is called the general court of the state. 
 
 We have been told about these small legislatures of other 
 states. Do we want to adopt them? Are we ashamed of 
 the legislation of the state of New Hampshire; does it not 
 compare with Maine and with New Jersey, where their gen- 
 eral law for the incorporation of companies is regarded with 
 suspicion? Does it not stand favorably with Delaware, 
 where they have not been able to elect a senator for years on 
 account of bribery and corruption? Does it not stand favor- 
 ably with the state of Montana, where the United States 
 senate sent a senator elected from that state back to his home, 
 and said that he was elected by the corrupt use of money? 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 323 
 
 Have they ever, in the state of New Hampshire, tarnished our 
 fair fame with such corruption or such disclosures as that? 
 It seems to me that the people of Grafton county who elect 
 forty-two representatives to this legislature while the city of 
 Manchester, casting less votes, send forty-nine, are not in- 
 equably represented, and it seems to me that the cities of 
 this state are well cared for. It seems to me that if the city 
 of Concord can send representatives to the legislature based 
 upon the population, including the insane at the asylum and 
 the criminals at the state prison, the country towns ought to 
 be able to at least send one representative, based upon their 
 legitimate population, and that they have the right to be 
 heard, and that they should be heard in this legislature. 
 
 I believe this Convention is ready at this time and will 
 continue ready to act upon the Constitution as framed by 
 the fathers, and which has been good enough to take good 
 care of us and give us good laws for the last one hundred 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster Mr. Chairman, I have no desire 
 at this time of the discussion to attempt a speech, utter an 
 oration, or do anything except make a very few suggestions 
 in regard to the question before this body. I have been 
 to-day, from early morning, coming from my home up in 
 the county of Coos, where the mercury is 20 below zero and 
 the wind is blowing 100 miles an hour. 
 
 I was glad when I came into this body this afternoon to 
 hear the remarks of one of the delegates from Laconia, Mr. 
 Busiel. I remember the last time he and I addressed a delib- 
 erative assembly in this hall. It was on an occasion when 
 we were endeavoring to obtain an appropriation to build the 
 structure that now stands over Endicott Eock at The Weirs, 
 to keep intact the old ideas and love of the old things; to 
 strengthen that love and veneration in the state for that 
 which is old and which existed at its foundation. 
 
 I have heard discussed to-day, or occasional reference made 
 to the remarks of the gentleman from Acworth, Mr. Mitchell, 
 
324 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 that residents of the country towns desire continuance of 
 the present town system because and so they might occasion- 
 ally come to the legislature and have the benefits of office. 
 That gentleman did not originate that idea of representation. 
 It exists all over the state, and I think as strongly in the 
 If-rger towns as in the smaller towns. 
 
 Now I know that the country towns are poor, but I do not 
 suppose any one desires in any way to criticise them for that 
 fact. Poverty is not crime, and not the worst of misfortunes. 
 Some of the best things in the world come from the sacrifices 
 and the self-denial occasioned by poverty, which breeds that 
 virtue that raises individual and community above tempta- 
 tion and discouraging environments. If we have to con- 
 tribute sometimes, as stated, to get a man a suit of clothes to 
 send him to the legislature, it shows a kindly feeling, a feeling 
 to aid each other, and I do not think, were that so, it would 
 be any argument whatever against country towns, or against 
 the town system. The country towns would still have the 
 right to be heard in our legislatures and to be represented 
 therein. 
 
 The other day, when speaking on this question, I did not 
 then attempt to argue it, although I said I was in favor of 
 the town system and trusted it would be perpetuated, and 
 made the suggestion that I hoped, by concurrent action a:id 
 mutual concession, we could come together on some ground 
 that would be satisfactory to all. That is what I now hope 
 we can do, and I believe we can do it. 
 
 I have listened with interest to the polished, scholarly, and 
 finished oration of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford; 
 he has handled the debate on his side of the question with 
 great clearness and ability. He says that if the town system 
 is retained, the inequalities will be greater than they are now. 
 I have merely this to say, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, that 
 I do not believe, in the first place, there was a great or crying 
 demand for this Convention. By no means was this Con- 
 vention called by an overwhelming majority of votes. The 
 people of New Hampshire did indeed vote for the Convention, 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 325 
 
 but it was by a very small majority, which fact would indi- 
 cate that there was no great demand that the house of repre- 
 sentatives should be reduced at this time. I think that that 
 is a fair inference; that the people of New Hampshire do not 
 care much about this proposed amendment. 
 
 Another thing, I do not think that we are to be, or should 
 be, in any manner controlled or influenced in this matter be- 
 cause Maine, or some other state, or other community, has 
 acted differently. It has always been a proud thing to me 
 that New Hampshire was an independent state. She has 
 not followed, but has generally led. New Hampshire raised 
 the regiment that defeated Baum at Bennington and ham- 
 pered the operations of Burgoyne in 1777; while the conti- 
 nental congress hesitated in uncertainty John Langdon, the 
 Portsmouth merchant, pledged his fortune to equip men, if 
 John Stark, still smarting from injustice done his military 
 services, would lead them; the result of this independent ac- 
 tion outside all example or precedent, being the victory at 
 Saratoga, which led to the alliance with France and the train 
 of events securing our independence; this in reply to citations 
 by Mr. Lyford of patriotic events referred to in support of 
 his line of argument for the district system. 
 
 New Hampshire has always prided herself on her inde- 
 pendence, and whether we have a legislature of' 200 men or 
 400 men it is her concern and that of nobody else. 
 
 As I have said, I do not think there is a great demand for 
 the reduction of this house. In some way the feeling has 
 grown up in certain quarters that it is absolutely necessary 
 to reduce the house of representatives, but I do not know 
 why. What difference does it make if we have to put in a 
 dozen or so more people and more chairs in the corners of 
 this room ? For one, I believe there is strength in popular 
 and large assemblies. I do not think the examples of states 
 in the West with 100 representatives, or the example of 
 Massachusetts with the district system, or of Connecticut or 
 Vermont with one representative for every town, has any- 
 thing to do with us. We are to judge for ourselves. 
 
326 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Now it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot lay 
 New Hampshire on this table, and with a pair of dividers, a 
 rule, and a pencil mark it off into so many squares, each of 
 which shall have a representative. I do not believe that that 
 is the theory upon which our present municipalities and 
 towns have been formed. I do not believe it is the theory 
 upon which we should form districts for the purpose of voting 
 for representatives. I believe that the formation of this 
 state and of this nation was by the coming together of differ- 
 ent towns and communities in this commonwealth and others, 
 to make a sovereign state, subject to the rights that they 
 delegated in the federal Constitution. The great towns and 
 the small towns, joining together, made the state of New 
 Hampshire what it is, but still retained their independence as 
 little republics, and have retained it to this day, and I trust 
 that they will continue to retain that independence. I trust 
 that this feeling of independence may exist among the differ- 
 ent municipalities of New Hampshire, and not decay, that 
 they be mixed together in an amalgamated mass, divided into 
 squares and parcelled out in equal sizes for the purpose of 
 electing representatives. They as republics, however small, 
 came together and made an indissoluble union of indestruct- 
 ible states, they should be continued in their independence, 
 and no town or city of New Hampshire should lose 
 its individuality and be lost amid the other municipali- 
 ties of the state. I believe it is the independence of the 
 country towns that has nursed and strengthened the inde- 
 pendence of the young men of those towns. Our young men 
 come from such towns to the cities, and are proud of what 
 they accomplish there, proud of the industries, thrift, and 
 progress of the cities that are largely recruited from the 
 energy and the enterprise of these young men from the towns. 
 It is to the towns that the cities look for new blood, and it 
 is the people once from the country that will be financiers of 
 great industries, that will run railroads and carry on com- 
 merce throughout the country. These are important fac- 
 tors. I am entirely in earnest in bringing this matter before 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 327 
 
 you, and you will see the connection when I say that it is the 
 independence of the different municipalities that gives to 
 those communities these sturdy, rugged men that help on the 
 progress of the country. 
 
 I have only one or two things more to say. It seems to 
 me that this discussion has shown that the trend and drift 
 of this Convention is to maintain the town system of repre- 
 sentation. It seems to me, however, that it is best to debate 
 further and to further discuss this question in order that we 
 may come to a point where we can agree upon some particular 
 bill. And as far as I am concerned, I believe that the propo- 
 sition of the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, which 
 makes the population necessary for the first representative 
 600 and the increasing mean 2,000, is probably as good a 
 proposition as has been placed before this Convention. It 
 has been said by some of the distinguished gentlemen on the 
 floor that the effect of that would be to do injustice to the 
 cities. I think they must have weighed their words care- 
 lessly when they made that statement, because I know that 
 the larger towns would lose some in representation. The 
 talk is to reduce this house 100 men, and they say that the 
 plan of Mr. Barton would take it all from the larger towns 
 and cities. One man whom I very greatly respect told me 
 that that would be very unjust. I have said all the time that 
 if we could compromise we should compromise. I believe I 
 have also said that a great statesman remarked that compro- 
 mise was the essence of politics. I thoroughly believe that 
 to be so, and I, for my part, am willing to do what I can do 
 to bring about a compromise that will be assented to by all 
 sides. If this is unjust to the larger towns, and it is in a way 
 my town has three representatives now in the house of 
 representatives, and by this proposed amendment we should 
 lose one, if it is unjust to the larger towns, it might be well 
 to compromise by raising the number of population necessary 
 for the first representative to 800. I have no right, perhaps, 
 to say what the people of my town would do; but I believe 
 that they would assent to this proposition, and I think that 
 
 
328 JOTJBNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the other large towns and the large wards of the cities should 
 also assent to it. 
 
 But I am willing, gentlemen, individually, to give some- 
 thing as well as to ask others to give. I do not thing it ought 
 to be all one way, and I make this suggestion in furtherance 
 of this idea of relinquishing rights in order to arrive at some 
 satisfactory conclusion. 
 
 It makes a great deal of difference when you take a repre- 
 sentative from a town whether it is the only representative 
 the town has or whether it is one of several. I have not 
 heard this suggestion made on the floor, but I think it is one 
 that ought to be taken into consideration. Take my town 
 of Lancaster. It has three representatives; it makes a great 
 deal more difference to the adjoining town of Dalton in 
 carrying out this idea, whether she loses one representative 
 and thus loses the only one she has, than it does to the town 
 of Lancaster to lose one representative and have two left. 
 
 I assume that it is true that in matters before the legis- 
 lature the interests of a town might be well guarded even 
 though she did not have a representative to vote upon every 
 question, but my argument is based upon the broad principle 
 of the independence of the municipality and upon the effect 
 that independence has upon individual character. And 
 I beg to say to the delegates from the larger towns and the 
 large wards in the cities having a surplus number, that it 
 makes a great difference to the small towns whether, if the 
 town system is to be retained, they are deprived the benefit 
 of direct representation except occasionally and at less fre- 
 quent periods. I believe that the government of New Hamp- 
 shire, that the prosperity of New Hampshire, the honor and 
 repute of New Hampshire, are based largely upon the repre- 
 sentative system she has had, and I should feel that it would 
 be a great detriment to her if systems were changed so that 
 the independence of these little republics be lost. 
 
 This you may consider to be sentiment, but sentiment is 
 of importance. As some one has said, " Let me write the 
 songs of a country and I care not who makes its laws." I 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 829 
 
 believe sentiment to be stronger than all the other forces 
 that rule the world, sentiment will largely control this ques- 
 tion, as I believe, when it comes before the people. It is true 
 that there is a feeling among the people that their legislature 
 is of advantage for the purposes of education, and there is also 
 a feeling among the country towns that it is an honor to 
 send a representative to the legislature, so that by that means 
 they are retaining their independence as a town and as a 
 municipality. If we do things here that are not in accord 
 with that sentiment, if we do things here that are unsatis- 
 factory to the people of the state, they are going to repudiate 
 our acts when they come to vote upon the amendment. The 
 only way by which we can avoid this result is by consultation 
 by both sides and a getting together upon some satisfactory 
 proposition that will meet the reasonable desires and senti- 
 ments of the people. I hope the Convention to-morrow will 
 vote to retain the town system, that concessions will be made 
 by gentlemen representing the towns so that it will be satis- 
 factory to the cities, and that concessions will be made by 
 representatives from the cities so that it will be satisfactory 
 to the towns, and that by such mutual concessions we shall 
 have a measure adopted that will be approved by the people 
 and will continue, the system that has had much to do 
 with the making of New Hampshire what she is, and will 
 keep the independence of our little republics unimpaired. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Acworth Mr Chairman and Gentlemen 
 of the Committee: I little thought that I should come before 
 you again to right things that seem to be going wrong. I 
 have come down here to see if I could make some things 
 right with you, the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Little, 
 and with you, the gentleman from Laconia, Mr. Busiel, and 
 with you, the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford. The 
 idea is going out through this committee that the rural towns 
 are blaming your cities for something in regard to the quali- 
 fications of your representatives. I wish to make that right. 
 I represent a rural town, and the town where I live is on4y 
 
330 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 fifty-six miles from Concord. I left here Friday night to go 
 that fifty-six miles, and I never arrived at my place until half- 
 past twelve o'clock Saturday. That is the country that I 
 live in, so you cannot expect much from me; but I want the 
 sympathy of the cities, and I will tell you why. I will tell 
 you why we want the sympathy of the cities and the aid of 
 the cities to help our country towns. The reason is this: we 
 have contributed to your cities largely. Take the city of 
 Keene. The business men that represent Keene to-day 
 they came from Acworth. Take Manchester. The business 
 men of Manchester came from Acworth. And Nashua the 
 business men of Nashua came from Acworth. And then, 
 gentlemen, we will take Portsmouth and see the men that 
 we have presented Portsmouth with from our town. Why, 
 gentlemen, we are contributing all the time, and I will tell 
 you, gentlemen of the committee here, that that is just why 
 we are obliged to come before you to-day and claim that we 
 want a representative because we have contributed so largely 
 to your cities that you have reduced our population. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen of the Committee, I want you to stand 
 up for us. I pray that you help us and stand up for the 
 proposition of retaining the population for the first repre- 
 sentative at 600 as a basis, and then the increasing mean at 
 2,000. 
 
 Now you gentlemen from the cities say that under that 
 system the legislature will increase pretty soon, and we shall 
 have to have another Constitutional Convention. Gentlemen 
 of the Committee, don't you think to-day that the growth 
 and the rapid strides that the state of New Hampshire is 
 making every year will make it necessary to call a Consti- 
 tutional Convention in twenty-five years in any event? Cer- 
 tainly we shall want it then, and you will want it, and it is 
 no argument to say that because if we retain this system we 
 shall have to have a Constitutional Convention soon we 
 should therefore change. 
 
 And so, gentlemen, I come here and for the country towns 
 I ask your aid. The country towns have aided the cities. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 331 
 
 You in the past have looked to us for our aid, and now we 
 look to you for yours. We want to be represented in the 
 legislature of the state of New Hampshire. 
 
 I do not believe in the district system, and I will explain 
 that in my feeble way. In our section, senatorial district No. 
 8, did you ever hear that Acworth ever sent a senator from 
 this district? 
 
 A Delegate You have sent three or four. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell Excuse me, perhaps we have, but we are 
 growing so few, we are decreasing so every year and so fast, 
 for the purposes of furnishing men to the wards in the cities 
 of the states, that it is very unlikely that we shall ever send 
 another, and that is why you want to give us a representative 
 now on the basis of 600. It will not be but a little time when 
 even on that basis we shall lose our one representative, and 
 if we should have a Constitutional Convention again you 
 would probably not see a delegate from Acworth at such a 
 Convention. What we want is that you should help us and 
 encourage us, and see if we cannot in some way increase our 
 population in the town of Acworth. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I move that the committee do now 
 arise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 
 
 Motion prevailed. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Briggs, chairman, from the Committee of the Whole, 
 reported that the committee having had under consideration 
 the various proposed amendments to the Constitution relating 
 to the legislative department, had come to no conclusion 
 thereon and asked leave to sit again. 
 
 Leave was granted. 
 
 Mr. Foster of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
332 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Eesolved, That article thirty-six of the Bill of Rights be 
 amended by striking out the words " and never for more than 
 one year at a time," so that said article, as amended, shall 
 read as follows: 
 
 Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, es- 
 pecially in a young one, no pension shall be granted but in 
 consideration of actual services; and such pensions ought to 
 be granted with great caution by the legislature. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester offered the following resolution: 
 
 Amend Constitution, part second, article sixty-six, which 
 reads as follows: 
 
 " The secretary, treasurer, and commissary-general shall 
 be chosen by joint ballot by the senators and representatives, 
 assembled in one room." 
 
 Strike out "shall be chosen by joint ballot of the senators 
 and representatives assembled in one room." 
 
 And insert: 
 
 The secretary of state, state treasurer, commissionary-gen- 
 eral, and railroad commissioners shall be elected by the people 
 biennially. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department. 
 
 Mr. Farrington of Manchester offered the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 Amend Constitution, part second, article ninety-six, which 
 reads as follows: 
 
 " In all cases where sums of money are mentioned in this 
 Constitution, the value thereof shall be computed in silver 
 at six shillings and eight pence per ounce." 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 333 
 
 Strike out "the value thereof shall be computed in silver 
 at six shillings and eight pence per ounce/' and insert, the 
 United States gold dollar. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and other Proposed 
 Amendments. 
 
 Mr. Colby of Hanover offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by striking out 
 articles ninety-eight, ninety-nine, and one hundred of part 
 second and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 
 
 Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may 
 be proposed in the senate or house of representatives, and if 
 the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members 
 elected to each house, such proposed amendment or amend- 
 ments shall then be entered on their respective journals, with 
 the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legisla- 
 ture then next to be chosen, and shall be duly published; and 
 if in the legislature next afterwards to be chosen such pro- 
 posed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a 
 majority of the members elected to each house and the same 
 be recorded on their journals, and the yeas and nays taken 
 thereon as aforesaid, then it shall be the duty of the legisla- 
 ture to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to 
 the people, and if two thirds of the qualified voters of this 
 state present and voting thereon at meetings duly called and 
 warned for that purpose, shall approve and ratify the same, 
 then such amendment or amendments shall become a part of 
 the Constitution from and after the first day of January next 
 after such approval. Provided that if more than one amend- 
 ment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such manner 
 and form that the people may vote for or against each amend- 
 ment proposed to any and every provision of the Constitution 
 separately. 
 
 At the general election to be held in the year one thousand 
 nine hundred and twenty, and every twentieth year there- 
 
334 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 after, and also at such times as the legislature may by law 
 provide, the question: "Shall there be a Convention to re- 
 vise the Constitution and amend the same?" shall be sub- 
 mitted to the qualified voters of the state; and in case a ma- 
 jority of those voting thereon shall decide in favor of a Con- 
 vention for such purpose, the delegates shall be chosen in the 
 same manner and apportioned as the representatives to the 
 general court, provided that each and every town shall be 
 entitled to send at least one delegate. The delegates so 
 elected shall convene at the capitol on the first Tuesday of 
 April next ensuing after their election, and shall continue 
 their session until the business of such Convention shall have 
 been completed. Every delegate shall receive for his ser- 
 vices three dollars per day and the same mileage as shall then 
 be payable to the members of the general court. A majority 
 of the Convention shall constitute a quorum for the transac- 
 tion of business, and no amendment to the Constitution shall 
 be submitted for approval to the electors as hereinafter pro- 
 vided, unless by the assent of a majority of all the delegates 
 elected to the Convention, the yeas and nays being entered 
 upon the journal to be kept. The Convention shall have the 
 power to appoint such officers, employees, and assistants as 
 it may deem necessary, and fix their compensation and to 
 provide for printing of its documents, journal, and proceed- 
 ings. The Convention shall determine the rules of its own 
 proceedings, choose its own officers, and be the judge of the 
 election, returns, and qualifications of its members. In case 
 of a vacancy, by death, resignation or other cause, of any dele- 
 gate elected to the Convention, such vacancy shall be filled by 
 a vote of the remaining delegates from the county in which 
 such vacancy shall occur. 
 
 Any proposed Constitution or Constitutional amendment 
 which shall have been adopted by such Convention, shall be 
 submitted to the qualified voters of the state in the manner 
 provided by such Convention, at the next general election 
 after the adjournment of such Convention. Upon the rati- 
 fication of such Constitution or Constitutional amendments 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1902. 335 
 
 in the manner provided in the last preceding paragraph, such 
 Constitution or Constitutional amendments shall go into 
 effect on the first day of January next after such approval. 
 
 Any amendment proposed by a Constitutional Convention 
 relating to the same subject as an amendment proposed by 
 the legislature, coincidently submitted to the qualified voters 
 for ratification, at the general election to be held in the year 
 one thousand nine hundred and twenty, or at any subsequent 
 election, shall, if approved, be deemed to supersede the 
 amendment so proposed by the legislature. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and other Proposed 
 Amendments. 
 
 Mr. Eogers of Tilton offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended that all 
 steam railroads of the state shall be required to furnish free 
 transportation over all their lines within the state, to the 
 governor, councilors, justices of the supreme and superior 
 courts, attorney-general, secretary of state, state treasurer, 
 adjutant-general, railroad commissioners, bank commission- 
 ers, insurance commissioners, commissioners of labor and the 
 members of the honorable senate and house of representatives 
 during the sessions of the general court; also delegates to all 
 Constitutional Conventions. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
 ordered printed and referred to Committee of the Whole 
 to be considered with other resolutions of a similar character. 
 
 Mr. Madden of Keene offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, To amend part second of the Constitution en- 
 titled " Council/' by striking out articles fifty-nine, sixty, 
 sixty-one, sixty-two, sixty-three, and sixty-four. 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to the Committee on the Bill 
 of Eights and Executive Department. 
 
336 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Colby of Hanover offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That article eleven of the Bill of Eights be 
 amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
 
 " Provided, that the privileges of an elector shall be for- 
 feited by a conviction of bribery, forgery, perjury, dueling, 
 fraudulent bankruptcy, theft, or other offense for which an 
 infamous punishment is inflicted, or of any wilful violation 
 of the election laws, the general court may, by vote of two 
 thirds of the members of each house, restore the privileges of 
 an elector to those w T ho have forfeited them by a conviction 
 of crime." 
 
 Ordered printed and referred to the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and other Proposed 
 Amendments. 
 
 The President announced that the hour for the special or- 
 der had arrived, namely, the hearing granted to the Woman's 
 Suffrage association of New Hampshire. The President in- 
 troduced Miss Chase, president of the Woman's Suffrage asso- 
 ciation of New Hampshire, who with Henry B. Blackwell, 
 corresponding secretary of the New England Woman's Suf- 
 frage association, Lucy Stone Blackwell, recording secretary 
 of the New England Woman's Suffrage association, and Carrie 
 Chapman Catt, president of the National Woman's Suffrage 
 association, addressed the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Thompson of Warner, the proposed 
 amendment introduced by him, to amend article twenty-seven 
 of the Constitution, was taken from the table and made a 
 special order for Thursday, December 11, at 11 o'clock in the 
 forenoon. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Baker of Bow, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 337 
 
 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 
 
 The reading of the journal of the preceding day was begun, 
 when on motion of Mr. Wetherell of Exeter, the further 
 reading was dispensed with. 
 
 Mr. Walker of Concord, from the Committee on the Ju- 
 dicial Department, to whom was referred a resolution offered 
 by Mr. Fuller of Exeter, relating to solicitors, asked leave 
 to report the same in a new draft as follows, and to recom- 
 mend its adoption: 
 
 Resolved, That article seventy of part second of the Consti- 
 tution be amended by striking out the word "solicitors," 
 and that the following article be added to the Constitution: ' 
 
 The county solicitors shall be appointed by the superior 
 court and commissioned by the governor and shall hold office 
 for a term of five years. They shall be subject to removal 
 at any time by the superior court on the ground of physical 
 or mental disability, or for cause shown, after due notice 
 and hearing. Vacancies occurring by reason of the removal, 
 death, resignation, or expiration of the term of office of any 
 solicitor shall be filled in like manner, the persons so ap- 
 pointed and commissioned to hold office for a term of five, 
 years from the date of their appointment. The first appoint- 
 ments under this article shall be made to take effect on the 
 first day of April, 1905. 
 
 ^ The report was accepted and the question being stated: 
 Shall the resolution as reported by the committee in a new 
 draft be adopted, on motion of Mr. Baker of Bow, the same 
 was referred for consideration to Committee of the Whole. 
 
 22 
 
338 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the committee 
 resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, to consider the 
 various resolutions relating to representation. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Little of Manchester in the chair.) 
 
 The Chairman We are in session as a Committee of the 
 Whole, and I await the pleasure of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Woodstock Mr. Chairman and Gentle- 
 men of the Committee: It is not my purpose to require 
 very much of your time, but a few thoughts have occurred 
 to me which I consider it my duty to present for your con- 
 sideration. As the hour approaches which is to decide in 
 the minds of this Convention whether the state of New 
 Hampshire shall abolish the town system or not, the more I 
 feel it my duty to express the wishes of my constituency in 
 regard to the matter. 
 
 My original plan in regard to the house of representatives 
 appeared in an edition of the Manchester Union of November 
 19, and it was precisely the same plan as the proposition in- 
 troduced by the gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Scott. 
 After giving the question more thought, and after having 
 consulted several good, conservative men in regard to the 
 matter, I was made to believe that there was more equity on 
 the basis of legal voters than upon the basis of population, 
 and I am of that opinion now. I believe that upon that basis 
 the representation in the house could be kept nearer a stated 
 number than on the basis of population. 
 
 I did not make any provision in my resolution as to how 
 the number of legal voters should be determined. I thought 
 if this proposition was worthy of consideration on the part of 
 this honorable body, of course it would be open to amend- 
 ment and improvement. Two plans .have presented them- 
 selves to me which would seem feasible: First, base the num- 
 ber of legal voters upon the vote cast for governor at the 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 339 
 
 last election preceding the election of the representatives to 
 the legislature. Second, to empower towns to provide a 
 commission representing equally the two largest parties in 
 the state, to take a census of the legal voters and return the 
 same to the secretary of state prior to the convening of the 
 legislature, and upon the return that the secietary of state 
 sends to the legislature the legislature would then be enabled 
 to regulate its membership according to the resolution which 
 I have introduced. The legislature succeeding the presi- 
 dential election would no doubt be numerically larger than 
 those that came in an off year, but in my opinion, based upon 
 the probable increase of legal voters, the number would not 
 exceed 300 within the next thirty years. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, it 
 is not my purpose to very strenuously urge the adoption of 
 the resolution I presented to you. My constituents and my- 
 self believe it to be a step in maintaining and strengthening 
 this time-honored Constitution and system of town repre- 
 sentation. But any system which the Convention may work 
 out that will stand loyal and firm and recognizes the indi- 
 vidual towns of the old Granite state will receive my hearty 
 cooperation. 
 
 My second choice, and which I am now in favor of, if 
 the resolution that I presented cannot be passed, is the plan 
 introduced by the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, 
 or by the gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Scott. I think 
 that on the basis of those propositions there can be a founda- 
 tion laid upon which the Convention can get together and 
 present a referendum to the people which they will ratify. 
 I am somewhat of the opinion that those two propositions 
 should be made to meet. That is, they should meet half 
 way between 2,000 and 3,000 for the increasing mean. One 
 provides for 3,000 for an increasing mean, and the other 
 provides for 2,000 increasing mean. Each plan has been 
 figured out by those gentlemen, and I havge figured some- 
 what upon the propositions myself, and the basis presented 
 by the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, makes the 
 
340 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 number in the house of representatives 317, while the propo- 
 sition of the gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Scott, makes 
 the number 289. I think by having the increasing mean 
 somewhere between the 3,000 and the 2,000 we could- get a 
 house of just about 300 members, and which will continue 
 to be that number, or about that number, for some time 
 until the next census at any rate. I should consider it better 
 to diminish the house to 300 than to begin with a larger num- 
 ber. It is an undisputed fact that what this Convention 
 is here for is to reduce the size of our legislature. I think 
 you will all agree with me that the size of our legislature, 
 as well as the size of this Convention, is too large for con- 
 venience and comfort, and that the seats are too closely 
 placed together. Men cannot come here to this legislature 
 and attend to the business of legislation with ease, and for 
 this reason if for no other, the legislature should be cut down 
 in number. 
 
 I am unalterably opposed to the district system for two 
 reasons. One reason is that the large towns and the city 
 wards do not need it in order to retain their representation, 
 and the second reason is because the smaller towns of the 
 state do not want it. Now if the wards of the cities and the 
 larger towns do not need it, and the small towns of the state 
 do not want it, what excuse have we to ask the people to 
 ratify an amendment that they do not need and do not want? 
 If the small towns of the state should vote on this district 
 system to-morrow, how many of them do you suppose would 
 vote to adopt it? Do you think that a majority of the small 
 towns of the state would vote to adopt the district system to- ' 
 morrow, next week, or at any time? Do you think there 
 there are ten towns that would vote to adopt that system in 
 the state? No, gentlemen, there is not one of the small 
 towns of the state, if they understand the question properly, 
 that would vote to adopt the district system. 
 
 Friends of the proposed district system are telling us about 
 Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont. They have said 
 nothing in favor of Connecticut or Vermont. One gentleman 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 341 
 
 said upon this floor that the state of Connecticut has been 
 striving for years to get rid of this town system. Now it 
 seems to me if there was a very strong sentiment in the state 
 of Connecticut to get rid of the town system they would have 
 done it before this time. It seems to me that the people 
 of the state of Connecticut know what they want, and if 
 they want a change they can make it. 
 
 But I am not discussing what the state of Massachusetts, 
 or the state of Connecticut, or the state of Vermont want. 
 I am discussing what I believe the people of the state of 
 New Hampshire want. I believe in the efficacy of a large 
 house, and I think it should consist of at least 300 members. 
 I do not think that that is any too large, but think that it is 
 large enough. A house of representatives of that size keeps 
 the legislative branch of our government close to the heart 
 of our people, and the nearer you get to the heart of the 
 people the nearer you stand upon the democratic principles 
 of the republic. What are the objections to a large house? 
 Has New Hampshire done anything she is ashamed of? Has 
 she a house journal that she wants to cover up or bury so 
 that her sister states cannot see it ? I don't think so. Is not 
 our financial condition to be compared favorably with that 
 of any other state in the Union? New Hampshire has pro- 
 portionately the largest legislative body of law-makers in this 
 country. Go into all of our city wards and go back among 
 the hills, go into any small town, or any town in the state, 
 and you will find men in all walks of life that are in close 
 touch with the laws that govern us. Why? Because they 
 helped to make them. They have been to the legisla- 
 ture, and have been schooled in legislation. Is this condi- 
 tion of affairs detrimental to our state? Give us a house of 
 300 members that come directly from the rural towns and 
 the city wards of our state, and there will be no fear of bad 
 legislation. Does it look as though New Hampshire was 
 misgoverned when the per capita deposits of her people in 
 the savings banks is $146, and the number of savings banks' 
 -depositors in the state of New Hampshire has increased 
 
342 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 500,000 within the last year, and when $1,500,000 has been 
 paid out in dividends within a year? Is not New Hampshire- 
 a prosperous state? New Hampshire is a small state, both in 
 population and in territory, but I believe she has the largest 
 number of men acquainted with government machinery of 
 any other state in tne Union. Confronted with these facts,. 
 and many others that I might mention, what need is there of 
 any radical change in our system of representation? 
 
 If the proposed district system is adopted, it will remind 
 us of the Irishman that had this inscription upon his tomb- 
 stone: " I was well and wanted to be better. I took physic, 
 and here I am." The legislative branch of our state govern- 
 ment consists of a house of representatives and a senate, 
 and the latter is elected upon the district system. Now what 
 good reason presents itself to justify this Convention in 
 recommending a district system for the 175 towns that don't 
 want it? 
 
 Although this point will come up for discussion later on, 
 I will say here that I am heartily in favor of the resolution 
 introduced by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, which 
 proposes to have a senate of fifty members. Should this 
 resolution be adopted and ratified, together with the propo- 
 sition to reduce the legislature to 300 members, we should 
 then have 350 in both the house of representatives and the 
 senate, and we should have fifty senatorial districts in the 
 state. In that way we would get a representation under the 
 district system, and still be able to maintain the town system. 
 Those who want representation under the district plan can 
 have it in that way, and those who want to maintain the town 
 system can do that. That is what would seem to be a fair 
 proposition. It seems to me that if the people of New 
 Hampshire believe in having a large house, as I think they 
 do, they should have a senate in proportion, and there- 
 fore I believe in the proposition introduced by the gentleman 
 from Bow. 
 
 I am speaking here in behalf of the rural towns of the 
 state, and I believe them to have much at stake in this Con- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 343 
 
 vention. They have many rights which we are in duty 
 hound to respect. Whole neighborhoods have heen deserted 
 in our rural towns, farm homes have fallen in ruins, churches 
 that once summoned the people to worship have been left 
 to decay, school districts that furnished the primary educa- 
 tion for some of the brightest business men of our cities are 
 to-day as silent as the grave. In my opinion a new light is 
 breaking on the horizon. The grand old hills of New Hamp- 
 shire are fast becoming popular. Our cities are growing in 
 wealth and in population. Our rural towns are fast becom- 
 ing summer resorts, and our hills and valleys, our lakes and 
 mountains are coming to be summer sanatoriums for the city 
 guests. 
 
 Gentlemen, in our cities, in Concord, in Manchester, in 
 Nashua, in Portsmouth, are those sons of the rural towns. 
 Many of them are here to-day upon the floor of this Conven- 
 tion, ready to champion any cause that will encourage and 
 develop the small country towns, w r hich in many cas"es hold 
 the dust of their ancestors. It is very gratifying to us dele- 
 gates from the rural towns when we are able to hear such 
 able remarks as were made by the gentlemen from Nashua, 
 and the gentleman from Somersworth, and the other gentle- 
 men from our city wards that have come here in this Con- 
 vention and spoke for us. They are friends of the hill towns 
 in the state, that gave many of them birth and they are 
 worthy of our most distinguished consideration and appre- 
 ciation. 
 
 I am very sorry, Gentlemen of the Committee, that any- 
 thing has been said upon this floor that would insinuate in 
 toward any one who lives in our cities. We are proud of 
 any way that the rural delegates have any animosity whatever 
 the cities of New Hampshire, and I maintain that the cities 
 of New Hampshire are proud of the rural towns. No doubt 
 we have members in this Convention that were not born in 
 this state, or in this country, but in the eyes of the law they 
 have been made American citizens, and they are American 
 citizens with us. They own property with us, they pay taxes 
 
344 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 with us, and they are as much interested in the prosperity of 
 the state of New Hampshire as am I or any other man born 
 within the state. 
 
 If this district system is adopted, it means the bottling up 
 of the small towns with the large towns on top. The large 
 towns and wards will always be directly represented, while 
 many of the small towns will lose all the rights of repre- 
 sentation that they have now, and have enjoyed in the past. 
 It may be said, and has been said, and in part it is true, that 
 under the district system they are all represented all the time 
 but they don't have such a direct representation. Towns 
 do not have men of their own to send to the legislature. The 
 small towns will have to be continually represented by some 
 one out of their limits, and that is something that the small 
 towns of the state of New Hampshire do not want at this 
 time. 
 
 I think I voice the sentiment of every rural town when I 
 say, give us a representative of our own as often as we are 
 entitled to it and no more. We are called here to act upon 
 the important question of reducing the house of representa- 
 tives, and before we vote upon this question let us carefully 
 consider which will suffer the most, the cities and large 
 towns with a smaller number of representatives, or the small 
 towns without any representation. That is the question for 
 us all to consider fairly and candidly. I believe we should 
 recognize the individual independence of the rural towns of 
 the state. Let them stand upon their merits. Let them be 
 recognized as independent townships, and if in the future our 
 people see fit and require a radical change in the Constitu- 
 tion, a revolution of the representative system of the state of 
 New Hampshire, let them come here in Convention and delib- 
 erate upon this matter, and if they want the district system, 
 let them have it; but I maintain now that the time is not ripe 
 when we should depart from this time-honored system and 
 go into the district system which so many of the small towns 
 of the state do not want. 
 
 Mr. Harmon of Effingham Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 345 
 
 of the Committee: I come from one of the rural towns that 
 has all to lose and nothing to gain by the district system. I 
 have heard much of what we owe to the little republics 
 throughout this state. I represent one of those little repub- 
 lics, and it is needless for me to say that no man on this floor 
 can have a greater feeling of pride and interest in my little 
 town than I do. Away back in the sixties I learned a lesson 
 that has never forsaken me, that my first duty belongs to 
 a great republic, and my first duty after that belongs to 
 the lesser republic of my state. I am aware that I rise here 
 to advocate a measure that is unpopular with my dearest 
 friends and those of the rural towns, but I do not share their 
 prejudices against the district system, perhaps on account of 
 having the privilege of residing on the borders of Maine and 
 being familiar with their system, and having attended their 
 caucuses, where I must say, gentlemen, that there is quite as 
 much harmony and quite as much wisdom shown in the choice 
 of their delegates as is shown in the choice of our own. 
 
 A few days before I started on my journey to this city, a 
 gentleman of the opposite political party from my own, who 
 had been triumphant in his town in the recent election, advo- 
 cated that we should very materially decrease the house of 
 representatives, his own opinion being that we should start 
 on a basis of 1,200, although his own town had only 500 
 population. And why did he take that position? In order 
 that they might avoid the dissensions in the towns that are 
 so demoralizing in their effects. 
 
 Xow, gentlemen, I am in favor of the district system, be- 
 cause I believe it is honest and fair. I believe it is equitable, 
 and I believe in placing it upon the basis of the voters, for one 
 reason because it was one of the provisions that was recorded 
 by our forefathers. It was their purpose, as has already been 
 stated here, to place the government in the hands of the 
 legal voters, and I believe a representative government should 
 rest upon that as its foundation story. 
 
 Now perhaps there is no man here who is more bound by 
 the traditions of his fathers or has a higher veneration for 
 
346 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the past than I have. My love of it has filled my house with 
 the relics of the past and nearly emptied my purse; but I am 
 not so far in favor of the past as to allow any article in any 
 document, sacred or secular, to stop the wheels of progress, 
 and I "believe that is what, gentlemen, the retention of the 
 town system will do. The strenuous advocates of the town 
 system have expressed their opinion to me personally that 
 the measure I advocate is the proper one in theory and w r ould 
 he the correct one in practice if the people of New Hampshire 
 were prepared to have it and would ratify it. Were we chosen 
 to inquire what the people of New Hampshire will ratify, or 
 were we chosen to recommend to them what they should 
 ratify? I had rather be defeated badly for a good cause than 
 be triumphant in a bad one. 
 
 A great deal has been said in regard to the legislation for 
 the country towns and against the cities, and for the cities 
 and against the country towns. Gentlemen, no such legis- 
 tion can take place. The towns can never enact legislation 
 that will give them permanent benefit that will in any way 
 militate against the cities of the state, nor can the cities gain 
 any benefit by any legislation that will in any way be against 
 the country towns. 
 
 The gentleman last upon the floor has asked, What is the 
 meaning of reducing the house of representatives, and yet he 
 says that that is what we are met here for, or that that is the 
 principal reason. There is, gentlemen, a general clamoring 
 all over this state for the reduction of the house of repre- 
 sentatives, in the cause of economy if for nothing else. There 
 has been a boast that we have never carried as large an 
 amount of deposits in the savings banks of the state as we 
 do to-day, and as the sayings of an Irishman have been 
 quoted, I think I may be pardoned if I also quote from an 
 Irishman. An Irishman came from the old country to this, 
 and he prospered well. One of his friends came to visit him, 
 and the Irishman pulled out from his pocket a showy watch 
 and complacently looked at it to tell the time. His visitor 
 said, " Well, Pat, that is a very fine watch you have. How 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 347 
 
 did you procure it in this short time?' 7 And Pat said > " Oh! 
 that is easy. Had I been as saving as I could, I might have 
 had a town clock in my pocket." Had we practised the 
 strictest economy concerning the affairs of the state of New 
 Hampshire, we would undoubtedly have been more pros- 
 perous than we are to-day. 
 
 A gentleman has spoken of the diminution in the popu- 
 lation of our towns. Has that been the result of legislation, 
 or can it be remedied by legislation? If we, have decreased 
 in population, we should endeavor to economize and to send 
 the very best men we have here to legislate for us and not go 
 upon the principle of taking turns in coming to the legis- 
 lature. 
 
 And, gentlemen, there is one thing that remains for us to 
 do, and that is to fight zealously for what we believe to be 
 right. I have known in my day many a preacher and a 
 teacher who feared to be radical for fear his congregation or 
 his followers might not accept his advanced teachings; but I 
 have always noticed that some fine day that fellow awoke to 
 the fact that his congregation or his followers had gone be- 
 yond him, and they always went so far that he could never 
 overtake them. 
 
 Gentlemen, if we adopt a measure just and equitable, such 
 as I believe this district system to be, I think the .people of 
 New Hampshire will approve of it and will approve of us. 
 It is said it will be difficult under this system to provide an 
 honest and fair enumeration for the purpose of a division into 
 districts. If all this great educational system of the legis- 
 lature of New Hampshire, which has been so much talked 
 about, has been as effective as it is claimed, how will it be 
 impossible or difficult for us to divide the state into districts 
 which will be fair and just to all concerned? If we are not 
 able to do that after our legislative experience in these large 
 legislative schools, I think we better do away with them as 
 schools for all time and enlarge our town libraries with the 
 surplus money that we would save. But I think, gentlemen, 
 that we can find men who will be learned enough and fair 
 enough to give us an honest and square enumeration. 
 
348 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 I shall, however, in my earnestness take no more than my 
 proportion of the time, which I believe to be mine, and I 
 will leave this subject in your hands; I believe from the 
 conservative way in which you are approaching it that the 
 right will surely prevail. 
 
 Mr. Pike of Haverhill Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of 
 the Committee: I have the honor to be here as the third 
 delegate from one of the larger towns of the state, the beau- 
 tiful old town of Haverhill. I have been absent and do not 
 know what my colleagues have said on this subject of reduc- 
 ing the representation to the state legislature, but I do know 
 that the matter has been thoroughly threshed over. 
 
 I hope some plan will be brought forward at this Conven- 
 tion so a large reduction may be made in the number of rep- 
 resentatives that are sent to our legislature, and that the plan 
 may be one that is fair and just and satisfactory to the whole 
 state. It seems to me that the town system is best. I would 
 like to see every town have a representative. I do not know 
 as it is feasible, but I know that it must be more satisfactory 
 to a town to have its own representative all the time, than it 
 is to be without one part of the time. 
 
 There is one plan that I .have thought of, I do not know 
 whether it is practical or feasible, but I am going to suggest 
 it, and that is this, 
 
 Why not give to every town a representative and only one, 
 up to 2,000 inhabitants, and then an increase of one for every 
 2,000 inhabitants in the town or ward. 
 
 I do not know what number of representatives this will 
 give us and I only make it as a suggestion. 
 
 I think that the voters of Haverhill will be satisfied with a 
 town system, on the basis of 600 for the first representative, 
 and 2,000 more for the second, and so on. This would cut 
 down our representation one third, and while I have not fig- 
 ured it out, it seems to me that this reduction in our repre- 
 sentation from Grafton county would be larger in proportion 
 to its population than it will be from the larger cities. I do 
 not know that I am right about this. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 349 
 
 The town of Haverhill would be just as well off if the basis 
 of representation would be made 1,000 or even 1,200, and the 
 increase for another representative 2,000, because we have, 
 I believe, over 3,500 population, but I do not think it would 
 be fair to the smaller towns. The larger towns have more of 
 a floating population than the smaller ones. The smaller 
 towns are made up of men who own propert}^, farmers, who 
 own their own houses and farms and cattle, and who pay 
 taxes, and then there are lawyers and doctors and school 
 teachers. Their children are natives of New Hampshire, 
 and I believe that they are entitled to it, and that they are 
 capable of intelligently making the laws of the state. 
 
 The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, has told a story 
 here that has made quite an impression upon me, and I can- 
 not help thinking about it. I have not made any inquiry of 
 the gentleman about the facts, but it seems to me that the 
 only way he could know so thoroughly about that suit of 
 clothes that fitted one man so well, and wore for twenty years, 
 must be because he was the man, and in that way he gained 
 his knowledge that has made him such a great power in the 
 politics of the state. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin I rise but a few moments to cor- 
 rect what seems to be a misapprehension among a good many 
 of the members of this Convention. That is, that we can- 
 not fix an absolute number for the house of representatives 
 and still preserve the town system. Now it seems to me 
 pretty clear that if an arbitrary number should be fixed for 
 the house of representatives it would be in the vicinity of 
 300 members, and it is perfectly practical to frame a bill that 
 will fix the house at that number and yet retain the town 
 system. The secret of it is by applying the surplus popula- 
 tion for the benefit of the small towns and at the same time 
 give the larger towns that have an excess the privilege, if 
 the} r choose, of uniting together and getting more representa- 
 tion than they would be entitled to simply under the ratio 
 which may be fixed if they stood alone. If we can fix the 
 size of the house at 300 members as an arbitrary number, 
 
350 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the ratio, as would appear from the tabulations submitted, 
 would be about one representative to each 1,370 of popula- 
 tion. Now upon that basis distribute the representatives to 
 the different cities and towns of the state who would be en- 
 titled to at least one on that basis, and you would get only 
 165 representatives to come from such towns. That would 
 leave 135 representatives for the remaining towns and cities 
 or wards of the state. Now, gentlemen, there are 110 towns 
 that have a population between 600 and 1,370. If you give 
 a representative to each one of those 110 towns, which in- 
 cludes every town that is now entitled to send a representa- 
 tive, you would have twenty-five representatives left for the 
 remaining towns which are now classed, and which could 
 then be classed the same as they are now. Under a system 
 like that, providing the large towns and wards did not avail 
 themselves of the privilege of uniting together by the vote 
 of the towns and wards, or by agreement, then any of the 
 small towns under that arrangement would have a repre- 
 sentative as it has to-day. But, assuming that the large 
 towns and cities desired to avail themselves of this excess 
 which they have, of course it would reduce the number of 
 representatives to be distributed among the other towns, but 
 every town of 600 population would have representation ac- 
 cording to its size. What is there about that that is unfair? 
 Even if that be so let the worst happen that could happen- 
 that all this excess was taken up, then how are your small 
 towns provided for? Simply they have a representation in 
 proportion to the population that they have the proportion 
 of the time that their population bears to 1,370, which would 
 give a town of 600 a representative at every other session 
 practically. Is there anything unfair or unjust about that? 
 There is another thing which has not been mentioned, and 
 that is, that when under the bill framed by the gentleman 
 from Newport, Mr. Barton, you take the reduction from the 
 large wards and towns of this state you give them nothing 
 in return; but when you take a town of 600 population and 
 deny it representation a part of the time only, you still give 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 351 
 
 it all the representation that it is fairly entitled to, practically 
 half of the time in any event, and still have your proportion 
 as it is. 
 
 So my point is, that I hope no member of this Convention 
 will be against fixing an arbitrary number to the house of 
 representatives because they think if they do so there must 
 be the district system. It is not at all necessary. All you 
 have to do is to allow the small towns to elect and send a 
 representative the proportionate part of the time they are 
 entitled to upon the basis of their population. 
 
 Another method could be adopted. If it is thought best to 
 have a larger number for the second representative than for 
 the first in proportion, you can make a provision that when, 
 under the basis of representation as it now exists, the house 
 would exceed 300 in size, the representation should be raised 
 so as to take it equally from the small and the large towns 
 and cities. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, to my mind, if you are going to do any- 
 thing in the line of fixing an arbitrary number for the first 
 and second representatives, it should be simply by an amend- 
 ment which would provide that the legislature at the next 
 session should raise the present ratio of representation of 
 the first and succeeding representatives to such a number 
 as shall throw the loss equally between the small and the 
 large towns and the cities. That is fair, and if we are to do 
 anything here that the people will approve we must do some- 
 thing that is fair and just. 
 
 The main objection which is urged to the bill offered by 
 the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, is that it is unjust 
 and unequal, and you will notice that it is. It is a matter 
 of considerable moment, and will be in the next ten years a 
 matter of considerable moment. I know that one question, 
 the matter of intoxicating liquor, is to come before the peo- 
 ple, and it is likely to remain there for a long time before 
 it is finally settled. Even if local option is granted that will 
 not finally dispose of the question, but another question will 
 be before the people which will be one between the large 
 
352 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 and the small communities. If you have local option, prob- 
 ably the city of Manchester would vote for license and raise 
 some sixty thousand dollars from the license fees. Is it fair 
 to decide in the legislature how that shall be divided, and to 
 have a little town of 600 or 300 inhabitants have three or four 
 times the woight of determining that question over the same 
 population of the larger towns and the cities? I think not, 
 and there is the trouble with the bill offered by the gentle- 
 man from Newport. If you adopt that measure here, I do 
 not believe the people of the larger towns and of the cities 
 will ratify the proposition that the small towns shall have so 
 much more weight than the larger ones in proportion to the 
 population, that the large towns will have only one third or 
 one half the weight of the small towns in the state in deter- 
 mining the matters in which they are all interested. 
 
 Now there has been a good deal said here about the neces- 
 sity of the small towns being represented in order to look 
 after the interests of the small towns. I have taken pains 
 to look over the session laws and I have failed to find in the 
 last sessions of the legislature a single act passed by the legis- 
 lature in which any of the small towns had any different in- 
 terests from the neighboring towns, but there were many 
 laws enacted in which all the large towns and the cities were 
 very decidedly interested while the small towns were not. 
 
 I say, gentlemen, that we can preserve the town system 
 perfectly and at the same time fix an arbitrary number for 
 the house of representatives. If you fix an arbitrary num- 
 ber for the size of the house you have it fixed for all time. I 
 think we make a mistake and do injustice to ourselves if we 
 leave this matter in a way that shall not fix it for all time. 
 If you decide upon an arbitrary number that the house shall 
 consist of, we can preserve your town system as well as the 
 district system, and have a representation that will be per- 
 fectly fair. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester Gentlemen of the Committee: 
 When I came to this Convention I came with notions which 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 353 
 
 were hard to change. I have been somewhat of a student 
 of history and of politics, and especially of American history 
 and politics, and I have an admiration equal to that of any 
 member on this floor for the little republics, which, as de 
 Tocqueville says, were the germ of the greater federal repub- 
 lic. All my studies had led me to the belief that the other 
 states of this Union which had abandoned the town meeting 
 system of New England had made mistakes. Believing that, 
 I came here with the idea that if possible the town system 
 should be preserved for the purpose of electing representa- 
 tives, in any adjustment which might be made. But I have 
 listened to the arguments which have been given here; I 
 have considered the matter very carefully myself; I have read 
 a great many times article nine of part two of this Constitu- 
 tion, which says that all representation shall be founded on 
 principles of equality. I find that in the very Constitution, 
 and in the very article you are considering, is stated the 
 basis that it shall be equality and I must confess that I 
 have not heard from the lips of any gentleman in favor of the 
 town system any argument which satisfies me that it is pos- 
 sible to preserve the principle of equality by a preservation 
 of the town system. At the beginning of the state of New 
 Hampshire, in the first tentative Constitution which our peo- 
 ple adopted after they had thrown off their allegiance to the 
 British crown, 150 voters were made the basis for the first 
 representative and 150 voters were the basis for the second 
 representative, and so on; and it was not until 1783 that the 
 provision was put into the Constitution which gave one first 
 representative for 150 ratable polls, and then required 300 
 ratable polls for the second representative. That was done, 
 although the language of article nine was kept there the 
 statement which said that representation should be founded 
 on principles of equality. Then and there our fathers parted 
 from the principles of equality when they said the second rep- 
 resentative should have a constituency twice as large as the 
 first representative. That was continued down to 1876, and 
 then by changing from ratable polls to population as a basis, a 
 23 
 
354 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 population of 600 was made necessary for the first representa- 
 tive and 1,200 for the second, and that is the basis under 
 which we are now living. Is that fair? Is that equitable? 
 Is there any reason why the second 1,200 people in a town 
 or in a ward should have only one representative while the 
 first 600 who happened to be counted are entitled to have 
 one, or why 600 people in one town should have the same 
 right of representation as 1,799 in some other town? 
 
 Gentlemen, adopt a system which fixes the number of the 
 legislature, and then provide that that number shall be divided 
 among the towns and wards in proportion to their popula- 
 tion, and come back to what the fathers say is desirable 
 equality of representation. I see no way in which that can 
 be accomplished except by the district system, and for that 
 reason, although I came here with my prejudices in favor of 
 the town system, I shall be constrained to vote in favor of the 
 district system. 
 
 But it may be that the wisdom of this Convention will de- 
 cide that the district system shall be submitted to the peo- 
 ple. For myself I should like and I see no harm in this 
 proposition to give to the people the opportunity to decide 
 whether they will have a district system or keep the town 
 system. There is no difficulty in submitting the two propo- 
 sitions to the people. We could fix a certain number of 
 representatives to constitute the house, and then design a 
 proper district system and ask the people if they are in favor 
 of that, and at the same time have another proposition re- 
 ducing the house to the proper basis upon the town system, 
 and ask the people if they desire to have that system instead 
 of the district system. Is not that a fair and the proper 
 thing for us to do to submit to the voters of the state of 
 New Hampshire whether they want the district system or 
 the town system, and leave it to them to make their choice? 
 If we do that, the choice will be made advisedly, and all will 
 have to be satisfied with the decision thus made. 
 
 But if the sense of the Convention is such that no chance 
 is to be given to the people to vote whether they want the 
 district system or not, then we come to the other propositions. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 355 
 
 Something has been said here about compromise. Some- 
 thing has been suggested that we must all yield a little some- 
 thing, and then get together upon a basis which seems fair. 
 But what proposition is there, Mr. Chairman, now before this 
 committee, offered by any member who desires to preserve 
 the town system, that really compromises on their part? Is 
 not their one attempt is not their one idea to leave the 
 small towns as they are, and to make this reduction from the 
 large towns and the cities? Why, gentlemen, if I had been 
 engaged in a fight with my friend from Lancaster, and he 
 had me down and was holding me by the throat and punching 
 me once in a while in my face, and saying to me, " Mr. Jones, 
 I would like to compromise with you/' do you think it would 
 be much of a compromise if he made the basis of the com- 
 promise that he would punch me twice as much and twice 
 as hard as he was doing then? I think the people of the 
 large towns and the cities are being punched a third more 
 than they ought to be to-day, because under the basis now 
 existing it takes 600 population for the first representative 
 and 1,200 more for the second representative, and the ratio 
 is against us all the time. Now, these gentlemen come here 
 and ask us to compromise with them by adopting a measure 
 which will preserve 600 as the basis for the first representa- 
 tive, and make it 2,000 or 3,000 for the second. It seems 
 to me that is punching harder than you have done before and 
 is not much of a compromise after all. 
 
 I am one of those who believe that this Convention should 
 act according to its own wisdom and judgment, and that we 
 should satisfy our own wishes and intelligence, and should in- 
 sist upon such satisfaction with anything we submit to the 
 people. We should not have continually held up to us 
 threats or fears that what we may do here will not receive 
 the ratification of the people. One thing is certain, if we do 
 not satisfy ourselves, if we do something here with which we 
 are not ourselves satisfied, the people will not ratify it, be- 
 cause there will be nobody to go from here before the people 
 and ask ratification. 
 
 
356 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 "We have been told that anything which increases the num- 
 ber required for the first representative will not receive the 
 sanction of the small towns of the state. Now I wish to say, 
 not in the way of threats, but simply to state my belief, that 
 any proposition which makes a reduction of the house of rep- 
 resentatives entirely at the expense of the large towns and 
 of the cities of the state, solely at the expense of those repre- 
 sentative districts which have more than one representative, 
 will not receive two thirds of the vote of the people of the 
 state, because the larger towns and the cities of the state cast 
 much more than a third of the vote of the state and it takes 
 two thirds to adopt any amendment. The cities of the state 
 will, if I am not mistaken, cast about forty per cent, of the 
 total vote of the state. Some gentlemen may think that there 
 is no interest in this matter in the cities. I venture to say 
 that when such a proposition is put before the voters of the 
 cities as that called for by the amendments proposed by the 
 gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Scott, or by the gentle- 
 man from Newport, Mr. Barton, you will find they will have 
 interest enough to stand up for what they believe to be their 
 rights. There is as much danger that a proposition like that 
 will fail as there is danger that a proposition which might be 
 a little more just to the cities would fail. 
 
 As I have mentioned before, there is no compromise and 
 can be none on the basis of 600 and 2,000. It would not be 
 a compromise, but it would be punching us harder. I think 
 that the cities and larger towns have got used to the 600 and 
 1,200, and if the Convention sees fit to deny the people a 
 chance to vote upon the district system, then I would sug- 
 gest this any basis that will reduce the house of representa- 
 tives and will keep the existing inequality, without increasing 
 it. I care not whether you make it 700 and 1,400, 800 and 
 1,600, 900 and 1,800, or 1,000 and 2,000, but keep the exist- 
 ing inequality and the people of the larger towns and of the 
 cities will probably ratify it. But when you come and ask 
 us to compromise by making it 600 for the first representa- 
 tive and 2,000 for the second, thus increasing the inequality 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 357 
 
 that already exists, I ask where is, and where can there be, 
 the compromise on that basis. 
 
 I believe if we are to cling to the town system, then any 
 basis that will reduce the house of representatives will very 
 likely increase the number of pro-rated towns. But they tell 
 us from the country towns that they prefer to be represented 
 a part of the time rather than to go into a district where they 
 would have equal representation all the time. If they see fit 
 to take that stand they are the ones to be affected by it, and 
 I cannot see how the representatives of the larger towns and 
 the cities can find any fault with them. So, then, if it is de- 
 sirable to reduce the house, and everybody thinks it is de- 
 sirable to reduce the house to some extent, let us reduce it 
 upon some basis which will not be more unfair than the 
 present system. 
 
 On the basis of 800 and 1,600 we will have a house of about 
 320, which is some eighty smaller than the present house of 
 representatives, or than it will be under the next census. 
 But that is not very much of a reduction, and the object of 
 this Convention, as I understand, is, or should be, to reduce 
 the house so as to make it a more easily working body than 
 the present house. Unless you bring it down 100 or 150, so 
 it would be a compact body, fitted to do business more easily 
 than a larger house; unless you make a radical reduction, 
 what is the use of making any great talk of a change or of 
 any reduction? I will say that I believe the inhabitants of 
 the large towns and of the cities of this state would much pre- 
 fer to see the present condition of things exist than to see an 
 amendment adopted which would preserve 600 for the first 
 representative and make 2,000 additional necessary for the 
 second. We feel the same about that as some of the dele- 
 gates from the smaller towns say they feel about the district 
 system. We want it as fair as possible. And why is it not 
 honest and just to every small town, if we are going to re- 
 duce the house no more than to about 300, to adopt a basis 
 which would give us in the cities and the larger towns the same 
 proportion of representation which we now have and which 
 
358 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 you can all plainly see, if you will lay aside your prejudices, 
 is not as fair as it should be. I submit that is the proposition 
 to be carefully and candidly considered by this Convention. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord It is very evident, as the time of 
 12 o'clock approaches, that the members who desire to be 
 heard cannot be heard upon this question if we take a vote 
 at that time. I believe it is fair that everybody who desires 
 to talk should be heard, and I move that the committee do 
 now arise for the purpose of enabling the Convention to ex- 
 tend the time at which the vote upon the order submitted 
 by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, is to be 
 taken. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Personally I have no objection 
 to the suggestion of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Ly- 
 ford. The Convention can change the time of voting if it 
 sees fit. The only point I wish to make is that every mem- 
 ber of the Convention has had notice that the vote was to be 
 taken at 12 o'clock, and I know that some of the members of 
 the Convention have made arrangements to be here at 12 
 o'clock to-day who cannot be here at 4 or 5 or 6 this after- 
 noon. Whether or not they ought to be compelled, and the 
 Convention ought to be compelled, to lose their votes, is a 
 matter about which I have some doubt. As far as I am con- 
 cerned, I have no feeling on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter It seems to me in view of what the 
 gentleman from Concord has said, it is extremely possible 
 that all those who are proposing to vote on this question will 
 be here to-day, and probably will be here whenever a vote is 
 taken, and the only injustice that is done to such members 
 of the Convention is in making them come a second time. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord I wish merely to make the sug- 
 gestion that the object of Mr. Lyford might perhaps be ac- 
 complished by limiting the time of the speakers instead of 
 extending the time for taking the vote. 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 359 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Is there any objection that the 
 time of taking this vote be set for to-morrow, which is Thurs- 
 day, at 12 o'clock? We need not occupy all the time in 
 speaking, as, after the arguments and remarks have been 
 closed, we can go on with other business. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I am one of the unfortu- 
 nates that Senator Chandler has spoken about. I went home 
 from this Convention last week, understanding we would vote 
 to-day, and I made all my arrangements and cancelled my 
 business engagements to be here to-day. I came to this Con- 
 vention to vote upon this one question, and I would be sorry 
 to lose the opportunity of voting upon it. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Let me explain to the gentleman 
 that the vote in this committee settles nothing, that the final 
 vote must be taken in Convention, and therefore the gentle- 
 man is not deprived of any privilege by our extending this 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry "We came here, it seems to 
 me, to do business for the state of New Hampshire. We have 
 been here on one question for two weeks. Every other Con- 
 vention has settled questions as momentous as this in two 
 weeks' time, and it seems to me, after talking two weeks we 
 ought to be ready to vote. I do not believe that it will make 
 a change of one vote to have any further talk in regard to 
 this matter. I do object to extending the time for taking 
 the vote later than 12 or 1 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain of New Durham I agree with the gentle- 
 man from Londonderry. We are here to serve the state of 
 New Hampshire, and we ought to cancel all of our engage- 
 ments outside of our official duties and attend to the duties 
 of this Convention, no matter if we have talked two weeks. 
 I am getting a lot of information here, and I think there is 
 a chance to learn a little more before this debate closes. We 
 may all want a chance to say something and want to hear 
 
360 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 from others who have anything to say about this question, 
 and here is the place to discuss it and to dispose of it. I sin- 
 cerely hope we will have all the time necessary to have a free, 
 fair and thorough discussion of this question. 
 
 Mr. Pillshury of Londonderry I would say to the gentle- 
 man from Concord as he said to me, that this is not the final 
 vote on this question, and it seems to me that everybody will 
 get the right to talk when it comes back before this Conven- 
 tion, and it is as fair to have the discussion then as it is to 
 extend the time for voting now. 
 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin Gentlemen of the Convention, I 
 came here from Berlin, in the Androscoggin valley, a little 
 city containing about 10,000 inhabitants. I am not informed, 
 nor do I believe that anybody in that city, or from that 
 valley, has yet had a proper opportunity to be heard upon 
 the question now before the committee, and for this reason 
 I favor the postponement as suggested by the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Lyford, and hope his motion will prevail. 
 
 The Chairman The question is upon the motion of the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, that the committee 
 do now arise and ask to have the time extended on which to 
 vote upon the order presented by the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Chandler. 
 
 Motion prevails. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Little of Manchester Mr. President, the Committee 
 of the Whole has been in session and has had under consid- 
 eration the various proposed amendments referring to the 
 reduction of our representation in the house of representa- 
 tives, and has voted to rise and ask the Convention to extend 
 the time for voting upon the resolution offered by the gen- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 361 
 
 tleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, in regard to the differ- 
 ent systems of representation, etc. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I move you, sir, that the time fojr 
 taking the vote in committee on the order submitted by the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, be fixed at 12 
 o'clock to-morrow. If the Convention desires, I will add to 
 that that debate close at 3 o'clock to-day. 
 
 The President The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Ly- 
 ford, moves that the time for taking the vote upon the order 
 offered by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, which 
 was adopted, be extended from 12 o'clock to-day until 12 
 o'clock to-morrow. Is the Convention ready for the ques- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Shute of Wentworth It is clearly evident that the 
 time will be fully occupied by speakers until the hour men- 
 tioned, and if it should not be so, and there might be a space 
 of time not taken up by this discussion, we can go on some 
 other matter which is before the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I would like to ask the gentleman from 
 Concord to accept an amendment which I propose to offer, 
 namely, that on the morrow the speeches upon this subject 
 be limited to five minutes. 
 
 Mr. Briggs of Manchester Mr. President, I do not believe 
 in cutting anybody off in this matter. The members of this 
 Convention have the right to talk upon this question to their 
 hearts' content. 
 
 Mr. Lyford's motion was stated by the President and pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, the Convention re- 
 solved itself into Committee of the Whole to consider all of 
 the pending resolutions upon the question of representation. 
 
362 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Little of Manchester in the chair.) 
 
 The Chairman Gentlemen, we are again in session as a 
 Committee of the Whole, for the consideration of the ques- 
 tions relating to representation in the house of representa- 
 tives. The chair will recognize the gentleman from Lancas- 
 ter, Mr. Drew. 
 
 Mr. Drew of Lancaster Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of 
 the Committee: Unfortunately for me I was not able to be 
 here last week and so I have lost the benefit of a large part of 
 the discussion upon this very important question. I had 
 supposed, until I came here yesterday morning and heard 
 some of the discussion that has occurred since, that there was 
 in New Hampshire a strong demand on the part of the people 
 that the representation in the house of representatives 
 should be reduced. I must say that I was very much sur- 
 prised when I heard gentlemen whom I believe to be better 
 informed than I am, say that they were not aware that there 
 was an urgent demand in the state for a reduction in the 
 number of representatives in the lower house of the legisla- 
 ture. I understand, and have understood for several years, 
 that the people of the state recognize the fact that our repre- 
 sentation in the house is too large, and that some means 
 should be devised, if possible, whereby it may be reduced 
 and thus made less unwieldy, and at the same time save to the 
 state a very large expense. I think I have heard it suggested 
 by many of the citizens of New Hampshire that unless the 
 house of representatives shall be considerably reduced in num- 
 ber, the proposition immediately before us will be to raise suf- 
 ficient money, a million dollars or more, to build a new 
 capitol building. The question of enlarging this state house 
 has been considered by several legislatures and it has always 
 been decided, as I understand it, that it would not be feasible 
 to enlarge this house, and that if we were compelled to have 
 more room we should be obliged to build a new state house. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 363 
 
 I have also understood that the matter of expense was a 
 serious question in the minds of the people, not of the cities 
 alone, but in the minds of the people of the country where I 
 come from. If that is not true, then I have entirely misun- 
 derstood the attitude of the people of the state upon this ques- 
 tion. I suppose we were selected to come here because the 
 people in our towns and wards believed that we would, after 
 due deliberation, report to them for their action such things 
 as we believe to be conducive to the general public good. I 
 suppose this to be the fundamental consideration which 
 should control us in our conduct here. I apprehend that 
 every consideration of personal interest should be eliminated 
 from our deliberations. I understand, even, that we should 
 not allow what we regard as a local interest to control or qual- 
 ify our actions as against the public good. This is the funda- 
 mental principle upon which free government is established. 
 Men cannot associate themselves together in governmental 
 form and preserve and maintain a practical government by 
 making the general policy subservient to individual or local 
 preferences. The very idea of self-government is, that there 
 shall be a yielding of individual and local interests to the 
 great commanding interests of the public. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I believe that is what we are 
 here for, and I believe as firmly that there is no member of 
 this committee who does not propose to do that thing which 
 he believes is for the general public good. What, then, must 
 we do? We must lift ourselves into the atmosphere of per- 
 sonal self-sacrifice. We must lift ourselves into the atmos- 
 phere of local self-sacrifice, and we must consider, and con- 
 sider alone, those things which we believe will contribute most 
 to the general public welfare. 
 
 I was born and reared in a country town, and have lived in 
 a country town all my life. I know, or at least I think I 
 know, something of the estimate in which the people hold 
 their rights, how tenaciously they cling to and how reluc- 
 tantly they surrender them. I admire that spirit, and I hope 
 I have something of it myself, and I do believe if there is any 
 
364 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 sense of justice anywhere that is pure and noble and strong, it 
 is in the people who live in these country towns; and I believe 
 when a proposition, at any time, that effects the public good 
 is presented to them so that they understand it, that they will 
 yield individual and local interests for the general public wel- 
 fare as quickly as people that live in any other section of the 
 state. I believe, too, that the people who live in our larger 
 towns and cities are controlled by this same spirit. I believe 
 this is the spirit that controls all the people in the state, 
 but we do not at all times hold ourselves so free from local 
 and individual interests that we can see things in their true 
 light, and to do so requires consideration, time, and personal 
 effort. In order to bring ourselves to see these things in their 
 true light we have got to exercise charity; we have got to 
 recognize that every individual has the same personal right of 
 opinion that we have; we have got to recognize that every one 
 of our neighbors is just as sincere and honest in his views as 
 we are, and when we come together recognizing these facts we 
 shall all meet on a plane of compromise and shall be con- 
 trolled by the single purpose to do that which will contribute 
 most to the general good. 
 
 I assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that there is a 
 necessity for the reduction of membership of our house of 
 representatives. Now the practical question is, How shall the 
 reduction be secured? Naturally the first question is, Where 
 shall the number be fixed ? Is 300 the right number? If not, 
 is 290, 250, or 200 the right number? When the number is 
 determined all that remains is purely a matter of detail, and 
 in my judgment, that matter of detail should be worked out 
 on one principle, and one principle alone. 
 
 That principle, gentlemen, is the principle that underlies 
 all democratic republican government. That is, full and 
 continuous representation of everybody within the jurisdic- 
 tion of the state. A democratic republican government does 
 not rest upon the idea of partial representation; it rests upon 
 the idea and principle of universal representation, the full 
 representation of every individual and personal interest in the 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 365 
 
 commonwealth. It always lias rested, and always will, and 
 always must rest upon that, because when we begin to depart 
 from that idea we begin to disregard the natural rights which 
 our Bill of Eights declares to inhere in every individual. 
 Now, then, the system which will give representation to every 
 interest in New Hampshire and every individual in New 
 Hampshire, is the system which stands upon a principle which 
 cannot be gainsaid. 
 
 First, fix the number of representatives that will be satis- 
 factory, and then devise a method by which we can elect that 
 number of representatives and have every individual in New 
 Hampshire and every property interest in New Hampshire 
 represented all the time. This is the ideal, and it is the only 
 true basis of representation. We have not had it for many 
 years. We have drifted away from it. The basis upon which 
 our representation was first established was a classification of 
 small towns. This classification became unfitted for the con- 
 ditions which arose, and hence it was changed, and finally 
 classification of small towns was abandoned and pro-rata rep- 
 resentation was adopted. Under our present constitution we 
 have sixty-eight towns which do not elect representatives to 
 every legislature. Under this system the people residing in 
 these towns are entirely unrepresented and have no voice in 
 the legislation enacted by the legislatures in which they have 
 no representatives. This is a rank violation of the essential 
 underlying principle of free government, government by 
 the people. I do not believe in this method. I believe, as I 
 have stated, in a method that gives full representation all the 
 time, but I recognize the fact that we cannot always have the 
 ideal, but if we are obliged to depart from the ideal, we should 
 depart from it as little as possible. We should keep as closely 
 to it as environment and existing conditions will allow. 
 
 In my judgment, there are two ways, and two ways onty, in 
 which we can have representation which will exemplify fully 
 the true underlying principle of free government. First, the 
 town system under which would be given to every town, how- 
 ever small, one representative, and to every ward in every city 
 
366 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 a representative; but I am satisfied, as a practical measure, 
 that such, a system cannot be adopted. The cities and larger 
 towns probably would not consent to it,, and I don't know that 
 it is wise that they should do so. 
 
 The personal interest of the individual in the city and indi- 
 vidual in the country is substantially the same, and with a 
 representation from each town and from each ward of the sev- 
 eral cities, the towns and the cities would have full representa- 
 tion and the interests of the towns and of the cities would be 
 protected. It may be claimed that the property interests are 
 such in the large cities that they ought to have a larger repre- 
 sentation; that a ward of 6,000 people and ten million dollars 
 worth of property should have a larger representation than a 
 town with 100 population and two hundred thousand dollars 
 worth of appraised property. We from the country recognize 
 that there is some force in this suggestion, and that a system 
 of one member from every town and one member from every 
 ward of the several cities could not be adopted. 
 
 The other method that recognizes the essential principle of 
 self-government namely, full and continuous representa- 
 tion is the district system for the small towns. There are 
 two plans before the committee for the district system. One, 
 introduced by Mr. Lyford of Concord, fixes the number of 
 members of the house at 300 and apportions that number to 
 the different counties, and the several counties, by a commis- 
 sion to be appointed by some authority, are to fix the lines of 
 the districts from which the representatives are to be elected. 
 Mr. Lyford's plan, as I understand it, and if I am not correct 
 I would like to be corrected, makes the number of population 
 required to elect each representative, if the house is fixed at 
 300, about 1,370. 
 
 The other system is that proposed by the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Mitchell. His plan, as I understand it, is this: 
 It fixes the number of representatives at 301, but that number 
 could be changed to 300, or to 295, or to any number that the 
 Convention sees fit to adopt. This bill also provides that 
 there shall be a ratio of one to two in the population required 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 367 
 
 for first and second representatives. In other words, it re- 
 quires twice as many additional population to elect the second 
 representative as it requires to elect the first. If the unit of 
 population for the first representative is fixed at 600 it will 
 require 1,200 additional population to elect a second repre- 
 sentative, or 1,800 to elect two representatives. This plan 
 will give more small towns continuous representation than 
 the plan that requires 1,370 population to elect each repre- 
 sentative, as Mr. Lyf ord's bill provides, and the country towns 
 would get a larger proportion of the representation under the 
 Mitchell bill than under the Lyford bill. To adjust this sys- 
 tem for practical working, the number of representatives be- 
 ing fixed and unchangeable, the unit of population required 
 to elect the first representative would need to be adjusted 
 upon a sliding scale, because population will increase in some 
 localities and decrease in others. To meet this condition, the 
 Mitchell bill provides that after each national census there 
 shall be a new apportionment of representatives to the several 
 counties, in case the population has so changed that it would 
 be unjust to allow the old apportionment to stand. The new 
 apportionment would be made by the legislature, still main- 
 taining a population ratio of one to two for first and second 
 representatives. 
 
 There is another feature in the Mitchell bill from which 
 you will see that it stands upon the broad ground of full and 
 continuous representation. It really is the town and district 
 systems combined. It provides that towns which have less 
 than 400 inhabitants may unite for the purpose of electing a 
 representative, thereby securing full and continuous repre- 
 sentation. The bill also provides that towns whose popula- 
 tion is between 400 and the necessary number whatever 
 number may be fixed for one representative may only send 
 a representative to the legislature a pro-rata part of the time. 
 
 I would suggest, in order to have the bill come entirely 
 within the rules of just and equal representation, that it be 
 amended so that the same rule would apply to all the towns 
 which have not a sufficient number of inhabitants to send a 
 
368 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 representative to each legislature, in order that there would 
 be no distinction between towns having 400 or less and towns 
 having 400 or more, but not having sufficient population to 
 send a representative to each legislature. Let it stand like 
 this: That it should require twice as many votes or popula- 
 tion for the second representative as for the first; that all 
 those towns whose population is not enough to send a repre- 
 sentative may elect whether they will unite with some other 
 town which has not enough population to send a representa- 
 tive, and send a representative, and in that way be represent- 
 ed all the time, or whether they will take their -pro-rata repre- 
 sentation and be unrepresented a part of the time. In that 
 way we shall not violate any principle of representative gov- 
 ernment. The system will be founded on the doctrine that 
 all people should be represented all the time, and it would 
 leave it to the towns which have not sufficient population to 
 elect a representative all the time, to decide whether they will 
 be represented, all the time, by uniting with another town or 
 towns, or whether they will accept pro-rata representation. 
 
 If a town elected to remain by itself and take pro-rata rep- 
 resentation rather than to unite with another town and be 
 represented all the time, no principle would be violated. 
 Each town would have the right of election. If a town elected 
 to take partial representation when it could have full repre- 
 sentation, partial representation in that instance works no 
 wrong. That condition of things is just and is a condition 
 which in practical life we cannot avoid. Under our present 
 system of representation the small towns having less than 600 
 population cannot be represented all the time. They are 
 obliged to submit to partial representation because there is 
 no provision under which two or more can unite and elect a 
 representative. Under the Mitchell bill, thus amended, we 
 would have a system under which every man and every inter- 
 est in the state could be represented, if they desired to be, all 
 the time, and I am convinced, after examining all the bills 
 as fully and carefully as I have been able to do, that the 
 Mitchell bill comes nearer embodying the true idea of repre- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 369 
 
 sentation, under our system of government, than any other 
 proposed, and I hope the committee will recommend this bill 
 with the amendment which I have suggested. 
 
 I hope the action of the Convention will be favorable to it, 
 and I believe that if we, who have been sent here to consider 
 this matter, go back to our constituents and explain the. mer- 
 its of this measure, explain the necessity of having a change, 
 it will be ratified by the people when submitted to them. I 
 have no doubt that the people of New Hampshire will feel 
 very much disappointed if this Convention adjourns without 
 having done anything to reduce the membership of the house 
 of representatives. 
 
 If this cannot be brought about by adopting a system which 
 recognizes and embodies the principle of full representation 
 all the time, if the people want it, then I believe we should 
 stand as close to it as possible, and I do not believe it would 
 be safe to raise the 600 population now required to send one 
 representative to 800. This is my deliberate conviction. 
 
 If we cannot have the district system, I cannot see any 
 valid objection to the proposition to leave the unit of popula- 
 tion required for the first representative at 600 where it now 
 is, and making 2,000 additional population the unit for each 
 additional representative. 
 
 Very likely I am unable to look at this matter from the 
 standpoint of my friends who live in the cities, but really I 
 cannot see why they should. feel any serious anxiety over the 
 proposition to leave the basis for the first representative at 
 600 population, and making the basis for the second 2,000, 
 although there may be conditions which do not occur to me. 
 
 If the basis of 600 for the first and 2,000 for the second 
 representative should be adopted, we should keep just the 
 same number of pro-rated towns as we now have. My town 
 would lose one member, and the cities and large towns gen- 
 erally would have to make sacrifices. There is no question 
 about that, but there would be this compensating considera- 
 tion, the small towns are not increasing, and in years to come 
 will not increase in population to any considerable extent. 
 24 
 
370 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The cities and larger towns are increasing in population and 
 therefore will get increased representation. Nearly all the 
 increase in representation would be in the large towns and 
 cities. 
 
 While I do not believe it would be wise to remain on that 
 basis, still if we cannot get a district system which embodies 
 the principle of full representation all the time, my judg- 
 ment is, that it is not wise to advance the number of popula- 
 tion required to send one representative from 600 to 800. If 
 it is carried to 800 we shall disfranchise for a portion of the 
 time forty-three more towns, and instead of having sixty-eight 
 which are disfranchised and unrepresented a portion of the 
 time, we shall have 111 towns unrepresented a portion of the 
 time. Suppose those towns stood somewhere between 600 and 
 800 in population, as they would, that system would add 
 about 30,000 more people to the disfranchised and un- 
 represented class. If those towns should send representa- 
 tives four sessions out of five, there would be from 5,000 to 
 7,000 people who would be entirely unrepresented in every 
 legislature, and that is not right. 
 
 It is not so much a question of how many representatives a 
 town has as that the town be represented. One man may rep- 
 resent 1,000 men and protect their interests just as well as five 
 men could do it, and the thing that I wish to provide for is, 
 that nobody should go without representation. 
 
 The essential principle is to have every man, woman, and 
 child in the state represented. I do not mean to be under- 
 stood that I am in favor of woman's suffrage, for I believe my 
 wife and daughter are represented when I am represented. I 
 believe that the person who by proxy or otherwise represents 
 me, represents my household. If I did not believe that, he 
 would not represent me. 
 
 I firmly believe we should not depart from the principle I 
 have suggested, and let us devise some method embodying 
 that principle and submit it to the people for their approval, 
 so that when we go back to them we can say that we have sub- 
 mitted a proposition embodying the fundamental and essen- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 371 
 
 tial idea of free and independent government by the people, 
 full and continuous representation. 
 
 Mr. Dudley of Concord I move that the committee do now 
 arise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 
 
 Motion prevailed. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Little, chairman of the Committee of the Whole, re- 
 ported that the committee had heen in session and had voted 
 to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 
 
 Leave was granted. 1 
 
 On motion of Mr. Stockwell of Claremont, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 AFTEKNOON. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Leave was granted the Committee on Finance to hold a ses- 
 sion at this time. 
 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin, from the committee on the judicial de- 
 partment, to whom was referred the resolution offered by Mr. 
 Edgerly of Somersworth to amend article ninety-three, part 
 second of the Constitution, relating to the incompatibility of 
 certain offices, reported the same with the following resolu- 
 tion : 
 
 Resolved, That it is inexpedient to act upon the subject. 
 
 The report was accepted and the question being stated, 
 Shall the resolution reported by the committee that it is inex- 
 pedient to act upon the subject, be adopted, on motion of Mr. 
 Edgerly of Somersworth, the proposed amendment, together 
 
372 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 with the report of the committee,, was laid upon the table to 
 be taken up and discussed at some future time. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the Convention re- 
 solved itself into Committee of the Whole to further consider 
 the various resolutions relating to representations. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Little of Manchester in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Cogswell of Gilmanton I suppose, gentlemen of this 
 Convention, that it is the desire of every member to do those 
 things in this Convention that, first, will satisfy their own 
 ideas of right and wrong, and, secondly, will stand some 
 chance of being ratified by the people when the amendments, 
 if any are made, are sent back to be voted upon. 
 
 I believe with the gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, in 
 that old democratic doctrine of the greatest good to the great- 
 est number. 
 
 I believe in this matter of representation that that which 
 will meet with the approbation of more people than any other 
 is the proposition of the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Bar- 
 ton, in so far as 600 population shall elect the first represent- 
 ative. Those towns which do not to-day have that number 
 seem to be well satisfied to take the pro-rata representation, 
 and it seems eminently fair to everybody in the state that 600 
 population in a town or ward should elect one representative. 
 So far they are all on an equality. As to the ratio for the next 
 representative, I would fix it so that whatever it might be it 
 would reduce the house of representatives to about 300. 
 
 I believe, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that this house 
 could be reduced so that every member of the house could 
 have a convenient seat. But further than that I do not be- 
 lieve the best interests of this state require the reduction. I 
 do not believe that they require a reduction to any such num- 
 ber as 100 or 150, as has been suggested. It has been said, 
 and well said, in this Convention, and we have heard it in 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 373 
 
 years gone by, that the legislature is a great educational in- 
 stitution. We are granting money year by year to old Dart- 
 mouth,, to the Agricultural college, to the Normal school, to 
 educate our boys. Is there anything wrong in once in two 
 years appropriating a few thousand dollars to educate the peo- 
 ple of the state? 
 
 I believe if we send back a proposition to be voted upon, 
 what will be more liable to pass than anything else is the 
 proposition of 600 for the first representative. What the 
 number should be for the next representative I am not pre- 
 pared to say. I believe, however, that we should keep intact 
 our town lines. There is some sentiment about it, but there is 
 reality about it also. I live in a town that in 1810 was the 
 largest town in territory of any town in the whole state and 
 was second only in population. But it has been divided and a 
 part has gone to make Belmont and a part to make Gilford, 
 so to-day we are left a little bit of the town of what once was 
 almost a great republic. 
 
 My hopes and desires are to help, if we are able, those little 
 towns maintain what representation they now have. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard of Amherst Gentlemen of the Committee: 
 It has been said by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, 
 I think, that we were sent here to do something. I do not 
 know whether we were or not. It was also said by the gentle- 
 man from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, before dinner, that there was 
 a great demand for the reduction of our legislature. I imme- 
 diately left the hall and went down to the secretary of state's 
 office to see whether that was true. I ascertained what a tre- 
 mendous demand there was, 10,571 voted for the call of this 
 Convention, and 3,287 voted against it. Not voting at all, 
 74,989. What a tremendous demand that was. And this, too, 
 does not call for the whole registered vote, but the vote that 
 was cast for governor. Gentlemen of the Committee, that 
 being the condition, we are evidently ahead of our time. Pub- 
 lic opinion is not quite ready for this, and it seems to me, 
 whatever we do here and whatever we are likely to accom- 
 plish in this Convention, will come to nought. 
 
374 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The question seems to be with reference to the basis of rep- 
 resentation as to what equality is. Everybody has demanded 
 equality. What is equality? Is it equality that a town of 600 
 people should be denied a portion of the time a voice in the 
 legislative assemblies, and a ward of 9,000 people having a 
 representation in the legislature all the time should not re- 
 duce its representation. For instance, we will take Brookline 
 and Ward Five, Manchester. Brookline has 600 people and 
 has one representative. Ward Five has 9,000 population and 
 on the present basis it has eight representatives. If you 
 change that under the proposed amendment offered by the 
 gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, Brookline, with its 600 
 population, will have one representative still, and Ward Five, 
 on the basis of 2,000 for each additional representative, will 
 have five a fair representation, I submit. If you change to 
 800 for the first representative, as some demand, Brookline is 
 cut out a part of the time from deliberation in the legislative 
 assembly, and what affects Brookline in that way will affect 
 forty-two other towns throughout the state. But it will not 
 affect any large town or ward within the state to that extent. 
 That is, they will all have representation, and full representa- 
 tion, although of course they would have a less number of 
 representatives than they now have. Is it equality that 111 
 towns should be denied representation a part of the time while 
 the large towns and cities have it all the time? 
 
 The rural towns of New Hampshire have been the balance 
 wheels of the state from its inception down to the present day 
 and will continue to be so long as she has any balance wheel, 
 and in saying that I cast no reflections upon the citizens of 
 any city, whether native born or foreign born. That citizen 
 who is loyal to our flag, to our Constitution, to our educa- 
 tional institutions the bulwark of our liberties and the head- 
 lights of our nation he is a true American citizen whether 
 he was born on the hills of America or on the sunny vales of 
 Spain, while that citizen who holds allegiance to any foreign 
 prince or potentate as above the president of the United 
 States, is not a true American citizen, and if such there be I 
 do not want to trust the reins of government in their hands. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 375 
 
 The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, has very ably 
 recommended to us the district system, and doubtless that 
 system will sooner or later be adopted in its own good time. 
 When public opinion calls for a change, the change will come, 
 and satisfaction will finally be attained, as time and again has 
 been proved in our country. We well know how our states- 
 men in our halls of congress wrangled for years, yes, for 
 generations against slavery until finally public opinion thun- 
 dered forth the decree that slavery was a blot upon our fair 
 land and must be abolished, and from ocean to ocean those 
 thunders rolled, and did not die away until the last clank of 
 the slave chain was heard, and the last star of secession was 
 obliterated. And later over Cuba's fair and bleeding form a 
 reunited nation proclaimed that glorious union as Daniel 
 Webster would have it, "one and inseparable." 
 
 Now, gentlemen of New Hampshire, I do not propose to 
 take up your time. Do not be swayed by the oratorical powers 
 of any members of this Convention unless their argument 
 warrants it. Eemember the fundamental principles which un- 
 derlie our Constitution, and stand for the best interests of 
 your state and enable our people to maintain their rights in 
 our legislative assemblies, and rest assured that public opinion 
 in its own good time will shape the destinies of the Constitu- 
 tion and of our state, and all will be well. 
 
 Mr. McAllister of Manchester Mr. Chairman and Gentle- 
 men of the Committee: The question now before the com- 
 mittee is one of vital importance to every inhabitant of the 
 state of New Hampshire. 
 
 It is important that representation in the house shall be 
 based upon principles of equality as set forth in the Con- 
 stitution which we all honor and revere. It is important that 
 all of the inhabitants, the high and the low, the rich and the 
 poor, those in towns as well as those in the cities, those who 
 work in our factories as well as those who work in our fields, 
 shall have representation all the time in the house of repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
376 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Gentlemen,, I have heard delegates from the smaller towns 
 say that the fact that such a town could send a representative 
 here, gave its citizens comfort and encouragement. If that be 
 true for a town of 600 inhabitants, it ought to be true for a 
 town of 450 or 599 inhabitants. It seem to me it is fair and 
 equitable that all of the people should be represented, and 
 that all should have this encouragement. 
 
 Gentlemen, I believe that a very large majority of those 
 present think that the district system is the best and fairest 
 system, because it is founded upon principles of equality and 
 justice. Gentlemen, let us be true to our convictions and vote 
 to adopt a system which would allow all of the people to be 
 represented all of the time in the house of representatives. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover I do not propose to take up the 
 time of this Convention for any length, but only to say a few 
 words in reply to the suggestion that has been made at various 
 times during this discussion and especially by the advocates 
 of the district system. It was touched upon by the gentleman 
 from Amherst, Mr. Hubbard, I think, who preceded the gen- 
 tleman from Manchester. 
 
 It has been said here frequently that we have been called 
 here at the demand of the people to reduce the house of repre- 
 sentatives. If the gentlemen who claim that we must do 
 something in order to satisfy that demand will inquire into it, 
 they would find that we came very near not coming here at 
 all. Three times since the Convention of 1889 this question 
 was submitted to the people, once in 1893, when it was beaten 
 by a decisive vote, and again in 1895, when also it was beaten 
 by a decisive vote. There was no demand then, there was no 
 call then for a convention coming together. A few years later 
 this convention was called, but, as has been said, it was called 
 by a vote of a little over 10,000. Gentlemen, that represents 
 about one twelfth of the voters of New Hampshire. I do not 
 mean of those who cast their ballots, but according to the 
 tables of the gentleman from Hanover, Mr. Colby, there are 
 some 122,000 native born and naturalized citizens in this state 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 377 
 
 of the age of twenty-one and over, and only 10,000 of those 
 desired this Convention enough to vote for it, and one in 
 eight of those came from the city of Concord. Concord evi- 
 dently desired us to come here. 
 
 I do not think this is such an important matter as has "been 
 intimated by the speakers. Certainly we were sent here to do 
 a certain thing, and while I think there should be some re- 
 dution I don't think the people of the state would be greatly 
 disappointed if but little should be done at this time. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Bedford It was unfortunate for us all 
 that the gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, should not 
 have been present during the whole of this Convention, for if 
 he had he would have felt it unnecessary to have exhorted all 
 his associates to arise to the highest plane of individual self- 
 sacrifice in considering this important question. No man can 
 listen to the debates as they have proceeded since we con- 
 vened without being convinced that it has been the 
 earnest desire and purpose of every one to find some method 
 which would subserve just the very purpose which the gen- 
 tleman from Lancaster so eloquently described to us. He 
 tells us, and tells us truly, that what we should do is to search 
 for equality an ideal condition of equality. But if we are 
 to pursue that search with perfect singleness of purpose, I 
 think we ought to take up the amendment in favor of wo- 
 man's suffrage before we go any further. If there is any in- 
 equality it begins there. Again, upon what basis of equality 
 is the age of twenty-one fixed before a man is entitled to 
 exercise his franchise? 
 
 Any system of representation is directly affected with fea- 
 tures of inequality. It cannot be otherwise in human affairs. 
 
 If I understand the resolution of the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Lyford, correctly, it provides that the counties of 
 the state shall be divided into legislative districts, and where 
 the population of any given district reaches a certain figure 
 one representative shall be chosen from that district.* What 
 happens (I ask for information) when the population ex- 
 ceeds that number? 
 
378 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I am very glad to explain that to 
 the gentleman. The bill as offered by me provides that a 
 district may have one or more members, if it is advisable. If 
 the fractions come so that it is better to put two or more 
 members into the district, then two or three, or four or five 
 towns would be grouped in that way. Did I answer the gen- 
 tleman? 
 
 Mr. Woodbury Yes, sir. But under no system, if I un- 
 derstand it rightly, will it be true that all the inhabitants of 
 all the districts are represented all the time. What shall we 
 do when the number in any given district falls below the 
 number that constitutes the basis? 
 
 Mr. Lyford The districts will be made up for each decade. 
 Of course there will be a variation of population during the 
 decade, but that will not infringe the lines of the districts. 
 The districts will be made up of territory as nearly equal in 
 population as may be so that there will be no large surplus of 
 population. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury Even under those conditions there will be 
 portions of the time when the rankest inequality will prevail. 
 I do not pretend that there is any way to avoid it, but when 
 gentlemen rise here and declare that the district system pro- 
 duces perfect equality, that all the people are represented all 
 the time, I can not feel as though that statement had as yet 
 been substantiated. 
 
 The gentleman from Laconia, Mr. Busiel, who addressed us 
 so ably and so eloquently yesterday, pointed out that in the 
 Bill of Rights our fathers declared what should be the princi- 
 ples of equality, but he omitted to go on to the next step and 
 point out how they proposed to give us equality. The pur- 
 pose they had is our purpose now. Our purposes have not 
 changed. The way in which they proposed to give each other 
 equality at that time is found in the Constitution which they 
 then framed, and under which substantially we have been 
 living ever since. The term "equality" is not a mathematical 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 379 
 
 term., not an arbitrary term. It is a term that necessarily 
 varies in accordance with the conditions surrounding it. We 
 understand by equality not the same thing as the ladies who 
 addressed us yesterday understand by equality. Under the 
 Constitution equality is found by fixing that proportion of 
 the people who can send one representative and then an ad- 
 ditional number who can send additional representatives. 
 That is the equality that they fixed at the time they framed 
 the Constitution, and that is the equality we now have under 
 the present system. 
 
 It has been said that this is not equality, because a town of 
 600 would have one representative whereas a town of 1,000 
 would have only one representative, and that the representa- 
 tive from such a town represents 600 of the population of 
 that town and the other 400 are unrepresented. Is not the 
 same true under the district system, at any rate, during a por- 
 tion of the time in any given decade ? 
 
 We are engaged in a very grave and serious task. These 
 are to be amendments to the Constitution. Ought we not 
 first to inquire whether they are improvements to the Con- 
 stitution? They are amendments, but are they improve- 
 ments? 
 
 I came here without any previous impression. I came here, 
 I am free to say, in the densest ignorance, and I have sat here 
 at the feet of the speakers who have addressed us and have 
 obtained something to take home with me; and I cannot but 
 feel that we should approach this venerable instrument in no 
 other way than with the greatest caution, and with a desire 
 only to improve it in such a way that our actions will be en- 
 dorsed by the people when they come to vote upon the propo- 
 sitions we submit. 
 
 it has been said that the house must be reduced, because 
 the building was not large enough, or the seats were too near 
 together, or something of that nature. Can anyone truly say 
 that there has gone out from the people a complaint that we 
 are not properly represented. No one has heard any such state- 
 ment made by any considerable body of the people whatever. 
 
380 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 So before we tinker with the Constitution which has stood so 
 long, with a system that corresponds with the Bill of Eights 
 laid down so long ago, we ought to see whether the structure 
 which our fathers built is wholly defective, whether the tim- 
 bers are unsound, whether it rests on an unstable foundation. 
 The gentlemen have not done so as yet, I submit. 
 
 Our system of electing representatives to our legislature is 
 identically the same on a small scale as the system for elect- 
 ing representatives to the United States house of representa- 
 tives, our house of representatives corresponding with Hie 
 lower branch of congress. The basis of representation for 
 the legislature is that one or more from every town will go 
 to the popular branch, the house of representatives of the 
 state, and there represent his town, while the basis of repre- 
 sentation for congress is that the state is divided into districts 
 and representatives are elected from those districts to the 
 more popular branch of congress for the purpose of repre- 
 senting the state in that branch. What should we think if it 
 should appear that in one of the congressional districts in this 
 state there was not enough population to elect one represent a- 
 tive, and therefore the second congressional district, for in- 
 stance, of New Hampshire, was to be classed with the Third 
 Massachusetts district for the purpose of electing a represent- 
 ative to congress? We would regard it as an utter violation of 
 the principles on which the government rests. So I say with 
 reference to state representation we ought to be very careful 
 before we lay violent hands upon the present town system 
 and tear that away and throw it out of doors simply because 
 some gentlemen come here from Massachusetts and say that 
 we should do what has been done there with their approval. 
 
 For me, I am prepared to go home and say we have decided 
 to do nothing. Some may say that that is an acknowledgment 
 of our inability to solve the problem. It is admitted. But 
 gentlemen, it may not perhaps be correct to say we have done 
 nothing, for we have gone down to the basis on which the 
 Constitution rests, we have examined the structure built so 
 long ago, we have found it sound in all its essential princi- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 381 
 
 pies, and we have determined that at the present time we can 
 do nothing to improve it, and we have no recommendations 
 to make in the way of changing this structure at this time. 
 Future evils may be dealt with hereafter, but for the present 
 we discover no evils worthy of so great sacrifice as is involved 
 in the change of the system to-day existing for the election of 
 representatives of the people to the popular branch of the 
 legislature. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter Gentlemen of the Convention: I 
 did not come up here for the sake of making any speeches, 
 and I had thought to maintain silence and listen to others 
 throughout this session, but it seems to me it has become the 
 duty of all of us who have anything to say to say it, whether 
 we say it well or otherwise, and therefore I do not consider 
 it presumption in me to address this body of eminent men. 
 
 The gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, this forenoon 
 stated in the most eloquent terms that the very foundation of 
 our whole system of government was equality, and I suppose 
 what he meant was that one man was as good as another at 
 any rate in matters of government and that every man 
 should have just as much voice and power in acting on the 
 various questions of government, and as much right to express 
 his opinion as any other man. That is not the case under our 
 present system of electing representatives, because while in 
 deciding who shall be representative from Exeter, my vote 
 counts just as much as that of my Brother Eastman. When 
 the question has been decided as to who shall represent Exe- 
 ter, the man or men so chosen represent nearly 5,000 inhabi- 
 tants, and the representatives that we send do not in the 
 aggregate have five times as much voice, or five times as many 
 votes, on any particular measure proposed as the representa- 
 tive of a town which has 600 inhabitants. In other words, 
 one man is as good as another and better, too, as the Irishman 
 says, if he happens to live in a country town. That is not 
 equality, but what of it? It does not follow from that, per- 
 haps, that a district system where each district has just so 
 
382 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 many representatives as it has population would be the better. 
 Mathematically and theoretically that is the ideal system, and 
 if we were here to make a Constitution and not merely to de- 
 cide what changes in our present Constitution we should pro- 
 pose to the people, we might conclude, and probably should 
 conclude, that it would be well to adopt a district system. 
 
 I am, as you see, in favor of a district system, but we al- 
 ready have a district system. That is to say, no man who 
 comes here as a representative from any of the larger towns 
 represents the whole community, nor does he properly repre- 
 sent the whole town from which he comes. The town of Exe- 
 ter, which has 5,000 inhabitants, is partly as rural as any por- 
 tion of a small country town, and partly as urban as any of 
 the streets of Manchester where the factory operatives pass 
 back and forth. Whoever comes here from Exeter represents 
 people who have different wishes, different modes of living, 
 and are widely apart in their occupations and interests in gen- 
 eral. And so I say that no one man from such a town can 
 represent all of the people in that town. 
 
 The town system is the district system. What is the town 
 but a district? However, the question is not, as I said before, 
 How should we construct our Constitution if we are making a 
 new one, but the question is, What is the action for us to take 
 and how shall we do it in order to reduce the house of repre- 
 sentatives ? 
 
 That there is occasion to reduce the number of the house of 
 representatives I shall not argue for it is a settled fact known 
 to the majority of those who took the trouble to vote upon 
 the question this last time, and known to all who have 
 watched legislation during the past few years as conducted in 
 the hall where we are now, that the house should be reduced 
 quite materially reduced enough to make it sufficiently 
 small so the business can be conducted with reasonable con- 
 venience to the members themselves. I take it for granted 
 that a reduction to 300 would be sufficient, and I think every- 
 body admits that that would be a sufficient reduction. I am, 
 therefore, in favor of a reduction somewhere in the vicinity 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 383 
 
 of 100 so that the house will remain at about 300. I think 
 there would be no difficulty if that were the only question be- 
 fore us, but when we come to the question whether we shall 
 adopt the district system or the town system in reducing the 
 house, we then come to a place where we have already inequal- 
 ity, and where, as I say, one man's vote if he lives in a small 
 town counts for more that if he lives in a larger community. 
 But have great evils arisen from that state of affairs? If the 
 Constitution of New Hampshire does not produce anything 
 but theoretical injustice, why should we seek to remove the 
 inequality that does no harm? We can reduce the number of 
 representatives, and leave precisely the same amount of rela- 
 tive inequality that now exists. What does that involve? It 
 is only necessary to increase the number of inhabitants that 
 would entitle the town to send one representative, and to in- 
 crease the number for the second representative in propor- 
 tion. For instance, if we increase the number for the first 
 representative from 600 to 800, we would increase the num- 
 ber for the second representative from 1,200 to 1,600 1,600 
 being twice eight, as 1,200 is now twice six and thus retain 
 mathematically the same ratio of inequality as we now have, 
 and which inequality has thus far proved harmless. In that 
 way we injure no one, but do accomplish the result which we, 
 in fact, were sent here to accomplish the reduction of the 
 house of representatives to a reasonable number, and we shall 
 not have dispensed with the system of representation under 
 which the affairs of this state are managed, and well enough 
 managed, and under which they have been so managed during 
 all these years. I think we might well all agree to that method. 
 To entitle a town to one representative it would then have to 
 have a population of 800, and for any additional representa- 
 tive a population of 1,600 more, and thus we should leave the 
 same amount of inequality that now exists, and it would not 
 increase the manifest inequality to the extent of making it 
 dangerous. In its present extent it has not proved at all dan- 
 gerous, it has wrought no evil, and therefore it will undoubt- 
 edly be safe to continue it; but let us not increase that in- 
 
384 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 equality so that it will work an evil, as we should be doing if 
 we increased it by adopting the bill proposed by the gentle- 
 man from Newport, Mr. Barton, and have 600 population 
 necessary for the first representative and an additional 2,000 
 for each additional representative. Let us stay where we now 
 are as to this ratio of inequality. 
 
 The only objection that has been urged to this increase of 
 the unit of representation from 600 to 800, or something else, 
 is that there will be more classed towns. The delegates from 
 these classed towns certainly know what the interests of their 
 constituents are, and they have studied upon this subject 
 fully as well as those who come from the larger places, and 
 their views are entitled to respect. I have talked with quite 
 a number of them, and I think from what I have learned that 
 the people of the smaller towns would be abundantly satisfied 
 if their representation were cut down to the extent it would 
 be by increasing the number necessary for the first repre- 
 sentative to 800, if they were allowed to unite together to 
 elect a representative precisely as is proposed in the amend- 
 ment or the resolution introduced by the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Mitchell, which is the same in substance as 
 the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Newport, 
 Mr. Barton, with a local option feature added, the other 
 difference being that the number necessary for the first repre- 
 sentative is increased. Under the proposed resolution or 
 amendment offered by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Mitchell, towns not having a sufficient population to send 
 one representative, by their own voluntary act not against 
 their will can be united into representative districts. With 
 the exception of that local option feature and the fact that it 
 leaves the unit of representation undetermined, to be deter- 
 mined by some other person or body, the state treasurer, or 
 the secretary of state, or anyone that seems to the Convention 
 to be proper, it is the same as the Barton amendment, and I 
 myself trust although I am in favor of the district system 
 because I think it theoretically the best that under the pres- 
 ent conditions this inequality that now exists will not be in- 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 385 
 
 creased, but will be allowed to remain as it is by the adoption 
 of the resolution introduced or proposed by the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Mitchell. 
 
 Mr. Evans of Xorth Hampton Gentlemen of the Commit- 
 tee: I, too, am one of those who did not intend to speak. 
 
 "There is nothing new under the sun." We have face to 
 face here two principles that have been in conflict since the 
 beginning of man the principle of conservatism and the 
 principle of progress. These two principles collided in the 
 French revolution and in the American revolution, and again 
 in the Civil war, and they are in conflict to-day here in this 
 assembly. 
 
 I stand here as a delegate from one of the smaller towns 
 a town of 812 population. I rejoice that I stand here for that 
 town, not simply because it is desirous that our legislative 
 body shall be reduced, but also because it is ready and expect- 
 ing to lose its representative and to take up the best district 
 system. 
 
 When I came to New Hampshire some five years ago I 
 came as a student of man, in some sense, perhaps, a sociolo- 
 gist. The most distinctive mark of New Hampshire people 
 that came early to my attention was that of conservatism, 
 holding to the old, to tradition. It was a cry of ruts. "Keep 
 us in our ruts." In the country towns and in the country 
 parishes through your state I found this most distinctive 
 mark of conservatism. You and I know that conservatism is 
 good, provided you are on the right way to Heaven, but a 
 curse if you are going the other way. 
 
 When I was elected to come to this Convention as delegate, 
 I took in hand this problem of the reduction of our house of 
 representatives, and I studied it carefully. As a boy in col- 
 lege I had been taught in the science of government, and had 
 learned that the ideal of representative government was that 
 all the people should be equally represented all the time. I 
 knew, of course, that absolute numerical equality of repre- 
 sentation was impossible, but to uphold the principles of our 
 25 
 
386 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 government it was necessary for us to get as near equality in 
 this respect as possible. So when I came here I was simply 
 astonished at the tendency to violate this fundamental prin- 
 ciple of representative government. More than that, I am 
 astonished that men of intelligence in this Convention 
 who know what is right, are perfectly willing to raise expe- 
 diency a,bove what they know to be right, because you, as in- 
 telligent and moral men, know that expediency and right are 
 not always the same. Personally, I believe the darkest pages 
 in our American history have been the results of compromises. 
 
 So, again, we are held fast by this cry of ruts. The town 
 says, "Save us, save us to our ruts. Save us to our conserva- 
 tism." They raise the cry of privilege. Privilege in repre- 
 sentation is the greatest gift of a free people. Is that privi- 
 lege based on merit in this case? 
 
 I have done, perhaps, what some of you may not have done. 
 I have come to live as a Christian minister in one of these 
 New England towns. I have been interested in these people 
 and have given the best of my mind and heart to help these 
 people. I have gone through your state here and there and 
 studied the people of New Hampshire. As a result of this ex- 
 perience and study, I am not ready to say that the country 
 towns of New Hampshire deserve this great privilege. 
 
 A few years ago your honored governor of the state wrote 
 that you were falling back in the country towns of New 
 Hampshire; that you were not in a rut that leads to Heaven. 
 In so saying, he might have said the same of the country 
 towns in all New England, for I know it is true, and I know 
 it is true in New Hampshire. There has not been an ethical 
 or religious congress in New England for five years in which 
 the problem of the country town has not been parelleled 
 with the problem of the city slum. The country towns are 
 going back. I, too, know something of the ignorance, some- 
 thing of the conservatism, something of that unmoral lethargy 
 that seems to be bred in the country people of the state, and 
 the question now arises, Shall we return the right of privilege 
 in representation to a country town because of its ignorance, 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER '10, 1902. 387 
 
 because of its conservatism, because,, shall I say, of its im- 
 moral lethargy? 
 
 My friends of the country towns, some of you men as types 
 of politicians I know. I know your character and your 
 claims. Others of you I know as living in the face of this un- 
 favorable condition of the small towns with regret and the 
 deepest dissatisfaction. Is this not a time to put aside selfish 
 political ambitions and dull our ears to tile cry of the ruts, 
 sink our old established ideas and for the good of the state 
 yield to the demand of the fundamental principle of true 
 government that all men should have equal representation. 
 For this cry for privilege on the part of the small town to me 
 seems nothing less than a crime against the most fundamental 
 principle of representative government. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua Gentlemen of the Committee: 
 To say that I am surprised at the remarks of the gentleman 
 who has just addressed this committee is putting it exceeding- 
 ly mild. I regret that he has sacrificed so much for the coun- 
 try towns of New Hampshire, and in spite of it all that they 
 are still going back. 
 
 You talk about you equality of representation and about 
 the fundamental principle of government being such equality. 
 Why, gentlemen, let us consider the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, or the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Lyford, consider their remarks when they ad- 
 dressed this house so eloquently and appealed to us on the 
 ground that there must be equal representation. Is not there 
 a great injustice and a great inequality, gentlemen, in the 
 district system. 
 
 There may be 10,000 people in one county divided up into 
 districts, and a very large majority of the people may not be 
 equally represented with others, in this, that they will have 
 more men to represent them from one county than those in 
 other counties and other representative districts. Is that 
 equality? 
 
 The gentlemen have appealed to us on the ground of econ- 
 
388 JOUIINAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 omy, but I submit to the intelligence of this body that wo 
 should never sacrifice the high class of legislation we have 
 had for the sake of economy. Never, gentlemen. Whatever 
 the cost may be, let us maintain the high character and the 
 high class of New Hampshire legislation. 
 
 Now the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, presents 
 his district system, and he must admit that there is inequality 
 in that even. He^ urges a change, but fails to give us any 
 reason for the change. 
 
 In a very exhaustive and elaborate argument yesterday af- 
 ternoon, in which he appealed to our past history, and called 
 to his aid the speech of Washington, he referred to our friend 
 Colonel Scott because he had held office a great many years 
 in Hillsborough county. He dealt fairly with my good friend, 
 the colonel, and said that he had always done honor to himself 
 and to those whom he represented. But when you come to 
 office holding I think the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Ly- 
 ford, has had his share. Now, gentlemen, that is not argu- 
 ment; that has nothing to do with the system or the question 
 under consideration. 
 
 The gentleman from Acworth, Mr. Mitchell, comes down 
 here and he appeals to us and asks us out of sympathy to allow 
 these small country towns representation. The gentleman 
 from North Hampton says that you have no right to come 
 here and ask that which is right and just, and ask it on the 
 ground of sympathy. Well, gentlemen, you will have my 
 support, not on the ground of sympathy, but because I believe 
 it is just and I believe it is right. I agree that no sympathy 
 should enter into this question. 
 
 The gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Leach, says that 
 in one ward in Franklin there are about 1,000 over the 1,370 
 that would be necessary to choose a representative under the 
 district system, and suggests that that 1,000 might be at- 
 tached to the town of Bow, for instance, and thus help Bow. 
 But, gentlemen, that would not be the result. In that case 
 the town of Bow would be helping the ward in Franklin to 
 have two representatives. Would not that be the practical 
 effect of such a distribution under the district system? 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 389 
 
 Now we ought to consider this matter and find out what 
 the difficulty is. The gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, 
 this morning advanced only one argument against the present 
 system, that of inequality; but the proposition that he so fully 
 described here is as unequal as the present system. Why 
 should we depart from this system, a system which has served 
 us so well and so long? 
 
 I remember a few years ago when I was an officer here in 
 the legislature, there was an uprising of the people in the 
 state against the so-called assessment orders, and the gentle- 
 men of this great legislative body took the matter in hand, 
 and in a strong, honest way wiped out legislation that allowed 
 the incorporation of these orders and purged the state of 
 those companies which had come in from New Jersey and 
 Maine and were incorporated under the laws of those states. 
 New Hampshire legislation, as has been repeatedly said, com- 
 pares favorably with the legislation of any state in this Union. 
 
 Now why do they tell us that we should change ? Why does 
 the gentleman from North Hampton tell us we should 
 change? He says it is conservative, that it is against prog- 
 ress. Gentlemen, let us be conservative so long as the course 
 we have ever pursued has served us so well. I am willing to 
 be called conservative if that means upholding a principle 
 which has always given to this state high class legislation, 
 and we should never depart from that system unless there is 
 some reason given other than that the state house is not large 
 enough, or that we are too conservative. 
 
 Referring to that remark of the late governor of New 
 Hampshire, I care not whether he be governor of this state 
 or any other office holder, that reflection cast upon my native 
 state I denounced then, and I denounce now, as absolutely 
 false. 
 
 The gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, paid a glow- 
 ing and splendid tribute to the honesty and the integrity of 
 our country towns. We can trust them; we can trust the 
 cities; we can trust the citizens of New Hampshire. We are 
 not going back, we are not false. We are here legislating for 
 
390 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the best interests of our beloved state. Let us approach the 
 question in the spirit of fairness, and let us deal with it in 
 the way that will give to the entire state the highest possible 
 equality. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter For the purpose of receiving a 
 communication from the president, I move that the commit- 
 tee do now arise. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The Pesident in the chair.) 
 
 The President Gentlemen of the Convention: The atten- 
 tion of the chair, at the noon recess, was called to a fact by 
 the chairman of the Finance Committee, which seemed of 
 sufficient importance to present to the Convention. It was 
 not given to the Convention at the opening of the session this 
 afternoon because of a desire to verify the figures and be sure 
 that no error had been made. The chairman of the Finance 
 Committee informed the chair that upon conference with the 
 state treasurer he was informed that the appropriation which 
 has been made for this Convention would be exhausted on 
 Saturday. I saw 'the state treasurer and he gave me the fol- 
 lowing note, which is submitted to the Convention: 
 
 CONCORD, N. II., December 10, 1902. 
 
 HON. FRANK S. STREETER, President Constitutional 
 Convention. 
 
 Dear Sir: At your request I have examined the financial 
 records of the last two conventions (1877 and 1889) and esti- 
 mated the expenses of the present Convention, and in my 
 judgment the appropriation available for the expenses of the 
 present Convention will be exhausted with the close of Satur- 
 day's session, 13th inst. Yours very respectfully, 
 
 SOLON A. CARTER, Treasurer. 
 
 I ought, perhaps, to say in addition that the treasurer in- 
 formed me that probably there would have to be some further 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 391 
 
 legislative appropriation for the expenses up to Saturday 
 night. The Finance Committee have had a meeting, and the 
 chairman is ready to make a brief report, and with unanimous 
 consent of the Convention the report may now be made. 
 
 Mr. Clement of Manchester, Chairman of the Committee 
 on Finance I rise with reluctance to say or do anything that 
 will stop the flow of eloquence we have listened to so long, 
 but I have some figures here which I will read to you, giving 
 you the totals now, and later, if you request the details, the 
 Committee on Finance are prepared to give them. 
 
 If we should remain in session until Saturday, the esti- 
 mated mileage would be $4,900, and the salaries of the mem- 
 bers would be $14,700, and the other expenses pertaining to 
 the Convention and reckoning them on the same basis as the 
 last two conventions would be $5,000. The three items added 
 make $24,600. The appropriation for this Convention was 
 $25,000, and so there would be left over on Saturday night 
 $400. 
 
 I hope we shall hear from the attorney-general as to how 
 far we are justified in extending our sessions into another 
 week. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter Mr. President and Gentlemen of 
 the Convention: We have present a large nimiber of lawyers 
 and gentlemen whose opinion on a question of this sort is cer- 
 tainly as good, if not better, than my own. Instead of giving 
 my opinion as to whether we can legally or illegally remain 
 here, I desire to get the sense of the Convention as to whether 
 it would be better to close the Convention this week or to stay 
 longer. Personally, I should be sorry to ask for an appro- 
 priation beyond what the legislature saw fit to give for the 
 purposes of this Convention, and I hope all possible means 
 will be resorted to in order to complete the business of the 
 Convention this week. 
 
 In view of the situation before us, I want to suggest that we 
 pass a vote this morning to close the debate upon the question 
 
392 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 now before the Committee of the Whole to-day noon instead 
 of to-morrow noon, as the vote had stood prior to this morn- 
 ing. As yon all know, we might discuss this question this af- 
 ternoon, and then we might take a vote provided that the 
 vote which has already passed to act upon this question to- 
 morrow noon could be reconsidered. I think it is worth while 
 for the Convention to consider that proposition whether or 
 not it is best to go on and discuss this question this afternoon, 
 and at the close of the discussion to-day take a vote on the 
 questions submitted by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Chandler, instead of postponing those questions until to-mor- 
 row. You know that this action would not conclude anybody. 
 You would all have a chance to be heard again, and I think it 
 will facilitate the business by putting this matter into the 
 hands of a special committee. 
 
 For the purpose of taking the sense of the Convention upon 
 this subject I voted with the majority to-day to take action 
 to-morrow noon I move that the vote passed this forenoon 
 whereby the Convention voted to consider the proposition 
 submitted by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, be 
 reconsidered. 
 
 I think it is important that we make progress. Not that we 
 want to go away and neglect the business because the appro- 
 priation is exhausted, but it seems to me we have been here 
 long enough and we ought to make progress. I therefore 
 make this motion to take the sense of the Convention, not 
 that I have any particular designs to carry out. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord The member of the Committee 
 on Finance who reported the condition of the appropriation 
 said something about checking the flow of eloquence. This 
 morning the Convention almost unanimously, perhaps unan- 
 imously, voted to postpone the taking of the vote on the ques- 
 tions of apportionment from twelve o'clock to-day until twelve 
 o'clock to-morrow. I found no fault with that, because I 
 think this Convention came here not to earn $3 a day, but to 
 do the business of the state and to discuss the questions which 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 398 
 
 may be presented for consideration. I think, Mr. President 
 and gentlemen of the committee, that we should stay here 
 now, money or no money, until we do that business. 
 
 I think that the President of this Convention rightly and 
 properly called the attention of the Convention to the finan- 
 cial situation. It was, perhaps, his duty to do so. He had no 
 right, perhaps, to assume that we did not care so much about 
 the $3 a day as to come here next week and spend three or 
 four days and finish up the work of this Convention whether 
 we receive our money or not. But, Mr. President, if this 
 statement and report of the committee have any significance 
 at all, it is upon the question whether we will go away Friday 
 or Saturday because we shall not get any more money for 
 coming back next week, or whether we shall come back and do 
 our work even if the $25,000 is already in our pockets and no 
 one can give us any more. 
 
 Undoubtedly no more money can be paid out by the state 
 treasurer than $25,000. The appropriation of March 22d 
 reads as follows: 
 
 ''That a sum not exceeding $25,000, be and is hereby appro- 
 priated to pay the expenses of a Convention to revise the Con- 
 stitution; and the governor is authorized to draw his warrant 
 for so much of said sum as may be necessary for that pur- 
 pose." 
 
 It is unnecessary to repeat that no more money can be ob- 
 tained at this time from the state treasurer than $25,000, but 
 it is also true that the law of March 21, 1901, which provided 
 for this Convention, says that the Convention shall proceed to 
 organize, and may establish rules of proceeding, "and, when 
 organized, shall proceed to revise the Constitution." It does 
 not say proceed to revise the Constitution as long as the 
 money lasts, but it says, "proceed to revise the Constitution." 
 The next section reads as follows: 
 
 "SECT. 7. If any alterations or amendments of the Consti- 
 tution shall be agreed to by said Convention, they shall be so 
 arranged and prepared that the same can be voted on by the 
 people separately, unless the Convention shall be of the opin- 
 
394 JOURNAL OP CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ion that it is impracticable so to prepare and arrange them, in 
 which case the amendments shall be voted on together; and in. 
 either case the Convention shall prescribe the mode of publi- 
 cation of the amendments, the time and manner in which the 
 same shall be submitted to the people for their approval, and 
 may pass an ordinance in relation to the manner of ascertain- 
 ing their decision and declaring and publishing the same, the 
 time when such amendments as shall be approved shall take 
 effect, and may do any and all other things which they deem 
 necessary to carry out the purpose and object of such Conven- 
 tion." 
 
 Now, Mr. President and gentlemen, if the work of the state 
 requires us to come here next week we had better come. If we 
 do come the state owes us $3 a day, and we ought to be will- 
 ing, in order to do the state's work, to trust the state of New 
 Hampshire for that small amount. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester I would like, if in order, to in- 
 quire of the attorney-general the status of the appropriations 
 for former conventions. I was one of the Finance Committee 
 in 1889, and at that session the committee found that the 
 amount of money from the appropriation for the Convention 
 of 1876 which remained unused was $1,701.65, and that 
 amount had not been covered into the treasury. The Conven- 
 tion of 1889 had an unexpended balance of $7,334.01. Now 
 if that never has been covered into the treasury, as I under- 
 stood the treasurer at that time that it had not been, does not 
 that, stand to the credit of this Constitutional Convention, not 
 having been expended by the previous Convention? I would 
 like to have the attorney-general give us his opinion with 
 reference to the status of that unexpended appropriation. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter I am not prepared to answer the 
 question until I have looked at the records and have seen what 
 was done at that time. I should think probably that by this 
 time the money had been covered into the treasury. We 
 have a treasurer that looks after the finances of the state, and 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 395 
 
 I don't believe that there is that amount of money lying 
 around which has not been covered into the general funds. 
 Even if it is not there, I should doubt about our having the 
 right to take it to carry on the proceedings of this Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 I am of the same opinion as that expressed by the distin- 
 guished gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler. We have 
 important matters before us, my credit is fair at the hotel, so 
 I think I could manage to exist through next week even if we 
 were not paid. As I said at the outset, I do not have any de- 
 signs to further in making the motion that I did, but I made 
 it in order to get at the sense of the Convention. I didn't 
 know but a vote taken on the questions before the Committee 
 of the Whole this afternoon would facilitate the business a 
 little more, and the matter could then be sent to the appro- 
 priate special committee, and we would have so much accom- 
 plished. The motion was not made for the purpose of pre- 
 venting any one from remaining here next week and protract- 
 ing the session of this Convention as long as it is thought 
 necessary. 
 
 Mr. Chandler, of Concord I do not want any unfounded 
 financial expectations to be raised by the suggestion made by 
 the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Gilmore, with reference 
 to this unexpended balance of former conventions. It is en- 
 tirely clear to my mind that the balance that may have been 
 unfortunately left over by other conventions is not available 
 here, so we shall have to trust to the state. 
 
 Mr. Smith of Hillsborough I hope the motion of the gen- 
 tleman from Exeter will prevail. We have been here a good 
 part of the time supposed to be allotted to this Convention, 
 and have listened to a good many speeches excellent and elo- 
 quent. We all ought to be now equipped and ready to act 
 upon some features of this question under consideration, and 
 ought to vote upon them to-day, it seems to me, and get 
 through. I do not see why we should occupy any more than 
 
396 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 this week to finish up the business of this Convention. I hope 
 the motion will prevail. 
 
 Mr. S. W. Emery of Portsmouth I would say that the 
 committee made this report so that if it were possible to ex- 
 pedite the business, the Convention could do so. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth The question to my mind, is 
 whether it is fair to those members who,, are unavoidably ab- 
 sent at this time, and who have relied upon our vote to take 
 this matter up to-morrow at twelve o'clock, for us to now 
 attempt to reconsider, and force the Convention to vote upon 
 this important matter of apportionment in the absence of 
 those members desirous of being here when such a vote is 
 taken. 
 
 The question in regard to the appropriation holding out is 
 one of small importance to me, and should be to every member 
 of this Convention. We are here to perform certain duties for 
 the people of the state of New Hampshire, and if the state 
 cannot afford to pay us for the work to be done next week, let 
 us remain here and do it without pay. It will not be the first 
 time that many of us have worked for the good of the state 
 without pay. I believe, as we have had the honor of being 
 elected to serve as members of this Convention, that we 
 should remain here long enough to properly complete the 
 business before us, and trust to the honor of the state to pay 
 us, and if the state does not see fit to do so, we will not com- 
 plain. 
 
 I think that every member who is desirous of being heard 
 on this or any other important matter that comes before the 
 Convention ought to have the opportunity to do so, and I 
 hope we shall not hurry our deliberations on any question that 
 is before us. For one, I am willing to remain here long 
 enough to consider fairly all questions as they arise whether 
 we get pay for our time or not, and I would like to have the 
 sense of this body taken at this time, for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining the number of members who will leave the Convention 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 397 
 
 unless their pay is guaranteed. I do not believe there is a 
 member who will say that he is not willing to come back here 
 next week and close up the business, without pay,, if necessary, 
 but, if there is such a member, I would like to have him arise 
 at this time and so state. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Mr. Chairman, we are now well 
 on in the second week of the session and the one proposition, 
 that as to representation, has been under discussion a large 
 part of the time, and there are over eighty propositions pend- 
 ing before this Convention. I rise to ask if the gentleman 
 from Exeter, Mr. Eastman, will not so far limit or qualify his 
 motion as to make it apply simply to the general question 
 whether the Convention shall adopt a district system or a 
 town system. 
 
 The debate thus far has proceeded on general lines, part of 
 it relating to one phase of the question and part to another. 
 I think it ought first to be determined which plan is to be ac- 
 cepted, and then we can devote this evening, if necessary, and 
 to-morrow, to the question of perfecting whichever plan is 
 adopted. I will ask the gentleman from Exeter whether he 
 will so far qualify his motion as to limit it as suggested. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter I will. So far as I am concerned 
 personally I have no objection to that amendment. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich Is the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, 
 content ? 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I will answer the gentleman from 
 Littleton in this way. I am perfectly willing that there should 
 be a limit to debate at any time this afternoon or this evening, 
 but I think in justice to the gentlemen who are absent and 
 who expect to vote on this question at twelve o'clock to-mor- 
 row we should keep faith with those gentlemen and not vote 
 on any of these questions in their absence. The debate can be 
 limited at any time and yet the vote taken to-morrow at the 
 time set. 
 
398 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Then your proposition is that 
 the debate shall be limited and the vote on the question of 
 apportionment taken to-morrow at twelve. 
 
 I am, then, in favor of the suggestion of the distinguished 
 gentleman from Hillsborough, Mr. Smith. If we do that we 
 shall find ourselves to-morrow in the position of having done 
 nothing. We shall go along until to-morrow on this general 
 discussion and shall find ourselves on Thursday deciding the 
 question whether it shall be a town or a district plan, and 
 what number the house of representatives shall consist of, and 
 the entire question as to how it shall be worked out will have 
 to be gone over again. We are here, gentlemen, first, charged 
 with the duty of reducing the house of representatives. We 
 ought not to go away, as some have suggested, doing nothing 
 in this respect. Something should be done to reduce the 
 house. Four years from now this hall will not hold the mem- 
 bers with the probable increase. The legislature will have to 
 hold its session in the state house yard or some larger place. 
 The state of New Hampshire should not be left in the situa- 
 tion of the government official who brought in a prisoner out 
 in one of the territories, charged with violating the liquor 
 laws, and telegraphed the department of justice at Washing- 
 ton, saying, "We have a prisoner five feet tall and four feet 
 and seven inches wide. The door to the court house is only 
 four feet wide. Shall we make the door wider, or hold court 
 out doors?" and the answer came back, "You better hold 
 court out doors." 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster I am as desirous as any one of ex- 
 pediting the business of this Convention and getting through 
 as early as possible. If we had taken a vote at twelve o'clock 
 this morning, as it was at first understood we should, it would 
 have been agreeable to me; but in a formal and deliberate 
 manner that time was postponed twenty-four hours, and mem- 
 bers have undoubtedly gone away, expecting the vote to be 
 taken at twelve o'clock to-morrow. Now the question whether 
 we have a town or a district system is all there is to it. I do 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 399 
 
 not care how long we discuss this matter, or whether debate 
 is limited or not, but I think it would be manifest injustice 
 not intentional, of course but very unjust to take a vote 
 to-day when it is expected by many who are not here that it 
 will be at twelve to-morrow. I do not know how many are 
 absent, but there are many vacant seats in this house. This 
 debate has continued all this time with the idea of giving 
 everybody the fullest opportunity to be heard and of giving 
 everybody an opportunity to record his vote on this vital ques- 
 tion. I trust that a vote will not be taken upon this to-day. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow The situation is evidently one which 
 demands our attention, and it demands our action in a way 
 which shall not disappoint our constituents, or do injustice 
 to ourselves. We were elected to this Convention, I appre- 
 hend, for a specific purpose, and that specific purpose is the 
 revision of the Constitution. It cannot be regarded as doing 
 our duty if we run away and leave half of the matters brought 
 before this Convention unattended to, whether the appropria- 
 tion is absorbed or not. It seems to me to be our duty to re- 
 main here in some form or shape until we get through the 
 business of the Convention, and for one, I will never vote to 
 adjourn sine die unless some action has been taken on these 
 various propositions, whether we get our pay or not. That is 
 a matter which ought to be of supreme indifference to nine- 
 tenths of us, and I presume is. I am as desirous of getting 
 away from this Convention as any man in this body, but I am 
 not desirous of getting away without performing the duty for 
 which we were sent here. 
 
 There is a suggestion I would like to make but not for any 
 immediate action upon it. I think it is the experience of most 
 of the members of the Convention, as matters have come up 
 for consideration, and as the several proposed amendments 
 have been offered, that we have found that the Constitution 
 we all love is one of considerable age, and that there are quite 
 a number of its sections not absolutely obsolete, but contain- 
 ing expressions that are obsolete, and which might wisely be 
 
400 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 changed by this Convention. I believe, as an individual mem- 
 ber of this Convention, that it would be wise for us to take a 
 recess to-morrow, having first appointed a committee for the 
 revision of the entire Constitution with instructions to that 
 committee to report to us at some time in April or May, to 
 which we may adjourn. I believe we would do more good to 
 the state and accomplish more in that way than in any other. 
 But whether or not that proposition may meet with the ap- 
 proval of any considerable portion of this Convention is now 
 perhaps immaterial . 
 
 I agree entirely with the gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. 
 Kent, and the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, that no 
 vote should be taken to-day. We can close debate now, if we 
 please, and go on to other business, but let us keep our agree- 
 ments. I was in favor of voting at 110011 to-day, but I under- 
 stood that it was intended that every member of the Conven- 
 tion should have the opportunity of expressing himself upon 
 the subject under consideration, and so I did not insist upon 
 my motion. It seems to me, Mr. President, whether or not 
 we consider this question any further we ought at least to keep 
 faith with those that have gone away with the understanding 
 that they can vote to-morrow at noon. 
 
 The question being stated, Shall the vote of the Convention 
 at the morning session fixing the time of voting under Mr. 
 Chandler's order at twelve o'clock Thursday, be re-considered ? 
 the motion was declared lost on a viva voce vote. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Eastman of Exeter, the Convention re- 
 solved itself into Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of 
 further considering the resolutions relating to representation. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Little of Manchester in the chair. 
 
 Mr. Dudley of Concord I beg the indulgence of the com- 
 mittee for a moment to make a few remarks on the matter 
 under consideration. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 401 
 
 I have heard a good deal said about sentiment and princi- 
 ples of equality here in this meeting. It has occurred to me 
 whether there has been any real meaning in the appeals that 
 have been made here to the sense of equality in representa- 
 tion. I came here without any preconceived ideas in regard 
 to what to do or how to vote on this question, and I have lis- 
 tened carefully and considerately to all that has been said, 
 and have tried to arrive at some conclusions myself. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, have you considered what the district sys- 
 tem means? It means this: that if the district system 
 pure and simple is adopted you have got to go into 
 every town and ward and carve them up so that 
 each district shall contain the requisite number to 
 send one or more representatives. Going into Ward! 
 One, Concord, where I live, for- instance, if you fix your dis- 
 tricts according to the ideas of the gentleman from Franklin, 
 Mr. Leach, at 1,370 inhabitants, you would carve a district 
 out of Ward One containing 1,370 inhabitants and would 
 have left about 550 that would not be included in the district. 
 I want you to consider the effect of that. You have carved 
 up this one ward and have gotten a district of the required 
 size from it, but in order to preserve equality of representa- 
 tion under your district system, you have got to put the bal- 
 ance of the inhabitants over into another ward and from that 
 union carve out another district and in that way you have got 
 to go through the towns and wards of the state. 
 
 Under your district system, to preserve this equality, you 
 have got to have your districts about equal in number of pop- 
 ulation, or multiples of a certain number, and, as the popu- 
 lation of the wards and towns are to-day, you will find that 
 none of them will answer the requirements and you will have 
 to revise and carve up anew the towns and wards to readjust 
 them to the district system. 
 
 I have lived in Ward One of Concord some twenty years,. 
 
 and nearly ten years of that time we were within a very few of 
 
 the requisite number to have two representatives, but we had 
 
 only one. We existed during that time under those condi- 
 
 26 
 
402 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tions, and I never found out how miserable the situation was 
 until I came down here to this Convention and heard it de- 
 bated by these speakers who have addressed you. We cer- 
 tainly existed under that system. Under the last census 
 we came up to the requisite number for two representatives, 
 but whatever you gentlemen do here we shall lose one repre- 
 sentative in that ward. We expect to, and I do not think the 
 delegates from that ward will be murdered when they get 
 home if one of the representatives is lost. 
 
 This question of equality what is it? It is only compara- 
 tive equality wherever you go. Take the congressional dis- 
 tricts all over the country and there is no equality in them 
 except comparative equality and they are changing all the 
 time as one district increases and another decreases. 
 
 How is it that the present system has existed so long? How 
 is it that it has stood in this Constitution and stood here in 
 this state ever since the state was a state? It has simply stood 
 here because the people of the state have voted to have it. 
 Why have they voted for it? Because we have considered it 
 the best system that could be devised. Why is it that a town of 
 600 inhabitants should have the same number of representa- 
 tives as a town of 1,800, or rather 1,799? Why is it that a 
 town of 600 inhabitants should have one representative and it 
 takes a town of 1,800 to have another representative? It is 
 because the people of Concord, of Manchester, of Dover, of 
 Portsmouth, and of Exeter, and of all those large towns have 
 said to the people of the small towns, "We want you repre- 
 sented here. We want you to come down into the councils of 
 our state and he heard. If the representation is put at a 
 larger number you cannot be heard, and therefore we will 
 keep it as it is. Come down and consult with us." Not only 
 that, but they have gone into the back towns and the small 
 towns of the state and have picked out governors, and council* 
 ors, and representatives of congress, and perhaps senators. Is 
 there any inequality in that? Is there any question of in- 
 equality or equality. Has not this system stood because this 
 question of opposite interests of the cities as against the towns 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 403 
 
 has never been considered? I was surprised to hear it brought 
 up in this body as it has been in this discussion. The present 
 system has not existed so long because it r was thought to be 
 exactly on the basis of equality, but because the larger towns 
 and cities have voted that it should be so. 
 
 If the basis of representation is made on the basis proposed 
 by the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, at 600 for the 
 first representative and an increase of 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative, where are you then? Are you losing 
 your power? Take the towns in this state of over 600 inhab- 
 itants and look them over, and you can see if at any time they 
 feel they are unequally represented or are being deprived 
 of their rights whenever a Constitutional Convention is called 
 and they can vote to call one they can come down to this 
 Convention, and these towns that have a surplus population 
 over 600 are enough to carry any question through that 
 might be submitted. 
 
 This is the way that I have been looking at this question 
 here to-day. The cities and towns have not said that the pres- 
 ent system is on the basis of absolute equality, but they have 
 said, "Come down here and consult with us; sit in our coun- 
 cils of state and it will have a beneficial effect on the small 
 towns and the large towns and cities alike." There has been 
 no question of the opposite interests of cities and towns in 
 the present system. 
 
 I was a good deal surprised this fall when I was looking 
 around to see who were voters in our ward. I went down to a 
 factory and said to the superintendent, "Whom have you for 
 voters?" It was a large factory, and I expected that there 
 would be many voters employed there; but the superintend- 
 ent said, "There are not more than three or four in my whole 
 mill." How was that? Most of them were women, and chil- 
 dren, and girls. I supposed there were thirty or forty voters 
 there until I investigated. That is a little illustration of the 
 condition of things that exist in many of our cities. You can 
 bear that in mind when you are thinking on this problem of 
 absolute equality with reference to representation. In cities, 
 
404 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 women, girls, and boys are doing a large part of the work. In 
 that mill there were some two hundred inhabitants, and upon 
 that number our representation in that ward was increased; 
 but among them there were only three or four voters. That 
 was the condition there, and it does not apply, I imagine, so 
 much to Concord as it does to such cities as Manchester. In 
 other words, the basis of representation in our cities, and es- 
 pecially in our manufacturing cities, is based upon a large 
 number of inhabitants who are not voters. 
 
 There is another thing to bear in mind when you talk about 
 sentiment. There is sentiment in some things that have, and 
 should have, substantial weight. I think you should bear 
 that in mind, and give to these small towns a share in the rep- 
 resentation so most of them can come here and consult with 
 us in the councils of state, not because of absolute equality in 
 representation, but because we need them. Let us say to- 
 them, "Continue to send such men as you have given us in 
 the past for representatives, for governors, for councilors, 
 and such men as you send us here to this Convention," and 
 I think, gentlemen, you will make no mistake. 
 
 Mr. Shaw of Kensington It seems to be the sentiment of 
 this house that the house of representatives shall consist of 
 300 members, and I think that would be a fair thing. 
 
 I represent a town of less than 600 inhabitants. We had, 
 during the War of the Revolution, 850 inhabitants, and at 
 the first census that was taken about 800. In 1850 we had 
 700, and now we have less than 600 and are pro-rated. I am 
 willing to vote that we shall raise the number necessary for 
 one representative to 800, and that the smaller towns shall be 
 pro-rated, or, if they choose, shall be classed together to send 
 a representative to the legislature. I think that that would 
 be fair. The present system gives a population of 600 for one 
 representative and 1,200 more for each additional representa- 
 tive, and our friends from the larger places do not want this 
 proportion made any worse. I am willing to gratify them, 
 and if we can get a bill through here that will keep the pro- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 405 
 
 portion as it is, and will allow those towns to be classed to- 
 gether which wish to be so classed, I am willing to do that. 
 
 There is another thing that I want to speak about, and that 
 is the number of amendments that we shall submit to the 
 people. I believe that we want to adopt a few measures and 
 then go home, and the people can see that we have done some- 
 thing. You have already been told how way back in 1850 the 
 Constitutional Convention held that year reported a large 
 number of bills. They came together and adopted fifteen pro- 
 posed amendments, and the whole of them were rejected. 
 The people of this state do not want many amendments made 
 to the Constitution. We have had amendments offered here, 
 and the people don't want half of them. I don't believe in it. 
 I think we might adopt a few, and then we can go home and 
 submit them to the people, and the people will approve of 
 them. 
 
 I will say further that many times I have been spoken to 
 by customers who buy my milk, and they would say, "Shaw, 
 your milk is half water," and I replied, "Yes, it is three 
 fourths water; 85 per cent, water, and 15 per cent, cream." 
 Now it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in all of this talk we 
 have heard in this Convention there is too much skimmed 
 milk and too little cream. 
 
 Mr. Blanchard of Pittsburg As this meeting has assumed 
 somewhat the nature of an experience meeting, I want to give 
 my experience. 
 
 We have a population of 687. We had 210 voters at our 
 last election. We have had the privilege of sending one rep- 
 resentative to the legislature for the last fourteen 
 years. Previous to that we were classed with .the 
 town of Clarksville, which lies directly to the south 
 of us. We are bounded on the north and west by 
 the Dominion of Canada, and on the east by the state of 
 Maine, and on the south by Clarksville. Any proposed dis- 
 trict system which would be adopted would necessitate our 
 being classed with Clarksville, and perhaps Stewartstown. 
 
406 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL .CONVENTION. 
 
 Clarksville has 307 inhabitants, and Stewartstown a little over 
 1,100. The town of Pittsburg is situated on the Connecticut 
 river, and extends along that river about fifteen miles. We 
 have in the town a little village where elections are held, and 
 it requires voters in the remote sections of the town, at the 
 present time, when coming to the elections, to travel twelve 
 or fifteen miles, and if we were classed with Clarksville it 
 would require them to travel four miles further when, the vot- 
 ing was done in Clarksville. And what is the situation of 
 Pitttsburg is the situation of a great many of the towns in 
 the northern part of our state. It makes it very inconvenient 
 to our people, or would make it inconvenient if we were 
 classed with other towns. If we had our choice we would 
 rather lose our representative a part of the time than to be 
 classed with another town as we have been in the past. 
 
 Mr. Drew of Lancaster If there is any one else who wishes 
 to speak I will sit down. 
 
 There is one matter of which I omitted to speak when I last 
 addressed you, and which I think requires some consideration. 
 This is the matter of convenience of voting, in cases where 
 towns elect to class themselves, as provided in the Mitchell 
 bill or resolution, if it is adopted. 
 
 I do not understand that the voters will be subjected to the- 
 inconvenience that has been suggested by the last gentleman 
 who has spoken, because I understand that, under our present 
 system of voting, the candidates for representatives named in 
 the classed towns would be upon the tickets in each town in 
 the class, so that each voter would vote in his usual voting 
 place. The classed towns would not need to have a district 
 meeting such as they used to have under the old class system. 
 This is a matter worthy of consideration, and one which might 
 determine the minds of many in favor of or against this prop- 
 osition. 
 
 Having the Australian ballot, with tickets bearing the 
 names of all the candidates, including the name of the candi- 
 date for representative, in the classed towns, the voter would 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 407 
 
 be put to no more inconvenience than he is put to under our 
 present system. 
 
 Mr. Fellows of Tilton The gentleman from Nashua asked 
 the question in a tentative manner, whether the back towns, 
 or rural towns, were going backward. I have been all over the 
 state this fall together with the other members of the state 
 board of equalization, and have had reports of all the towns 
 in the state. The unanimous report from all of the rural 
 towns, so-called, is that they are going back. The selectmen 
 have been before us, and the county commissioners have been 
 before us, and they have asked to have their assessments re- 
 duced because, as they said, the valuation and population were 
 decreasing, and we have very generally reduced the valuation 
 in every country town. They say the valuation should be put 
 on to the cities and larger towns because they are growing. 
 They also ask the legislature to make appropriations for 
 schools, highways, and general public purposes from which 
 they receive benefit. It seems to me it should be a question 
 with them where those taxes are coming from. 
 
 It has been conceded here, I think, that there is no equality 
 in this state under our present Constitution, so far as repre- 
 sentation is concerned. We have been talking about every- 
 body being born free and equal, but that is speaking of 
 ancient times, because it is conceded by myself and other 
 countrymen that each one of us is better than four or five 
 living in the cities, and we ask to have a larger representation 
 because we are better. We also ask to have the cities raise the 
 money for our schools and other appropriations because we 
 ourselves have not the money. 
 
 Under the apportionment bill to be presented to the legis- 
 lature at its next session, it will appear that the valuation of 
 New Hampshire for the purposes of raising taxes is over 
 $285,000,000. Eleven cities of the state have a valuation of 
 $138,000,000, and they pay $482 of every thousand of the 
 state taxes. In other words, they have forty-eight per cent, of 
 the valuation of the state, and they pay forty-eight per cent. 
 
408 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of the public taxes of the state. These same cities have forty- 
 one per cent, of the population of the state; they have thirty- 
 seven per cent, now of its representatives. 
 
 Referring to the city of Manchester for the purpose of mak- 
 ing some comparisons: I find the valuation of Manchester is 
 a little rising $45,000,000, and she has a population of 57,000, 
 in round numbers, and a representation in the house of 49. 
 Taking the four counties of Belknap, Carroll, Sullivan, and 
 Coos, the combined valuation of these counties is $48,000,000, 
 with a population of 84,000, and a representation of 86 as 
 against 49 for Manchester the valuation being practically 
 the same. The three counties of Carroll, Grafton, and Coos 
 have a valuation of nearly $49,000,000, a representation of 89, 
 and a poulation of about 87,000. The two counties of Ches- 
 hire and Grafton have a valuation of $30,000 less than Man- 
 chester, and they have a representation of 74 in the house, 
 their population being 72,165. 
 
 It is admitted here that the population of Manchester and 
 these other cities is made up of foreigners. Instead of smell- 
 ing of the barn-yard they smell of grease, and they are not as 
 good a class of people for the state of New Hampshire as we 
 people who live in the rural communities. But they have a 
 larger wealth per capita, and if we take them according to the 
 amount of money they are able to accumulate they would cer- 
 tainly seem to have the advantage. The valuation of Man- 
 chester, as I have said^ is $45,000,000, with a population of 
 57, 000, while the valuation of the first four counties I named 
 is only $48,000,000 with a population of 83,000, and dividing 
 the valuation among the population in each case you will see 
 that the valuation per capita in Manchester is much greater 
 than in the four counties named. In the three counties, Car- 
 roll, Grafton, and Coos, the population is 87,000, while the 
 valuation is about $49,000,000, as against the population of 
 Manchester of 57,000, and a valuation of $45,000,000. The 
 valuation of the two counties of Cheshire and Grafton is $30,- 
 000 less than Manchester and has a population of 72,000 as 
 against 57,000 in Manchester. Certainly these French-Cana- 
 dians are a poor class of people! 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 409 
 
 If these cities are agreed, as they seem to be, to have this 
 inequality of representation go on, I as a countryman cannot 
 object to it; but it seems to me that we ought to be willing to 
 concede a little to them. I am willing to concede a little for 
 I want to bring about something that will reduce the house. 
 If they are willing to give us 600 and take two or three thou- 
 sand for the number necessary for the second representative, 
 .-all right and well, but if they object to this and say that their 
 representation is at present as low in comparison as that of 
 the country towns, or lower, and they don't want that dis- 
 crepancy to be increased, I am willing to concede that to 
 them. 
 
 There is one resolution that has not been mentioned, but 
 which it seems to me is no unfairer than any other that has 
 been talked of here. That was the resolution introduced by 
 the gentleman from Hillsborough, making one representative 
 from every town and ward in the state. That would give us 
 289 representatives in the house, and since we admit that we 
 are not fair and are not going to be fair, that proposition 
 strikes me rather favorably. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter May I ask the gentleman from 
 Tilton, Mr. Fellows, a question? Can you tell how much the 
 tax paid by the city of Manchester to the state of New Hamp- 
 . shire amounts to? 
 
 Mr. Fellows It will be $159.10 on every thousand. 
 
 Mr. Eastman Do you know how much money the city of 
 Manchester receives from the state for the railroad and sav- 
 ings bank taxes? 
 
 , Mr. Fellows I haven't it here, but it is the same propor- 
 tion that every town receives where that class of property is 
 held, and savings bank depositors are scattered everywhere 
 throughout the state. 
 
 Mr. Eastman Do they not receive enough money from the 
 
410 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 state treasurer to pay their whole state tax and have some 
 forty or fifty thousand dollars over? 
 
 Mr. Fellows That is true, perhaps, because the people live 
 there who have this class of property. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham I would ask the gentleman who 
 has given us these figures if it is not true that the larger pro- 
 portion of the property taxed in these large towns and cities 
 belongs to people outside of the state. As I understand it, a 
 great part of this property taxed is owned by people outside 
 of the state. The property is there, I admit, but do the people 
 own it? 
 
 Mr. Fellows I cannot answer that question. The prop- 
 erty is there, but I cannot state what propSrtion of it is- 
 owned by the citizens of the state and what by others. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard of Amherst I would like to ask a question 
 for information. You speak of the country towns as going 
 back going back in valuation. Haven't you noticed in your 
 travels at the present time that towns are springing into new 
 life and wealth and that new and beautiful summer homes are- 
 springing up everywhere on these farms? 
 
 Mr. Fellows It did occur to the board of equalization that 
 the summer visitors were adding to the prosperity of the 
 towns; but the plea was made to us that they ought not to be 
 taxed because the people did not want to drive them from the 
 state, and in the very towns where they were going we were 
 asked to make reductions in valuations. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard We realize in my town (which has gone back 
 many thousands of dollars in the past ten years) that our val- 
 uation has been too high, and this request for reduction has 
 been because the valuation is more than the property brings at 
 public auction in nearly every case, which is not true of the 
 cities. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 411 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham I wish to make a statement 
 that has perhaps been in the minds of all of you. The gen- 
 tleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, this morning pointed out 
 the desirable features of town representation, and we all 
 agreed with him. I think that he advanced in his eloquent 
 argument some important and true ideas. But this occurs 
 to me why, in this matter of city and town representation, 
 may we not be as democratic as our national government ? At 
 one time New Hampshire sent five representatives to con- 
 gress. She now sends two. Some of the members here will 
 not have to be so old as I am before we are cut down to one. I 
 think the next census will do. Already Delaware, one of 
 the old original thirteen states, has but one representative, 
 and yet she has not population enough to elect that one repre- 
 sentative, if you take it in proportion to the numbers re- 
 quired to elect one representative in other states, such as New 
 York, Pennsylvania, and many of the Western states. Should 
 she on that account be deprived of her one representative? 
 Do you want to be deprived of your representation in con- 
 gress? One man in New Hampshire has the power of seven- 
 teen in the state of New York, as far as representation in 
 congress is concerned. 
 
 As has been remarked, the cities of this state do not suffer 
 on account of any legislation that has been enacted in our 
 legislature, and they cannot suffer, for they have control of 
 the senate at all times. 
 
 I merely desired to call this matter to your attention. Un- 
 doubtedly it has been in the minds of many of you. I think 
 none of us want to lose a representative from New Hamp- 
 shire, but if you argue on the line that the delegates from the 
 cities are arguing here, with reference to town representa- 
 tives, you will lose your representation in congress. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester I have a few figures here 
 
 and I simply want to state them that they may go on record. 
 
 I do not intend to make a speech that would be impossible. 
 
 I think no Manchester man has submitted any distinctive 
 
 plan for adoption in this Convention. On the basis of what 
 
412 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 I believed to be right in the Constitutional Convention of 
 1876, I submitted a proposition as a basis of representation. 
 It was based upon the votes cast for governor at a stated time. 
 I think votes mean something. The voters are the men be- 
 hind the guns, and they are the ones that carry into effect all 
 legislation and all that pertains to it. I agree mainly with 
 Mr. Lyford's bill for representation, base it on representation 
 by counties, but I would simply disagree with him in that it 
 should be made on votes for governor, instead of population. 
 
 On the basis of 300 members for the legislature by votes, 
 Buckingham county would have 37 representatives; Straff ord, 
 29; Belknap, 14; Carroll, 12; Merrimack, 38; Hillsborough, 
 82; Cheshire, 23; Sullivan, 12; Grafton, 30, and Coos, 23, 
 which makes just 300. 
 
 The number of votes cast would mean something, and they 
 would always apply alike. It is a yardstick that applies to 
 every town and state alike, the same as gold is a commercial 
 yardstick as a basis for representing exchange of commerce in 
 the world. 
 
 The Barton bill would give Manchester 31 representatives 
 a loss of 18. The census of 1900 gives the population of 
 Hillsborough county as 112,640. Manchester has 56,987, or 
 1,334 more than the rest of the county. Now is there any 
 reason why Manchester should not have one half of the mem- 
 bers of the county? That would be 41 under a representation 
 of 82 for the whole county Manchester would have 41, or 
 possibly 42. 
 
 Now how would it work under the Barton bill? I will take 
 Goffstown as an illustration from many others. Goffstown 
 has a population of 2,528 and now has two representatives. 
 Under the Barton bill it would have but one. Bennington 
 Ms a population of 667; Greenfield, 605; Brookline, 606; 
 Hancock, 642 an aggregate of 2,520, eight less than Goffs- 
 town and they would have four representatives while Goffs- 
 town would have but one. That is the equality you would get 
 under the Barton bill. Goffstown would lose one representa- 
 tive; Hancock and the other three towns one each. 
 
WEDNESDAI, DECEMBEK 10, 1902. 413 
 
 In the last legislature 100 towns with a population of 56,- 
 949 had 100 representatives; Manchester, with a population 
 of 56,987 more than the 100 towns had but 49. There 
 comes again your equality, 100 to 49, with less population. 
 To be sure, some of those towns were pro-rated towns, and 
 pro-rated towns will exist under any system except the town 
 system. 
 
 Now the gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Leach, spoke about 
 transferring votes from one place to another. My idea would 
 be, where there is a surplus say, for instance, in the city of 
 Manchester under any bill there probably would be a large 
 surplus. Now if we were entitled to two extra, or three, and 
 Wards Three, Four, and Five should .have a large surplus after 
 electing the representatives allotted to them, then representa- 
 tives could be elected at large throughout the city to complete 
 the equalization. 
 
 Now, as I have said before, I had no proposition of my own 
 neither has any Manchester delegate. Mr. Lyford's bill 
 comes the nearest to being right, to my mind. There are, of 
 course, as I think, some imperfections in it. I do not want 
 the legislature to meddle with anything in the shape of al- 
 lotting representation. I want some board to decide, which 
 is appointed either by the superior, or the supreme court, or 
 elected by the people a board that will divide the counties 
 equitably, and I would not have it done less than once in ten 
 years, and then on the basis of the previous governor election. 
 If this is done by a board appointed by the court or elected 
 by the people it removes from the legislature the temptation 
 of dickering. There is a temptation to do almost everything 
 in the legislation line by dickering. As many of us know, at 
 the first of the session the members will reject a proposition, 
 three to one, but when they get into the whirl of legislation 
 and each member is trying to get some bill through, I have 
 known them to reverse the action taken at the first of the 
 session and pass that very measure which they rejected and 
 pass it by a vote of three to one. I do not believe that they 
 should be placed in such a position with reference to this 
 
414 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 matter of representation. I believe if it is possible that this 
 board should be elected by the people. 
 
 Manchester pays one sixth of the taxes of the state, but 
 never had a member of the board of equalization. We are 
 too modest down there altogether and always have been. We 
 abide by what they give us and take it and go along. Still 
 we manage to live, or hay so far. 
 
 I believe the secretary of state, the state treasurer, the in- 
 surance commissioners, the board of equalization, and every- 
 thing should come fresh from the people and should be elect- 
 ed once in two years. I believe the railroad commissioners 
 especially should be elected. Possibly I am wrong in this, 
 but I am willing to abide by it. 
 
 Mr. Barton of Newport Gentlemen of the Convention: 
 I will not tell you at the start that I do not intend to make a 
 speech, because you will know before I get through that 1 
 have tried to make one, however well I may succeed. I have 
 noticed that those who have told us they did not intend to 
 make a speech have managed to keep on their feet a long 
 time and say a good deal. 
 
 It was my privilege to introduce this measure which bears 
 the name of the "Barton bill," and which has been talked 
 about more or less at every session of this Convention. I am 
 very anxious that my position on that measure should be un- 
 derstood, and I feel that it is not at present. 
 
 I believe there is a great principle involved in the way that 
 our towns are represented in the legislature and in the make- 
 up of our representative body. I do not think it can be re- 
 duced to a matter of dollars and cents. I agree with the gen- 
 tleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, who spoke this morning. 
 I have heard some say they did not -really understand his 
 position. If that gentleman did not make himself plain I 
 may well despair of succeeding better. I understood the gen- 
 tleman to say his idea was that all towns should have a rep- 
 resentative in the legislature to speak for them, and be at all 
 times ready to protect their interests, that their cases might 
 not go by default. 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 415 
 
 Thus far I think we have not listened to a single reference 
 to our Federal Constitution, and I would like to read, with 
 jour forbearance, one or two sections from that document. 
 
 Article I, Section 2. 
 
 "SECT. 2. The house of representatives shall be composed 
 'of members chosen every second year by the people of the 
 several states, and the electors in each state shall have the 
 qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous 
 branch of the state legislature. 
 
 "No person shall be a representative who shall not have 
 attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years 
 a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elect- 
 ed, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. 
 
 "Bepresentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned 
 among the several states which may be included within this 
 Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be 
 determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, 
 including those bound to service for a term of years, and ex- 
 cluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons. 
 The actual enumeration shall be made within three years 
 after the first meeting of the congress of the United States, 
 and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such man- 
 ner as they shall by law direct. The number of representa- 
 tives shall not exceed one for every 30,000; ~but each state shall 
 have at least one representative, . . " 
 
 Now right there is the meat of the whole proposition. We 
 are told that it is not right for a town of 600 people to have 
 a representative, and that other towns go on acquiring 2,000 
 additional population before they will be given a second 
 representative. I grant that is not perfectly equal, but the 
 framers of the Constitution of the United States gave New 
 Hampshire the right to a representative, and gave the same 
 right to every state in the Union to have a representative in 
 our federal congress assembled at Washington. They said 
 that every state should be heard. The inequality of the sys- 
 
416 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tern but represents the sacrifice our fathers were willing to 
 make for the principle of popular representation. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow If the gentleman will pardon me, I 
 should like to ask the gentleman from Newport a question. 
 
 The Chairman Does the gentleman from Newport yield 
 to the gentleman from Bow? 
 
 Mr. Barton Yes. 
 
 Mr. Baker My question is if he does not recognize that 
 there is a vast difference between towns included in a state 
 in one family as it were and the situation of the different 
 independent states forming a constitution wherein those sev- 
 eral states each yield something for the purpose of establish- 
 ing an organization or union? One is a family and the other 
 is a group of families. 
 
 Mr. Barton I will answer the gentleman by saying that I 
 think it has been pretty well settled that our Federal Union is- 
 but one family. It has cost a good deal- of money and blood 
 to settle it, but I have always thought it was so settled, and 
 settled nearly forty years ago. Yet in all this time our Con- 
 stitution has not been changed in this respect. I take it that 
 the states do form a union in this country as indissoluble as 
 that of a family, and the principle of representation is ex- 
 actly the same when applied to the little towns of the state 
 with reference to the whole state as it is in the larger field of 
 the whole Union when applied to the different states of the 
 Union. I maintain it is precisely the same principle, and the 
 framers of that great instrument recognized the principle of 
 representation as one of such moment that concessions should 
 be made to it, and then and there they said that every state, 
 QO matter how small, should have a voice in congress. That 
 was for the purpose of representation and for no other. They 
 did not propose to have a state's case called in congress and 
 no man there to answer for it. They said that there should 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 417 
 
 be a man there to stand for it, to represent it, and that is the 
 principle that I believe should be laid down and kept in the 
 Constitution of the state of New Hampshire. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord Suppose this condition conies 
 about, that by and by the Union consists of 100 states, if it 
 were possible, for the purpose of illustration and it coming 
 about gradually and unavoidably that seventy-five of those 
 states would be in the relative condition of Delaware and 
 Nevada, which has only population enough to make a decent 
 city suppose it should come about that seventy-five out of a 
 hundred would be in that condition, would the proposition 
 that each state should have a representative be a fair one? 
 
 Mr. Barton of Newport I believe most emphatically it 
 would. I think that the state of New Hampshire never 
 should agree to elect a representative to congress for only 
 part of the time, and say, let Ehode Island elect for a part of 
 the time, but that New Hampshire should always have an 
 advocate in the national house, and if it becomes necessary to 
 construct a new capitol at Washington to accommodate the 
 representatives, as it is feared we shall have to do in Concord, 
 we will build a new capitol. The principle of representation 
 is so inextricably interwoven into the fabric of our govern- 
 ment, that you cannot pluck it out except you destroy the 
 government itself. Each" state will always insist upon repre- 
 sentation in congress all of the time. It was this principle of 
 representation which I had in mind and acted on when I fixed 
 the number for the first representative at 600. 
 
 I do not approve pro-rating towns having less population 
 than 600, believing the same to be fundamentally wrong, but 
 I am aware that in 1876 the country towns consented to this 
 arrangement. Feeling that we are assembled to accomplish 
 the reduction of the house, and not thinking we had come to 
 the point where we were likely to adopt anything radically 
 different from our present method of electing representatives, 
 I presented this measure. Thus to me the most feasible prop- 
 osition seemed to strike off one or two representatives from 
 27 
 
I 
 
 418 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 towns and cities sending several, and not to increase that class 
 of towns which are represented only a part of the time. 
 
 If we are prepared to adopt the district system, I will not 
 oppose it, for I believe it is the only scheme, apart from each 
 town having a representative of its own all of the time, which 
 is theoretically correct in America. But, gentlemen, we are 
 not prepared for that system, as all who have taken the tem- 
 per of this Convention thoroughly understand. The gentle- 
 man from Lancaster, Mr. Kent, speaking ef a very important 
 feature of this question yesterday, said that it was a very differ- 
 ent thing for a town which had three representatives to concede 
 one or possibly two, from what it was for a town which had 
 only one representative to concede that one. This, gentle- 
 men, is unquestionably so. We would be willing to lose one 
 representative in Newport, and the town, as a matter of fact, 
 ^expects to lose one, and we might be brought to think that we 
 could get along with a loss of two, but we would fight tooth 
 and nail before we would lose the last one, because we want 
 to be represented. You are rubbing harder when you rub out 
 the last one, than when- you are rubbing out one out of four 
 or five. 
 
 The friends of this bill, in considering what it would cost, 
 asked themselves the question, "How much can I afford to 
 give?" Some thought they could give one representative; 
 other towns thought they could give two, and so we went 
 along in this way. This was the spirit in which we looked at 
 it not how much is the other fellow going to give, but how 
 much can we afford to give. We might have been foolish and 
 not foresighted in taking this position, but actually that is 
 the way we looked at it. But when we come down to Man- 
 chester, the delegates do not look at the matter in this way. 
 It is not how much they can afford to give, but how much the 
 other fellow is going to give. I do not think Manchester is 
 looking at it from the right standpoint. How much can they 
 afford to give for the sake of reducing the house without 
 jeopardizing their interests, and how much can we afford to 
 give. This is the principle I think we ought to act upon. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1902. 419 
 
 They say the little town has no interests in the legislation 
 of the state, no vital interest, but has n't it? There has 
 been, and will be, legislation along the lines of good roads, 
 forestry, fish and game, summer visitors, etc. Do not every 
 one of these questions affect the rural communities? They 
 do not all involve expenditure of money, perhaps, but they are 
 of importance to these country towns. 
 
 At the present time, gentlemen, there are sixty-eight" or 
 nine pro-rated towns and it is agreed that only two thirds 
 send a representative to any single legislature. This makes 
 one third that is always left out twenty-three towns that 
 have no vote or voice in our legislative body. If you are to 
 raise the number for the first representative to 800 or for 
 that matter if you should raise it to seven, as it would make 
 little difference because most of the damage is done between 
 six and seven if you should raise it to 800 you would have 
 thirty-seven towns left out every time you came to the legis- 
 lature, they would have no voice in the legislation enacted 
 and no one to represent their interests. I say that this is not 
 right. It is in flat violation of our Federal Constitution. It is 
 undemocratic, it is unjust, and I am unalterably opposed to it. 
 
 I hope I have made myself plain in this matter. If we are 
 prepared for a system that will represent us all in each legis- 
 lature I am for such a system. If we are not, let us stop right 
 here and not extend any further this inequitable and un- 
 American doctrine of disfranchising our small towns. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Franklin I move that the Committee do now 
 arise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 
 
 (Motion prevailed.) 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Little, chairman of the Committee of the Whole, re- 
 ported that the Committee had been in session, having had 
 
420 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 under consideration article nine, part two of the Constitution, 
 relating to the legislative department of the government of 
 our state, and had voted to rise, report progress, and ask leave 
 to sit again. 
 
 Leave was granted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chase of Bristol, the Convention ad- 
 journed. 
 
 THUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered "by the chaplain. 
 
 The reading of the journal of the preceding day was begun, 
 when on motion of Mr. Stone of Andover, the further reading 
 was dispensed with. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Little of Manchester, the Convention re- 
 solved itself into Committee of the Whole, to consider the 
 various resolutions in amendment of article nine, part two of 
 the Constitution, relating to representation. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Jones of Manchester in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Pike of Stark Gentlemen of the Committee: I did not 
 intend to take any of your time. There has been plenty of 
 talk here and some figures which are misleading, I think. I 
 assume, gentlemen, that a majority -of this body favors the 
 town system, therefore I shall confine my talk to that propo- 
 sition and to the matter of the minimum number that should 
 be required for the first representative. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 421 
 
 We have in this state thirty towns with a population of 
 from six to seven hundred, and twelve towns with a popula- 
 tion of from seven to eight hundred, making in all forty-two 
 towns with a population of between 600 and 800. Those 
 towns if allowed to elect representatives to each session of the 
 legislature as they would be on a basis of 600, on a basis of 800 
 would have to be pro-rated. Pro-rated they would be allowed 
 to elect legislators three fourths of the time, which would 
 take out only eleven members at each session of the legisla- 
 ture not a very large number. If the first number was made 
 700 instead of 800, then you would simply have three more 
 members from those towns than if the number were fixed at 
 800. The thirty towns from six to seven hundred would send 
 but eight representatives to each session of the legislature 
 more if allowed to elect on a basis of 600, and they would 
 only send eleven less on the basis of 800 than if allowed to 
 .elect on the basis of 600. That is not a very large increase. 
 It does not seem to me that it is large enough to be dangerous. 
 
 My first idea was that this struck the northern part of the 
 state, but when I came to go over it I found it was not so. It 
 strikes the southern part of the state, the towns contiguous to 
 large cities, and certainly those cities ought not to be afraid 
 to have one or two representatives from towns contiguous to 
 them. The only harm they would possibly do in any event 
 would be in the county conventions for the purpose of raising 
 money and building county buildings, etc. Certainly it 
 would be a pretty small representation that they would have 
 in addition if allowed to elect on the old basis of 600 instead 
 of 800. It would only increase the members in each session 
 of the legislature eleven if put at six instead of eight, and if 
 put at seven instead of eignt it would make a difference of 
 only three in each legislature. 
 
 The following is the difference by counties that it would 
 make if the basis was 600 instead of 800: 
 
 In the county of Eockingham, 2. 
 
 In Strafford, % of 1. 
 
 In Belknap, % of 1. 
 
422 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 In Carroll, %. 
 
 In Merrimack, it would add 2. 
 
 In Hillsborough, 1%. 
 
 In Cheshire, % of 1. 
 
 In Sullivan it would make no difference. 
 
 In Grafton, 2. 
 
 In Coos, 1. 
 
 In the county of Eockingham there are six towns with a 
 population of from 600 to 700, and two of a population of 
 from 700 to 800, so they would get two additional representa- 
 tives in each house, or at each session. In Straff ord there is 
 only one town from GOO to 700 and none from 700 to 800. 
 In Belknap county there is one from 600 to 700 and none 
 from 700 to 800. In Carroll, there are three from 600 to 700 
 and none from 700 to 800. In Merrimack, there are five from 
 600 to 700, and four from 700 to 800. 
 
 It is not favoring the boys up in the woods to allow 600 as 
 the minimum, but it is favoring the lower end of the state. 
 
 In Hillsborough county there are six from 600 to 700, and 
 none from 700 to 800. In Cheshire county there is one from 
 600 to 700, and two from 700 to 800. In Sullivan county 
 there are none. In Grafton there are six from 600 to 700 and 
 two from 700 to 800. In Coos there are two from 600 to 700 
 and two from 700 to 800. Two of those towns are Carroll, 
 with perhaps more summer hotel property than any other 
 town in the state except perhaps Bethlehem, and the other 
 one of those towns is Pittsburg, and all those towns in Coos 
 county are towns having a large value in timber lands. 
 
 I do not see how it would be doing any wrong, and I do 
 not think it would be dangerous to add eleven members to the 
 house at each session. I think this house will vote for the 
 town system, and I think it will put it on the basis of 600, be- 
 cause I think it will do no injustice. 
 
 Mr. Clyde of Hudson Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of 
 the Committee: I do not come down here in front for the 
 purpose of making a speech, but I have contracted a bad cold; 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 428 
 
 since coming to this Convention and I think it will be more 
 comfortable for you and for myself also if I come down here 
 where you can all hear me. 
 
 I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the clerk read the resolu- 
 tion which I presented. (Eesolution read by the clerk.) 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as the chair has stated, I 
 come from the town of Hudson, a country town, a town on 
 the east bank of the Merrimack opposite the city of Nashua. 
 I was not born in that town. I was born in the old state of 
 Massachusetts, but when I was two years old they brought me 
 into that town and there since that time for the most part I 
 have resided. I have played in its fields, fished in its streams, 
 and worked on its land; I have served in different capacities 
 in that town, and people have trusted me and I have trusted 
 them. That is my home and of course I love that town and: 
 have an interest in it. 
 
 Over to the east of that town is the old town of Windham. 
 There in 1672 my great-great-grandfather settled, and there 
 in the woods is the old homestead. Down there in front of the 
 old homestead is the spot where it is said the minute-men of 
 Windham mustered to take part in the War of the Bevolu- 
 tion. Down there in the old cemetery are the graves of my 
 grandfather, my great-grandfather, and my great-great-grand- 
 father. I love that old town as well, and I would be the last 
 man to vote away from either of those towns any of their 
 sacred privileges. 
 
 After I finished my school, and passed the New Hampshire- 
 bar examination, which my friend from Exeter, Mr. Eastman,, 
 presided over, I hung my shingle out in the city of Nashua. 
 I have been going in and out of that city for the last seven- 
 years and have become pretty well acquainted with its busi- 
 ness men, its lawyers, and professional men, and my business 
 has enabled me to come in contact with these people. Some 
 of them are of the old Dunstable stock; some of them come- 
 from New Boston, as the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. 
 Wason; some from Milford, as the gentleman from Nashua,. 
 Mr. Hamblett; and some from the snowy plains of Canada; 
 
424 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 some from the isles across the sea; some from the plains of 
 Poland, and some of them from the shores of the Mediter- 
 ranean where perhaps Paul embarked for the city of Rome, 
 and I love that city and its people and have a business interest 
 there. So I have an interest in the city and town as well. 
 
 I do not want my patriotism to be bounded by Pelham on 
 the south, Windham an the east, Litchfield on the north, nor 
 the Merrimack river on the west. Out here in your state 
 house yard you have a statue of the greatest son of New 
 Hampshire, who subsequently became a son of Massachusetts 
 and was later claimed as a son of the Union. He said some- 
 thing about patriotism once upon a time. On the 26th day of 
 January, 1830, he said in the senate of the United States, re- 
 plying to that great senator from South Carolina I want to 
 read just a word 
 
 "I shall not acknowledge that the honorable member goes 
 before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent or 
 distinguished character South Carolina has produced. I claim 
 part of the honor, I partake in the pride of her great name. 
 I claim them for countrymen, one and all. The Laurenses, 
 the Rutledges, the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Marions- 
 Americans all whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by 
 the state lines than their talents and patriotism were capable 
 of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. In 
 their day and generation, they served and honored the coun- 
 try, and the whole country; and their renown is of the treas- 
 ures of the whole country." 
 
 Now, my friends, to-day we ought to come here with a 
 spirit like that of Daniel Webster. There should be no 
 Nashua here, no Manchester here, no Coos here, no Carroll 
 here nothing but New Hampshire, the grand old state of 
 New Hampshire, the grandest and best republic of all the 
 land. So my first thought, gentlemen, is patriotism, patriot- 
 ism for old New Hampshire. 
 
 My second thought is justice. A gentleman from Nashua 
 said that there is no God, but there is a God, gentlemen, and 
 He presides over the destinies of nations and of peoples, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 425 
 
 and has presided over the destiny of this Union, and has and 
 is presiding over the destiny of the state of New Hampshire. 
 What did He through his apostles say: "And what doth the 
 Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and 
 to walk humbly with thy God?" Again, "Thou shalt not 
 steal;" "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or his ox, or 
 his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor's." I do not know 
 but it is just as well to apply that politically as in any other 
 way, and so my thought is, gentlemen, in whatever we do it 
 shall be done first in patriotism and then with justice and 
 equity. 
 
 Now we have been here, as the gentleman from Bedford, 
 Mr. Woodbury, has said, and we have carried on this discus- 
 sion under this plan for the most part. Members have come 
 here with the idea of justice and equity, and they have pre- 
 sented their resolutions with the idea that they tend to justice 
 and the best interests of New Hampshire and to equality for 
 all. Now what have we here in the problems that we have 
 been discussing. The gentleman from Laconia, Mr. Busiel, 
 said the other day when the framers of our Constitution 
 framed article nine, that we have under consideration, they 
 came down to the words "There shall be, in the legislature of 
 this state, a representation of the people biennially elected, and 
 founded upon principles of equality," and then stopped there 
 and inserted something which was very unjust. Perhaps I 
 agree with him and perhaps I do not; but I will say this, that 
 they did not only stop there but went a little further and they 
 gave away some of their sacred rights. They put into the 
 hands of their representatives absolute power, without the 
 power to undo the work of those representatives except 
 through a general election. This principle, gentlemen, I be- 
 lieve has worked evil in this country and has produced the 
 evils that our great high-minded president of the United 
 States is now grappling with and for which he deserves the 
 support of every citizen of every town and every state in the 
 Union. With reference to the giving away of some of this 
 power I have introduced a resolution which I will speak of 
 later in this Convention. 
 
426 JOUIINAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, we are in the same position in one sense 
 that our fathers were in their day. We are met here for the 
 some purposes. We are to try to find equality between the 
 towns. We have considered this question for days and have 
 heard the best and most accomplished men from the New 
 Hampshire bar and from all walks of life with reference to 
 this subject. What is the conclusion of this whole matter? It 
 is that whatever system we adopt it will not be exactly a sys- 
 tem of perfect equality. 
 
 Some have said that Mr. Lyf ord's proposition represents the 
 largest equality. The gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Bart- 
 lett, a good lawyer and a man whom I respect, has said so, but 
 it does not represent absolute equality. The gentleman from 
 Bedford, Mr. Woodbury, yesterday punctured it twice. I 
 think Judge Bartlett showed it up when he said in his article 
 in The Manchester Union that no better scheme for keeping 
 the party in power in control could be devised, as the state 
 could be so divided as to maintain a majority in the house. 
 But Mr. Lyford jumps up and says, "Let the supreme court 
 do that redistricting." Gentlemen, I object. I am an at- 
 torney in New Hampshire, and I have given three years of my 
 life to the law. I am interested in the good administration of 
 the law. That is my business. Gentlemen, I insist that the 
 supreme court of New Hampshire shall be kept pure and in- 
 violate. I insist that the supreme court shall not be dele- 
 gated to appoint schoolmarms in country schools, or select- 
 men, or county solicitors, or sheriffs, but it shall be and re- 
 main a pure and honorable body as it always has been, and 
 that there shall be no politics mixed up with it. 
 
 Mr. Barton's resolution is not equitable. I think Mr. Ly- 
 ford in his remarks showed that. Also in the bill of the gen- 
 tleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, I think there is inequality 
 in that. You know it. You cannot put that bill down as one 
 of perfect equality. 
 
 Now what is to be said of my scheme, to have one repre- 
 sentative from every ward of a city and every town of the 
 state? What do you say to that? My Brother Hamblett said 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 427 
 
 the other night that that was the worst yet. One of the points 
 here, and the principal point is to get rid of this inequality of 
 representation in some way. You all love equality, and you 
 are all interested in having equality in the election of repre- 
 sentatives. In all of these systems that have been presented 
 there would be undoubtedly inequality in representation. I 
 have in my resolution provided for a representative from each 
 ward and town in .the state. There may be inequality in 
 that, but my remedy for any injustice that might arise from 
 such inequality of representation would be in insuring a refer- 
 endum to the people of all questions. I want to ask you, gen- 
 tlemen, to study this when you have the time. I do say that 
 my proposition would be the most equitable of any proposition 
 that has been proposed. 
 
 Now let us come to this question with a view of the best 
 interests of the state. What are the best interests of New 
 Hampshire? I will say in the first place, economy. Do we 
 not want economy in New Hampshire? Have we any money 
 to throw away? Coal is $10 a ton, and the cattle disease has 
 crossed the line. 
 
 Some of you have said that you came here with no precon- 
 ceived notions. I did. I came here with the notion that we 
 should have only 100 representatives. I said that this large 
 number, 300, is too many and too expensive to the state. So 
 I went to figuring. Supposing you could cut the representa- 
 tion down to 100 members. Supposing on the average we 
 have had in this state 375 for the last twenty-five sessions I 
 do not know whether that is right or not. You have paid 
 them each at least $250 a session. "We will take out 275, and 
 that represents an annual payment of $68,750, that would be 
 saved at each session of the legislature. Twenty-five times 
 that amount would be $1,718,750. Would not that money 
 have done a great deal of good in New Hampshire if it had 
 been expended in other ways? They tell us that it would cost 
 $5,000, to build a mile of boulevard. How many miles of 
 boulevard can we build in New Hampshire with that money? 
 Three hundred and fort}^-three. Lay that number of miles 
 
428 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 down on your map when you go home and see how it* would 
 benefit the state of New Hampshire. How many school- 
 houses could be built with it? We will say that the average 
 cost of a schoolhouse is $2,000. Perhaps that is high. How 
 many schoolhouses would that sum of money build? Eight 
 hundred and fifty-nine. I served on a school board awhile 
 and know what it costs a week to run a school. We will say 
 $80 or $90. Suppose in the average country town it costs 
 $100 a week. How many weeks of school would that $1,700,- 
 000, give us? Mr. Baker said] that we had 225 towns in New 
 Hampshire. Divide that up among the 225 towns, and it 
 would give us $7,600. I think the average year's term about 
 twenty-five weeks. Divide seventy-six by three and you would 
 have about twenty-five. That is, you would have three years 
 of school of twenty-five weeks in each town for the money that 
 has been paid to these additional representatives. I think 
 that would do a lot of good in the cause of education. 
 
 We will come to another point, and this point is work well 
 done. I think 100 members of the legislature will do the work 
 of this state well, as well as a larger number. 
 
 In some respects I have changed my ideas with reference to 
 the number that should be in the house -by talking with other 
 members of this Convention, and I think, all things consid- 
 ered, there ought to be about 300 members. Whatever system 
 we choose, whether Mr. Lyford's district system, or Mr. Bar- 
 ton's town system, or Mr. Mitchell's system, we have in each 
 about 300 members. The district system would give us just 
 300. Mr. Barton's and Mr. Mitchell's about the same. How 
 many would we have under the system that I have proposed? 
 There are 225 towns and sixty-six wards in the state, and that 
 would make 291, if I am correct. And so in all of these sys- 
 tems we seem to be agreed upon about 300 as the number. 
 
 Coming to another point, that of efficiency of representa- 
 tion. There is a distinction between equality of representa- 
 tion and efficiency of representation. What is that distinc- 
 tion? This state is made up of little republics, as has been 
 said, little communities which are republics in themselves. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 429 
 
 Now it is well for the representatives to know the character- 
 istics and the purposes and the wants of the community that 
 they represent. It has been proposed that Hudson and Pel- 
 ham be united to send a representative to the house. I know 
 Hudson pretty well, I know its people and its policies; but I 
 do not know nearly so well the people of the town of Pelham 
 or its wants. I do not know the policy of that town. If, there- 
 fore, I should be elected to represent that town with Hudson 
 would there not be an inefficiency of representation so far as 
 Pelham is concerned, and if a man from Pelham was elected 
 to represent both towns would not the same inefficiency of 
 representation apply for the town of Hudson. That is what I 
 mean by inefficiency of representation, and what I seek to 
 avoid in my scheme. I say that my scheme of having a man 
 from every town and every ward represents the best efficiency. 
 My proposition as regards efficiency is at one end of the line 
 whereas Mr. Lyford's proposition is at the other end, while his 
 represents the best equality. Now, then, we must get together. 
 
 Here is another point, and that is, permanency of repre- 
 sentation should be considered. How about that. Mr. Ly- 
 ford's scheme proposes 300 members all the time. Mr. 
 Mitchell's proposes to have 301 all the time. My scheme 
 would give us 291 all the time. Mr. Barton's would not, but 
 a constant increase. 
 
 Let us see then what we are after. We want efficiency with 
 equality and with permanency in this matter. 
 
 Now I think Mr. Mitchell's proposition represents perma- 
 nency. I think for a large part also it represents efficiency, 
 as you will get representatives who have knowledge of the 
 people and of the policies of these little towns. For a large 
 part it also represents equality of representation, but there is 
 something lacking with that. What is it? I want something 
 that will give an opportunity to undo if anything is done 
 wrong by reason of this inequality of representation. If by 
 reason of a greater representation from the towns than from 
 the cities. For instance, if by means of that greater repre- 
 sentation the towns shall say to the cities, "You must have 
 
430 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 prohibition," forcing the people of the cities to submit, and 
 thus making them hypocrites and liars and everything else 
 I want to give the cities an opportunity to appeal. To appeal 
 to whom. To appeal to the tribunal of last resorts. To ap- 
 peal to the czar. Who is the czar in New Hampshire? The 
 people. They are the jury, and there should be a chance of 
 .appeal to the people of New Hampshire. Take good roads, 
 for instance, in the southern part of the state. We want a 
 boulevard from Nashua to Manchester, but supposing there is 
 a great inequality of representation in favor of the towns and 
 the people from the north think that we don't need such a 
 boulevard and refuse to give it to us. We want the chance to 
 appeal to the whole people, and by the referendum petition 
 have that matter decided by the court of last resort the 
 people. 
 
 Now Mr. Mitchell is a Democrat and his party has en- 
 dorsed the referendum principle. Now I stand here as a Re- 
 publican, knowing what Eepublican Governor Geer of Oregon 
 said; knowing what Republican Governor Crane of Massachu- 
 setts said; knowing what these men have said, I stand here as 
 .a Republican and offer my referendum amendment to Mr. 
 Mitchell's bill, and then it is a perfect bill, perhaps not per- 
 fect, but the best we can get. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough If I am correct in my time, 
 Mr. Chairman, we have but a little more than half an hour 
 before the time for the special order, when we are to com- 
 mence to vote upon this question. While I now have the 
 floor and consequently could keep it until that time if I saw 
 fit unless the Convention sat me down, I would not be so un- 
 fair. In the short time which we now have to discuss this 
 matter I think speeches should be limited to five minutes, 
 and I therefore move that from now until the time of the 
 special order all speeches be limited to that time. 
 
 (Question is put by the chair and the motion prevailed.) 
 Mr. Rogers of Tilton Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 431 
 
 this Convention: If any one had said to me two months ago 
 that I was to stand before this Convention and address it on 
 the constitutional question I should have said they were very 
 much mistaken. 
 
 I am very conservative, and if conservatism is evidence of 
 ignorance, as stated to us yesterday, I must be densely 
 ignorant. It seems to me as I have listened to this discussion, 
 and I have heard it all, that there is one principle that has 
 been overlooked entirely by the gentlemen who have spoken. 
 I know the gentlemen who have preceded me know more con- 
 stitutional law, and forget more constitutional law every 
 night, than I ever knew or ever expect to know. The framers 
 of the Constitution provided that representation should be 
 founded on principles of equality. It seems to me the great 
 question is, What are these principles of equality; what was 
 meant by the framers of the Constitution by principles of 
 equality? It seems to me this whole subject is solved when 
 we consider what they did under that provision of the Consti- 
 tution. They provided that towns should be represented and 
 not the people, that representation should not be according 
 to population but representation should be by towns. Now 
 what further did they do. Why, gentlemen, we can ascertain 
 the intention of the framers of our Constitution, as I have 
 said before, by considering what they did under it. 
 
 It is well known that many of them, or some of them at 
 least, were gentlemen that aided to frame the Constitution of 
 the United States which we all adore, and I believe if there 
 was ever an inspired instrument, ever a document written by 
 the hand of inspiration, it is the Constitution of the United 
 States. And those men, some of those men who helped to 
 frame that Constitution helped to frame the Constitution of 
 New Hampshire, and it stands the same now in principle as 
 they framed it, as far as this principle of equality is concerned 
 in representation. 
 
 What did they mean by that. We can ascertain what they 
 meant by it, by going back and ascertaining what they did 
 under it. Their intention can be ascertained, and ascertained 
 
432 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 only, by finding out what they did in construing the Consti- 
 tution which they had made. Actions speak louder than 
 words. We have too much respect for those men to think that 
 they framed a Constitution and then turned around the next 
 breath and violated it. They did not do that. Then what 
 did they do under this Constitution which they say must 
 be founded on principles of equality. It has been stated here 
 what they did. They said that every town with 150 votes 
 should have one representative, no matter whether that town 
 was on the Massachusetts border, no matter whether it was in 
 the wilds of Coos, if it had 150 ratable polls it should have 
 one representative. There is your equality. Is not that what 
 they meant by equality. They went further and they said the 
 large towns ought to have more representation than the small 
 ones, and so they said that every town that had 450 ratable 
 polls should have two representatives. There is no absolute 
 equality between towns that have 150 ratable polls and have 
 one representative and towns with 450 ratable polls and 
 two representatives no absolute equality, I say, but it was 
 the equality that they put into the Constitution when they 
 framed it. There is an equality among the towns having 150 
 ratable polls and an equality among towns that have 450 
 ratable polls, and that is the equality that they established, 
 and that they meant when they made this constitution. 
 
 Mr. Chase of Bristol Prior to coming down here I did not 
 have time to examine this question at all, yet it seemed from 
 what I had been able to learn from the public press that if 
 the basis of representation was to be that of inhabitants the 
 district system would be the proper system for us to adopt. I 
 come from a town which used to have two representatives, but 
 for quite a long time has had but one, and it has 1,000 sur- 
 plus in population above the 600 required. But upon coming 
 down here and conferring with those in my immediate vi- 
 cinity to whom we would be glad to give our surplus, I find 
 that they take very decided views in opposition to the district 
 system. I believe that the town sentiment among the towns- 
 is very strong, and I believe they know their own interests. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 433 
 
 It seems to me that the cities and large towns are well 
 enough as they are. They have large enough representation. 
 Wh} r , then, should we attempt to force this district system 
 upon the smaller towns which are not asking for it and do not 
 want it. It seems to me my duty in this matter is plain, that 
 I cannot vote to sanction the coercion of the smaller towns by 
 such a measure as has been presented here in the district sys- 
 tem. 
 
 If the town which I come from is abundantly satisfied with 
 one representative, although we have almost enough for two, 
 why are not the larger towns sufficiently represented even if 
 they also have a surplus population, and especially the man- 
 ufacturing towns which have a large migratory and non-vot- 
 ing population, thus giving them an advantage over the 
 smaller towns. In our section the proportion of voters to in- 
 habitants is about one to three, but in large manufacturing 
 towns I am informed that it is about one to seven. So if the 
 basis were voters instead of inhabitants, their representation 
 would be very much reduced. 
 
 Allusion has been made to the great saving that might be 
 made by reducing the house. We have some 397 members. 
 By the proposed amendments we should have about 340 or 
 350 in the house and the senate inclusive. That would make 
 the magnificent sum of seven or eight thousand dollars saved 
 per annum. It seems to me there is no great demand for 
 such a change on account of economy. I agree with the sen- 
 timent of the gentleman from Bedford, Mr. Woodbury, that 
 there is no demand for such a change as is proposed by the 
 district system, and therefore I am not in favor of it. 
 
 Mr. Casey of Concord Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: We 
 have had this representation question under discussion for 
 three days or more and it appears that we have wasted much 
 valuable time in view of the situation which seems to prevail 
 amongst the members of this Convention as regards the town 
 and district system. The advocates of the former want to re- 
 tain the representation which they have at present, with the 
 28 
 
434 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 exception of a few of the larger towns, which, with the cities, 
 will lose a great number of their representatives according to 
 the resolutions offered. It does not seem right or just that it 
 should be so, as according to my view the whole people should 
 be equally represented. While I am of the opinion that the 
 number should be decreased, the difficulty is how is it to be 
 performed so it will be satisfactory to all concerned. As it 
 looks to me the towns and cities are arrayed against one an- 
 other, and each party claims that the resolution of its oppo- 
 nent will not be ratified by the people at the next election 
 and the work of this Convention will go for naught so far as 
 the representation question is concerned, and the result would 
 be that we would continue under the present system. Some 
 two years ago the state went to a great expense in refurnishing 
 this hall for the accommodation of the present number of rep- 
 resentatives. It has been claimed by a great many members 
 that this state has been governed wisely and well. If that be 
 the case, why not let well enough alone and continue the old 
 representation with some slight change. 
 
 I have listened with close attention to the clear and con- 
 vincing arguments presented by the advocates of the district 
 system, showing how the system would work for the people 
 as a whole, and the advantages which would be derived from 
 such a plan. 
 
 Now the question is would this plan be satisfactory to the 
 people? It is proposed that the county commissioners or a 
 board of special commissioners elected by the people of the 
 county should make the assignment of the representatives in 
 each district. This plan might work satisfactorily providing 
 that it is a non-partisan board, but I have an idea that the 
 board to be elected would be partisan, in accordance with elec- 
 tions as carried on throughout the length and breadth of the 
 state. I witnessed something of this sort in the legislature of 
 1893. In this city of Concord the dominant party made an 
 addition of two words for the expressed purpose of maintain- 
 ing its supremacy in the other wards of the city, as it was 
 shown by the previous election that they were in danger of 
 losing the prestige which they had held. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 435 
 
 It has been repeated by several members of this Convention 
 that the state would be saving fifty thousand dollars every 
 two years by the system which is proposed by Mr. Lyford. I 
 believe there is a resolution introduced here to increase the 
 senate from twenty-four to fifty members. Can this be done 
 without expense? Also we must look at the expense which 
 this commission will incur. It appears to me that the object 
 of cutting down the representation is to pay salaried state 
 officials a greater amount of money than they receive at 
 present, in order that they may be able to live in better style, 
 and remove all chances of a man of inadequate means from 
 ever aspiring to any higher point than to be a hewer of wood 
 or a drawer of water. 
 
 As a member of this Convention I am not in favor of such 
 a plan. I was elected by my constituents to come here and do 
 what, in my judgment, is best for their good. I never had 
 the honor of sitting in a body of this kind before, as I never 
 aspired for such a position previous to the last election and I 
 feel proud of the place. It has been said by a great many 
 men who have preceded me, that it is an educational institu- 
 tion and from what I have seen and heard in this Convention 
 I am convinced that such is the case, and I do not want to 
 lessen my chances of sitting in this hall at some future time, 
 or to close the place to some other individual of my sphere in 
 life, who may have the ambition to become a member of the 
 legislature. 
 
 It has been remarked by several gentlemen here that there 
 is not room enough in this hall to seat the number of repre- 
 sentatives at present and that we would have to enlarge the 
 state house. I do not object to such a scheme, as it might be 
 of some benefit to me and to members of my craft, as I know 
 that we have plenty of good granite in this locality, and we 
 have the men here to perform the work. 
 
 A great deal has been said about the inequality of the pres- 
 ent system. It is claimed that the towns run the legislature 
 at the present. It would be more so under the bills proposed 
 by Mr. Barton and Mr. Scott. In looking over the laws of 
 
436 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 other New England states I find that in the state of Connecti- 
 cut towns of five or six hundred in population send as many 
 representatives to the general court as the city of New Haven,, 
 with its population of 108,000. Look at the inequality in 
 that state and compare it with New Hampshire. Taking all 
 things into consideration I have come to the conclusion that 
 we are as well governed as any state in the Union and possi- 
 bly with as little expense. The opinion prevails that there 
 are men, who come to the legislature, who are rarely ever 
 heard from; that may be so, but those very men have their 
 eyes and ears open all the time and they are taking in all that 
 is going on. They are, as it may appear, acting in the capacity 
 of detectives to see that no deals or jobs are put up whereby 
 the state of New Hampshire would be defrauded, and possi- 
 bly that is the reason why this state has been so free from 
 corruption and bribery. Where the number is small they are 
 not so well scrutinized or watched; in that case we hear of 
 rottenness in other states. 
 
 I am of the opinion that the system which prevails at pres- 
 ent will be as satisfactory as any other one we can adopt. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
 of the Committee: The friends of perfect equality of repre- 
 sentation in the house of representatives of this state have 
 presented a proposition which is to be considered and the 
 Convention is shortly to vote upon the question whether it 
 will adopt the district system or the town system. No one 
 has disputed the claim that if the state would bring itself to 
 adopt the district system there would be perfect equality in 
 every respect. On the other hand, it is admitted that the 
 present town system is a system of inequality, for the simple 
 reason that if the town has 600 inhabitants it can send one 
 representative, while it requires 1,200 for an additional repre- 
 sentative. So, Mr. Chairman, if we vote down the district 
 system we are going to vote for a system of inequality. There 
 is nothing but the district system under which you can have 
 perfect equality and yet give a representation to the small 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 4S7 
 
 towns which have less than 600 inhabitants. In a system of 
 attempted equality upon the town plan you must give to the 
 larger towns having over 600 inhabitants a representative for 
 ^ach additional 600, and this you cannot do unless you make 
 the house of representatives 666. Now, Mr. Chairman, is any- 
 body willing to advocate that? Yet I would rather, in order 
 to secure the principle of equality so magnificently stated by 
 the gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew, yesterday and yet 
 abandoned by him before he finished his speech, have a house 
 of representatives of 666 and take my chances in it and take 
 the chances of the property interests and the personal inter- 
 ests which pertain to my city, than to see the present unequal 
 town system continued. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, instead of having this perfect equality se- 
 cured we have stricken down in our present Constitution 266 
 of the 666; we have taken them away from the large towns 
 and cities thereby violating to this extent the principle of 
 -equality, and now it is proposed in this Convention to strike 
 down 100 more, to take them from the larger towns and the 
 cities to take in all 366 representatives off the principle of 
 perfect equality and yet to encourage the hope that we can 
 get from the people of this state a two-thirds vote in favor of 
 that proposition. 
 
 Mr. Cross of Manchester Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: 
 I may find it difficult in five minutes to say what I would 
 like, but as a representative from the city of Manchester I 
 deem it my duty to speak upon this question, and must do 
 my duty as I see it. 
 
 I have listened to the remarks of the gentlemen who have 
 previously spoken with great pleasure, but it seems to me 
 they have forgotten some things. We are not here to estab- 
 lish a legislature for education; we are not here to give these 
 men, John Smith and Jim Jones and others, a chance to go 
 to the legislature; we are not here for any small thing of that 
 kind. There is imposed upon us a duty to revise the Con- 
 stitution so that the state may be represented in all its parts 
 and in all its interests upon principles of equality. 
 
438 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Many beautiful things have been said about the "little re- 
 publics." What are the "little republics" in this state? The 
 principle at the foundation of the town system was enun- 
 ciated on board the Mayflower'' From that time, along the 
 waters of the sea, along the sides of the rivers, back in the 
 hills and valleys, our fathers established the town system. 
 The town system not a system to send one or ten representa- 
 tives to the legislature; but an organization, call it a " repub- 
 lic " or what you please, fully equipped with all the machin- 
 ery, within limited boundaries, for self-government, consist- 
 ing of officers such as moderator, selectmen, town clerk, treas- 
 urer, and other minor officers. This is the town system. 
 The town system was not organized after our separation from 
 Great Britain, and as a result of our Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, and the establishment of a nation free of itself to 
 make laws and become what we claim, the only free republic 
 of the world. Towns were organized substantially while we 
 were under the rule of Great Britain as now. The town offi- 
 cers were the same as now. Delegates like our representa- 
 tives were elected to a convention to enact laws for the whole 
 state, subject to the approval of a governor appointed by the 
 king. The town system as such is complete as a republic 
 without its representatives to the general court, as much so as 
 a state ia complete without its power to elect representatives 
 and senators to congress. 
 
 The representative, when elected, is not a mere agent of 
 the town from which he is elected. It matters not whether 
 elected from Bow, Croydon, or Manchester, he is a representa- 
 tive of his town to a certain extent, but in a broader and bet- 
 ter sense he is the representative of the whole state and of all 
 its interests. He takes the oath of office to support the 
 Constitution and to act for the general welfare. If this be so, 
 it matters not so much from what town or city the representa- 
 tive comes; the only important point is, is he honest, capable, 
 and willing to act for the general welfare ? If he cannot see 
 beyond the boundaries of his own town and its interests, he is- 
 unfit to legislate. 
 
THUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 439 
 
 This being the fact, as all intelligent men must admit, the 
 important question is, How many men shall be selected, and 
 upon what principle of equality shall the number be deter- 
 mined? A thousand men assembled to confer would consti- 
 tute an unwieldy body; at times there would be outbreaks, 
 and but little chance for calm reflection and conference. 
 Five hundred men would be too many. Four hundred would 
 be better, but according to the judgment of the people of 
 every state in our Union, the house of representatives should 
 not be composed of more than from 100 to 150 men. No 
 matter what the population of the state, whether a hundred 
 thousand or many millions, a legislative body composed of 
 not more than 150 members is better than one of 400 mem- 
 bers in this state. Men cannot confer and act calmly and dis- 
 passionately in an assembly of 1,000 or of 400. The legisla- 
 tion of this state has been largely, and I believe mainly, done 
 through two or three committees of ten members each. The 
 whole body merely ratifies or rejects the report of the com- 
 mittee, and often the whole body acts without knowledge, 
 without consideration, and against the interests of their own 
 constituents. As a matter of fact, four fifths of the mem- 
 bers of our house of representatiyes have little or nothing to 
 do with legislation. They become members for one session 
 only; they take their turn, as it is said; they have no plan, no 
 purpose, except possibly to gratify a small ambition of being 
 a member of the legislature. The legislation of this state has 
 been substantially done, so far as the house of representatives 
 is concerned, by less than fifty men. 
 
 If this be so, of what use is it to argue that we should allow 
 a representative body of 400 or more, merely as an educa- 
 tional institution? Schools, the study of government and its 
 principles, observation, experience, and the business of life, 
 have the educational value to fit a man to serve as the servant 
 of the people, to make just and beneficent laws. The repre- 
 sentative is a servant of the state; by accepting the office he 
 thereby accepts it as a sacred trust, assuming that he has the 
 knowledge, experience, and ability to serve the people for 
 their best interests. 
 
440 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 The Chairman The time of the gentleman has expired. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster However much we may differ in 
 our conclusions and from the remarks of our eminent friend 
 in making his position known in this body, his long life, his 
 kindly words, his honorable record, are such that I think it 
 will give us all pleasure to give the gentleman an opportun- 
 ity to finish his remarks, and I move, Mr. Chairman, that the 
 time of the gentleman for this speech be extended five min- 
 utes. 
 
 (The motion was put by the chair and prevailed.) 
 
 Mr. Cross I am obliged to you, Mr. Chairman and gen- 
 tlemen. 
 
 I believe I was talking of the advantages of the legislature 
 from an educational point of view. 
 
 I presume every member of this Convention has been a 
 member of the house of representatives, possibly for several 
 sessions. What real educational value has it been to you? 
 What have you seen done, and what attempted to be done, in 
 the New Hampshire legislature for the past fifty years, that 
 tended to educate you in higher ideas of patriotism, more re- 
 spect for political life, more confidence in the management of 
 political affairs, or of interests corporate or individual? On 
 the whole, good laws have been enacted in our state; but the 
 struggle for political and commercial interests, the rivalry of 
 men and parties, the work of interested men in the house and 
 of the lobby outside, while they may have opened the eyes to 
 some "things that are dark and tricks that are peculiar," yet, 
 I submit, did not educate men to higher standards of patriot- 
 ism and nobler deeds of kindness and charity. To become a 
 member of the legislature seems to have been the dream of 
 the gentleman from Acworth, for himself and his sons, as he 
 has quietly followed his plow in that excellent and happy 
 town. Well, this is at least a harmless dream; but, like most 
 dreams, the reality will dispel the illusion, and show the 
 dreamer that the members of the New Hampshire legislature 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 441 
 
 have been much like others who stayed at home and attended 
 to their own farming and merchandise. And I really think 
 that of the two, the man who attends to his own interests at 
 home in the long run is the happier and better man. 
 
 I contend that the purpose of this state in voting for the 
 Convention was to reduce the number of the house of rep- 
 resentatives to such a number as, on the whole, would best be 
 able to act soberly, carefully, and sagaciously in making laws 
 for the state in years to come. Eepresentatives are not 
 chosen as if to a kindergarten or to a school; the representa- 
 tive is, or should be, sufficiently educated so that he may con- 
 sider and act, in making laws, for the public good. The gen- 
 tleman from Nashua suggests that in keeping the present 
 system of representation we are following in the steps of our 
 fathers who first established the Constitution. At the adop- 
 tion of the first Constitution, we had a population of about, 
 80,000, or one fifth of the present number. The population 
 of the city of Manchester at present is only less than that of 
 the whole state at that time by 20,000. At that time, most 
 of the people were small farmers; legislation was simple and 
 easily understood. Time has wrought wonderful changes. 
 Then, a man of $10,000 was considered rich; now, only the 
 millionaire is rich; then, a few boats carried merchandise on 
 the Merrimack river, and the produce of the farmers was car- 
 ried in small quantities by the farmers themselves. The pop- 
 ulation of this state, if the change should continue for a few 
 years as in the past, will be mainly in the cities. 
 
 At the time of the adoption of our first Constitution, and 
 for many years after, legislation was limited to the needs of 
 people born and reared in this state. They were alike in 
 their business, their political and religious views. To-day a 
 large part of our population have come from the ends of the 
 earth: Germans, Irishmen, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Nor- 
 wegians, Swedes, Turks, and others, all alike must be reck- 
 oned as fellow-citizens. Business has changed more than the 
 population; and while formerly legislation concerned itself 
 with the interests of a people engaged mainly in farming, to- 
 
442 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 day it involves many questions of finance, of manufacturing, 
 of individual and corporate rights, of railroads, banks, and 
 trusts, and questions of social relations, in great varieties. I 
 have not time to suggest a tenth part of the changes of the 
 past hundred years. One of the most important and perplex- 
 ing is the government of cities. This problem is upon us in 
 New Hampshire in a small degree, but still sufficiently to call 
 for careful and .studious consideration. 
 
 In determining the number of representatives from the 
 towns and cities, numbers are of little importance; quality, 
 rather than quantity should be the guide. We are urged to 
 give to the country towns a different basis of representation 
 from the cities; as if, forsooth, 600 people in the town of 
 Goffstown were equal and should have the same representa- 
 tion as 2,000 in the city of Nashua. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Convention, time forbids me to elaborate 
 an argument; but I beg of you, in considering this question 
 of representation, that you will first establish the principle 
 which pertains to our form of government, that all parts of 
 this state shall be represented according to population, upon 
 principles of equality; that the same number of people shall 
 be entitled to a representative whether they live in the county 
 of Coos or the city of Manchester. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough I have but a few words more I 
 desire to say upon this subject before the vote is taSen, and I 
 will endeavor to be as brief as possible. All will agree that 
 there seems to be but two questions before this Convention 
 the question whether or not we will adopt the district system 
 or we will retain the town system, and then the basis, if this 
 Convention sees fit to retain the town system, upon which the 
 proportion should be fixed. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have listened with a great deal of atten- 
 tion to all the discussion that has been had upon this matter, 
 It seems to be the spirit of this Convention to retain the old 
 town system, and that I think has been conceded by the 
 friends who have presented the district system. It was said 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 443 
 
 that there should be some concessions on the part of all in 
 order to establish anything that will be satisfactory to the 
 people and that we can return to them and which they will 
 approve. 
 
 I have tried to arrive at this matter on some lines that you 
 know of. You know that the bill I introduced provided for 
 600 to elect the first representative and 3,000 for the second. 
 The gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, had introduce 1 a 
 bill for 600 for the first representative and a 2,000 increase, 
 which I had proposed to introduce myself. Upon his intro- 
 ducing that bill I introduced the bill I did. I have talked 
 with the gentlemen from the city, and especially from Man- 
 chester, and they say, "If you retain this town system you 
 must concede something to us in some way." I have said, 
 "Gentlemen, what is the difficulty?" "The difficulty is the in- 
 crease of 2,000. You take too many representatives from our 
 city and some of the larger towns." It is no satisfactory 
 answer to them to say that we take from some one town 
 which now has two and under that system would have but 
 one. I said to them, "Then if you are dissatisfied with the 
 increase of 2,000 will you make it 1,800? If you will do so I 
 will go to the country towns and advocate that the increase 
 shall be made 1,800 instead of 2,000." Although some ap- 
 proved of that, thinking that the increase of 2,000 was too- 
 large, yet I felt satisfied that the gentlemen making that prop- 
 osition would be willing to make the concession. Now does 
 that concede anything. I have looked it over and found it 
 does. It restores to Manchester two representatives; to Ber- 
 lin one representative; and I find that it restores to the town 
 of Claremont, which is hard hit by the increase of 2,000, one 
 representative. It restores to the city of Nashua, in Ward 
 Nine, one representative; it restores seven representatives in 
 all. It increases the number of this house from 317 (which 
 is the number upon the basis of 2,000 increase) to 324. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I have not found in the discussion of this- 
 question from first to last that under any system it is deemed 
 best to reduce this house to a figure very much below 300. 
 
444 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Some say 325 and some say 350. I have told you what I 
 thought the country towns would be willing to do in the way 
 of concessions to the cities. But they do not accept that; they 
 do not come forward with a spirit of concession, but they say 
 that we should give them all that they ask for. 
 
 Mr. Wason of Nashua I have but a word to say, and 
 haven't but a minute or two to say it in and know you are 
 glad of that. I have sat here and listened to this debate, 
 which has extended from Coos to the sea, from the hillsides to 
 the lakes, and from South Carolina to the Philippines and 
 back again, and wound up last night with a little skimmed 
 milk. 
 
 I went home last night and commenced to study and see 
 what was the real issue about which we had been listening to 
 all this oratory for six or seven days, to see why the gentle- 
 men representing a country town and then a gentleman from 
 the city which I have the honor of coming from, would advo- 
 cate certain measures, while others from the country and from 
 other cities would advocate still another measure. One gen- 
 tleman said that we were trying to array the country towns 
 against the cities. I do not believe that. I believe that we 
 are all here recognizing the principles of equality and justice. 
 I believe that we are ready to treat our neighbor fairly and 
 justly and come to a conclusion as near equality as possible. 
 
 I want to remind my distinguished friend, the gentleman 
 from Ward Eight, Concord, Mr. Chandler, who represented 
 Ward Five, Concord, in 1876 in the Constitutional Conven- 
 tion assembled, that he was one of the honored members from 
 Ward Five, Concord, of that Convention, and he silently 
 assented to what was done in that Convention, and has lived 
 silently under the rule of equality established in that Conven- 
 tion since. I should also like to suggest that another distin- 
 guished and learned friend of mine from Ward Four of Con- 
 cord, Senator Gallinger, made in the Convention of 1876 the 
 motion which fixed the ratio at 600 for the first representative 
 and 1,200 for the second. I ask why the gentleman from 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 445 
 
 Concord has changed in his position? Have the people of New 
 Hampshire changed ? No, gentlemen, they have not. Let us 
 still preserve the principle of the old town system, at all 
 events until the next Convention, and the people of the state 
 will ratify what we have done here, and we shall be content 
 under a house of representatives which will represent the peo- 
 ple of New Hampshire and under a system which will con- 
 tinue at least a quarter of a century longer, until such time as 
 the voters generally are ready and willing to adopt a system 
 which is radically different from the present basis of repre- 
 sentation. , 
 
 Mr. Harmon of Effingham I do not propose to argue or 
 make a speech with reference to this matter. I am not a law- 
 yer, nor the son of a lawyer, but when any countryman rises 
 on this floor and opposes any motion that has been made, or 
 any resolution that has been submitted, on the ground that 
 the judges of New Hampshire are corruptible those in whom 
 we trust our liberty, our property, and our lives as an Amer- 
 ican citizen and as a son of New Hampshire I emphatically re- 
 pudiate it. I desire to place myself on record and to say that 
 I have absolute trust in those we have chosen as judges of our 
 supreme court. I believe they are incorruptible, and that our 
 rights would be safe in their hands. I believe also, gentle- 
 men, that all of you, or most of you, feel as I do. I confess 
 that I could not be silent under such an insinuation. 
 
 Mr. Smith of New Hampton I have made great effort to 
 get this floor to say one word. I come from the little town of 
 New Hampton and shall vote for the town system, but I do 
 not wish to feel that I am voting for inequality. The ques- 
 tion, to my mind, is this: Is it equality to establish our basis of 
 representation upon the population or inhabitants of this 
 state. I submit to you, gentlemen, is it in accordance with 
 our principles of voting. The gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. 
 Drew, I think it was, said that when he voted he voted for 
 his family. A man with a family of ten represents that ten. 
 
446 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The people from Manchester and other cities seem to feel 
 they have a hardship imposed upon them if we base this rep- 
 resentation upon .the town system. If we go back to 1876 we 
 see that the basis of representation upon which our fathers 
 placed it and up to that time when it was changed was on 
 voters and not on inhabitants. I understand, gentlemen, that 
 ihe pressure for that change from voters to inhabitants came 
 from the cities, and that the cities gained largely, very largely, 
 from the towns on account of that change. Now I feel that 
 there is no sentiment here in favor of placing this back on the 
 "basis of voters, and the best we can do is to keep it where it 
 is upon the basis of inhabitants. My argument, however, is, 
 gentlemen, that it is not so great an inequality against the 
 cities as has been represented in this body. 
 
 Mr. Cullen of Portsmouth I would like to ask the gentle- 
 man who has just spoken, how many families of ten there are 
 in his section of the country. 
 
 Mr. Smith I did not make that assertion with reference to 
 any part of the country. I say that where a man has a family, 
 be it large or small, throughout the state, when he votes he 
 represents that family, and the representation of his town or 
 city is based upon the number of members in that family. I 
 say that by that means the cities have an advantage over the 
 country. There is a smaller proportion of voters in the cities 
 than in the country with reference to the population. 
 
 The Chairman The -hour for the special order has arrived. 
 The first question to come before the Committee in the order 
 decided upon is this: "Shall the members of the house of rep- 
 resentatives be elected under the district system?" and upon 
 that question a division is called for. 
 
 A delegate I would inquire what is to become of the 
 motion of the gentleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows. 
 
 The Chairman The chair understands there are several 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 447 
 
 questions to be voted upon under the order, and as the chair 
 has stated, this is the first. 
 
 The chair will state that all those who are in favor of elect- 
 ing representatives under the district system will vote "Yes," 
 and those who are opposed will vote "No." 
 
 Upon division the chair declared that 135 gentlemen voted 
 in the affirmative, and 245 voted in the negative, and the reso- 
 lution did not prevail. 
 
 The Chairman The next proposition which, under the 
 order, comes before the Committee is this: "The house of rep- 
 resentatives shall consist of ; members," and the chair 
 
 waits any motion for filling in the blank. 
 
 Mr. Sloan of Haverhill moved that the number of repre- 
 sentatives be fixed at 100. 
 
 Mr. Shute of Wentw'orth moved that the number 327 be 
 inserted in the blank. 
 
 Mr. Parker of Nashua moved that the house consist of 397 
 members. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin moved that the words "not exceed- 
 ing 300 members" be inserted in the blank. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough I move that the house consist 
 of 317 members, which is the precise number which would be 
 given on the basis of 600 for the first and 2,000 for the in- 
 crease. 
 
 The Chairman In the absence of any motion to the con- 
 trary, the chair will take up these motions in the following 
 order the largest number to be voted upon first and then the 
 next largest number, and so on until some number is fixed 
 upon by a vote of the majority of the Committee. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the house of representa- 
 
448 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 
 
 tives consist of 397 members," as moved by Mr. Parker of 
 Nashua, the motion was declared lost on a division vote of 12, 
 in the affirmative and 356 in the negative. 
 
 The Chairman The next proposition is that of the gen- 
 tleman from Wentworth, Mr. Shute, that the house of rep- 
 resentatives be fixed at 327. 
 
 Mr. Parker of Nashua I rise for the purpose of inquiry 
 and information. I would like to know whether this number 
 is to be a fixed number. If we vote for any definite number, 
 that is, whether it shall be absolutely 327 not to be increased 
 or decreased, or whether it is an expression of opinion that, 
 it should be about that number. 
 
 The Chairman The chair understands this is an action in\ 
 the Committee of the Whole, and anything done here is. 
 simply a recommendation to the Convention, and beyond 
 that it can have but little effect. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the house of representa- 
 tives consist of 327 members," as moved by Mr. Shute of 
 Wentworth, the motion was declared lost on a division vote 
 of 3 in the affirmative and 348 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the house of representa- 
 tives consist of 317 members," as moved by Mr. Scott of 
 Peterborough, the motion was declared lost on a division vote 
 of 170 in the affirmative and 203 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the house of representa- 
 tives consist of a number not exceeding 300," as moved by 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin, the motion prevailed by a division 
 vote of 322 in the affirmative and 30 in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin To save time, I move that the- 
 house of representatives shall consist of not less than 300. 
 
 Mr. Colbath of Barnstead I rise to a point of order. The- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 449 
 
 point is, that we have voted on this proposition and have al- 
 ready fixed the number at 300. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I do not understand how that 
 motion can be put. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin As I understand it, there are sev- 
 eral motions fixing the number at less than 300 and we would 
 have to vote on each of them in order to decide whether or not 
 they shall be adopted. This motion that I have made would 
 avoid the necessity of voting on the others. I thought that 
 it would save time if we took a vote upon my motion. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover I would rise and make the inquiry 
 whether if voting favorably on the motion of the gentleman 
 from Franklin it would not in effect establish the district 
 system. 
 
 The Chairman That is a matter of mathematics which 
 the gentlemen can figure out for themselves. The chair will 
 not undertake to decide it. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton If this motion which has been 
 suggested is voted upon I would say that the direct question 
 arises whether the vote would not tie up the Committee and 
 members to a certain number. I wish the gentleman from 
 Franklin would withdraw his motion, and especially so as I 
 understand that there is only one number more that has been 
 mentioned below 300. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin On the understanding that there 
 is only one motion for a smaller number, I will withdraw my 
 motion. 
 
 The Chairman The motion of the gentleman from Frank- 
 lin is withdrawn, and the chair will state that the only prop- 
 osition now before the Committee is that of the gentleman 
 from Haverhill, Mr. Sloan, that the number of the house of 
 representatives shall be fixed at 100 members. 
 
450 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter For the sake of testing this question 
 whether this Committee is of the opinion that the number be 
 fixed reasonably near 300,, I will move that we now take the 
 sense of this Committee on the motion that the house of rep- 
 resentatives consist of not less than 280 members. 
 
 The Chairman The chair will state the motion of the 
 gentleman from Exeter, that it is the sense of the Committee 
 that the house of representatives shall consist of not less than 
 280 members. 
 
 Mr. Parker of Nashua I hope that the motion will not 
 prevail. There is but one number additional to be voted 
 upon, and I think we should have gone along and voted upon 
 that. 
 
 The Chairman The chair will be obliged to rule that the 
 motion of the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Fuller, is in order,, 
 and unless he is otherwise directed by the house the motion 
 will be stated. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I rise to this point of order. 
 The motion of the gentleman from Haverhill being first 
 made, whether or not it should not be first voted upon. My 
 suggestion is that a vote should first be taken on the motion of 
 the gentleman from Haverhill, that being first made, then 
 on the motion of the gentleman from Exeter; Mr. Fuller, 
 which I believe is a practical and sensible one, for this reason, 
 when the Convention has voted upon that, having already 
 voted upon the 300 proposition the Convention will under- 
 stand that the Committee has recommended something be- 
 tween the two. 
 
 The Chairman The chair will state that he will be obliged 
 to put the motion of the gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Fuller, 
 unless he withdraws it at this time. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter At the suggestion of the chair I 
 withdraw the motion. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 451 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the house of representa- 
 tives consist of 100 members,," as moved by Mr. Sloan of Ha- 
 verhill, the motion was declared lost on a division vote of 12 
 in the affirmative and 352 in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter renewed his motion that the house of 
 representatives shall consist of not less than 280 members, 
 and the question being stated, "Shall the house of representa- 
 tives consist of not less than 280 members/' as moved by Mr. 
 Fuller of Exeter, the motion prevailed by a division vote of 
 322 in the affirmative and 26 in the negative. 
 
 The Chairman The Committee, in the absence of other 
 votes, will recommend to the Convention that the number of 
 the house of representatives shall be fixed at a number not 
 exceeding 300 and not less than 280. In the absence of any 
 motion to the contrary, the chair will proceed to the consid- 
 eration of the next question under the special order, which is, 
 "The number of inhabitants required for the first representa- 
 tive under the town system shall be , and the number 
 
 required for a second representative shall be ." 
 
 Mr. Barton of Newport moved that the first blank shall be 
 filled by inserting 600, and the second blank by inserting 
 2,000. 
 
 Mr. Wason of Nashua moved that the first blank be filled 
 by inserting 900 and the second blank by inserting 1,800. 
 
 Mr. Pressler of Keene moved that the first blank be filled 
 by inserting 800 and the second blank by inserting 1,600. 
 
 Mr. Starr of Manchester moved that the first blank be 
 filled by inserting 1,000 and the second blank by inserting 
 2,000. 
 
 Mr. Sullivan of Manchester moved that the first blank be 
 filled by inserting the number 800 and the second by insert- 
 ing the number 2,000. 
 
452 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Fellows of Tilton moved that the first blank be filled 
 by inserting the number 1,000 and the second blank by in- 
 serting the number 1,000. 
 
 Mr. Hadley of Temple moved that the first blank be filled 
 by inserting the number 600 and the second by inserting the 
 number 2,500. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin moved that the first blank be filled 
 by inserting the number 1,370 and the second by inserting 
 the number 1,370. 
 
 Mr. Clough of Nashua I will ask the chair if it will be 
 possible for him to arrange these numbers so that we can vote 
 upon one number at a time, and not upon the couplets. 
 
 The Chairman I have stated the resolution as it came to 
 the Committee from the Convention, and the chair has no 
 power to change the order. I understand from this resolu- 
 tion that it will be necessary to vote upon the numbers in 
 couplets, as the motions are made. I do not see how they 
 can be divided. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord With due deference to the inti- 
 mation of the chair, I wish to say that it was not my impres- 
 sion that in filling the blanks it would be necessary to fill all 
 the blanks in any one resolution at once. 
 
 The Chairman The chair will read the resolution "The 
 number of inhabitants required for the first representative 
 under the town system shall be , and the number re- 
 quired for a second representative shall be ." It is 
 
 all one sentence, and I do not see how it can be divided. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I am very strongly of the opin- 
 ion that there is no rule in any parliamentary body when 
 there are blanks in any one resolution to be filled, that they 
 should all be filled on one motion, or at one time. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 453 
 
 The Chairman If there is a motion made by the gentle- 
 man from Nashua, Mr. Clough, that the first number in the 
 motions to fill the first blank be taken up to be voted upon 
 first, the chair will entertain the motion and submit it to the 
 Committee. 
 
 Mr. Clough of Nashua I move that the votes be divided 
 and the blanks filled separately; that the first number in the 
 various motions be voted upon first for the purpose of filling 
 the first blank, and the second number voted upon afterwards 
 for the purpose of filling the second blank. 
 
 (The motion of Mr. Clough being stated, prevailed.) 
 
 Mr. Lambert of Manchester I move that the largest num- 
 ber be taken up first. 
 
 The Chairman In the absence of objections the chair will 
 take them in that order. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for the first representative, under the town 
 system, be 1,370," as moved by Mr. Leach of Franklin, the 
 motion was declared lost on a division vote of 46 in the af- 
 firmative and 301 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for the first representative, under the town 
 system, be 1,000," as moved by Mr. Starr of Manchester and 
 Mr. Fellows of Tilton, the motion was declared lost on a di- 
 vision vote of 54 in the affirmative and 296 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for the first representative, under the town 
 system, be 900," as moved by Mr. Wason of Nashua, the mo- 
 tion was declared lost on a division vote of 69 in the affirma- 
 tive and 293 in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I desire to put a question to the 
 
454 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 chair, and I desire that the committee should understand 
 what the question is before it, because I understand from 
 several members that the way they wish to vote would be 
 influenced somewhat by the consequences for instance, 
 whether the number is to be arbitrarily fixed. If the number 
 is fixed at 800 here, is the question still open for the applica- 
 tion of the number involved in the Mitchell bill of local 
 option, which would permit the towns disfranchised or ex- 
 cluded under the 800 basis to voluntarily associate themselves 
 together for representation until they had reached the neces- 
 sary 800. That is the question I put. It would certainly in- 
 fluence my vote. 
 
 The Chairman The chair will state that his understand- 
 ing is this, that the vote taken in this Committee is simply 
 a recommendation to the Convention, and in Convention 
 any one may make any amendment they desire. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua I would like to inquire if the 
 several votes here to-day for the town system, and for the 
 numbers fixed for the house and for the inhabitants for the 
 several representatives, will all be referred to a special com- 
 mittee or not? 
 
 The Chairman That will depend on the action of the 
 Convention. This Committee will make recommendation to 
 the Convention and the Convention will take any action that 
 it sees fit. 
 
 Mr. Sanders of Derry moved that the number of inhabi- 
 tants for the first representative be fixed at 700. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for the first representative, under the town 
 system, be 800," as moved by Mr. Pressler of Keene and Mr. 
 Sullivan of Manchester, the motion was declared lost on a di- 
 vision vote of 156 in the affirmative and 205 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 455 
 
 tants required for the first representative, under the town 
 -system, be 700," as moved by Mr. Sanders of Derry, the 
 motion was declared lost on a division vote of 122 in the af- 
 firmative and 204 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for the first representative, under the town 
 system, be 600," as moved by Mr. Barton of Newport, the 
 motion prevailed by a division vote of 223 in the affirmative 
 and 131 in the negative. 
 
 The Chairman In the absence of any motion, the chair 
 will proceed to the consideration of the second number in the 
 resolution. The proposition submitted to the Committee 
 under the order is as follows: "The number of inhabitants 
 required for the first representative under the town system 
 shall be 600, and the number required for a second repre- 
 sentative shall be - ." There are several propositions 
 upon the number to be placed in the blank, and proceeding 
 as we have done before, the proposition of the gentleman 
 from Temple, Mr. Hadley, comes first, that the number re- 
 quired for the second representative shall be 2,500. 
 
 Mr. Hadley of Temple I withdraw my motion that the 
 number for a second representative shall be fixed at 2,500, 
 and request that the number 2,000, offered by the gentleman 
 from Manchester, Mr. Sullivan, shall prevail. 
 
 Mr. Lord of Manchester moved that the number be fixed at 
 1,200. 
 
 Mr. Pike of Haverhill If it is in order, I move that we 
 insert such number as will make the number of representa- 
 tives in the house between 280 and 300, as has been voted. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough I wish to make a motion that 
 the number for a second representative be made 3,000, as 
 that comes exactly. On the basis of 600 for the first repre- 
 
456 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 sentative it would give us 286 in the house, on the basis of 
 3,000 for a second representative. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I submit a question of order,, 
 whether the proposition of the gentleman from Haverhill,. 
 Mr. Pike, is in order. I think it is not. I think the intention 
 of the Convention was to have this second number fixed. 
 
 The Chairman The chair will rule that votes shall be- 
 taken upon the figures, and if the figures are all voted down,, 
 the motion of the gentleman from Haverhill, Mr. Pike, can 
 be entertained. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for a second representative, under the town 
 system, be 3,000," as moved by Mr. Scott of Peterborough, 
 the motion was declared lost on a division vote of 36 in the- 
 affirmative and 266 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for a second representative, under the town 
 system be 2,000," as moved by Mr. Starr of Manchester and 
 Mr. Sullivan of Manchester, the motion was declared lost on a 
 division vote of 148 in the affirmative and 158 in the nega- 
 tive. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for a second representative, under the town 
 system, be 1,800," as moved by Mr. Wason of Nashua, the 
 motion was declared lost on a division vote of 154 in the af- 
 firmative and 176 in the negative. 
 
 A delegate It seems to me that the Committee is at 
 sea. We have already passed the number by which the house- 
 of representatives can consist of between 280 and 300, and 
 any further voting upon the second number seems a waste of 
 time. 
 
 The Chairman That seems correct. Inasmuch as we have 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 457 
 
 established the number for the size of the house of repre- 
 sentatives as between 280 and 300., I would say that we have 
 already rejected propositions which will bring the house any- 
 where near that. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I rise to a point of order. I 
 object to debate either on the floor or from the chair. 
 
 The Chairman The chair rules that the point is well 
 taken. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for a second representative, under the town 
 system, be 1,600," as moved by Mr. Pressler of Keene, the 
 motion was declared lost on a division vote of 31 in the af- 
 firmative and 252 in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin I withdraw my motion that the 
 second number be fixed at 1,370. 
 
 The Chairman We now recur to the proposition of the 
 gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Lord, that the number for 
 the second representative be fixed at 1,200. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I rise simply to ask the chair if 
 this motion prevails if it does not leave us just where we 
 started? 
 
 The Chairman If it were not for the fear of indulging in 
 debate, the chair would say that it did. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for a second representative, under the town 
 system, be 1,200," as moved by Mr. Lord of Manchester, the 
 motion was declared lost on a division vote of 77 in the af- 
 firmative and 226 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for a second representative, under the town 
 
458 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 system, be 1,000," as moved by Mr. Fellows of Tilton, the 
 motion was declared lost on a division vote of 8 in the affirm- 
 ative and 254 in the negative. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the number of inhabi- 
 tants required for a second representative, under the town 
 system, be such in number as will make the number of the 
 house of representatives not more than 300 nor less than 
 280," as moved by Mr. Pike of Haverhill, the motion pre- 
 vailed by a division vote of 247 in the affirmative and 60 in 
 the negative. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I move that the Committee arise, 
 report, and recommend to the Convention the various propo- 
 sitions as they have been voted upon, with a further recom- 
 mendation that the whole subject of representation be sent by 
 the Convention to the Standing Committee on Legislative De- 
 partment, and the motion prevailed. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester, chairman of the Committee of 
 the Whole, reported that the Committee had been in session, 
 having had under consideration the subject of representation 
 in the house of representatives, and had recommended to the 
 Convention that the house of representatives be fixed at a 
 number not exceeding 300 members nor less than 280 mem- 
 bers; that the number of inhabitants required for the first 
 representative shall be 600 and the number required for a 
 second representative shall be such a number as will provide a 
 house of representatives of not less than 280 members nor 
 more than 300, and further recommend that the whole sub- 
 ject of representation be referred to the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the recommendation of 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 459 
 
 the chairman of the Committee of the Whole that the whole 
 subject of representation be referred to the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department with the recommendations of the 
 Committee/ 7 be adopted, the affirmative prevailed on a viva 
 voce vote. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I ask unanimous consent that 
 any pairs that have existed with reference to the preceding 
 votes may be handed to the presiding officer and entered 
 upon the record. I ask this because the gentleman from Bed- 
 ford, Mr. Woodbury, was very anxious to vote, but was not 
 able to be present and was paired. 
 
 The President The chair will state that nothing can go 
 upon the record of the Convention except what transpires in 
 the Convention. The votes were taken in the Committee of 
 the Whole. The chair will not order record of pairs to be 
 placed on the record except by vote of the Convention, but 
 the chair will entertain a motion. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I will modify my suggestion. 
 I ask to have it appear that the gentleman from Bedford, Mr. 
 Woodbury, was detained by business which he could not 
 avoid, and was paired. 
 
 Upon motion of Mr. Jones of Manchester, the Convention 
 took a recess until three o'clock. 
 
 (Eecess.) 
 
 Upon reassembling, leave was granted the Committee on 
 Mileage to sit during the afternoon. 
 
 Mr. McAllister of Manchester offered the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 Resolved, That Nelson W. Paige of Ward Ten, Manchester, 
 he allowed and paid from the appropriation for this Conven- 
 tion the sum of $20 for expenses incurred in defending his 
 right to his seat as a delegate in this Convention. 
 
460 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 The question being stated, the resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Blodgett, chairman of the Committee on Judicial 
 Department, to whom was referred the resolution of Mr. Hoi- 
 man of Hillsborough empowering the general court "to im- 
 . pose and levy assessments, rates, and taxes upon the estates of 
 deceased persons, or upon bequests, devises, or inheritances, 
 which said rates and taxes may be graded or proportioned in 
 such way or manner as such general court may direct, but said 
 rates and taxes shall never exceed ten per cent, of said estates, 
 bequests, devises, or inheritancs," reported the same with the 
 following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That it is inexpedient to adopt the same. 
 The report was accepted, and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Mr. President, I move that the 
 Convention resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, to 
 consider the resolution for a declaration against trusts, which 
 was introduced by myself, and was made a special order after 
 the conclusion of the question of representation. 
 
 Mr. Thompson of Warner I ask for the special order upon 
 woman's suffrage, which was made a special order for eleven 
 o'clock this forenoon. 
 
 The President The chair will say to the gentleman from 
 Warner, Mr. Thompson, that the resolution offered by the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, on the subject of 
 trusts was made the special order for Tuesday at eleven 
 o'clock, and by the suggestion of Mr. Chandler with unani- 
 mous consent, that particular special order was made subject 
 to the order with reference to the consideration of the resolu- 
 tions relating to representation, and the chair thinks that 
 the parliamentary situation is such that the trust subject hav- 
 ing yielded to the other, would come in as a special order 
 in the place of the suffrage amendment which was made a 
 special order for this forenoon; but it may be that the gentle- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 461 
 
 man from Warner and the gentleman from Concord by a short 
 conference could arrange the matter in a way satisfactory to 
 both. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord If I could be sure that the dis- 
 cussion on the question of woman's suffrage would not take 
 a long time, personally I should be willing to waive a prior 
 consideration on the resolution against trusts. But I feel 
 in justice to myself and to other parties who desire to speak 
 upon this subject, that it is my duty to insist upon the ques- 
 tion of trusts being taken up and proceeded with this after- 
 noon. 
 
 Mr. Thompson of Warner Mr. President, by arrangement 
 with the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, I would say 
 that I do not understand that it is the intention of this Con- 
 vention to discuss the question of woman's suffrage at any 
 great length, and I would therefore move that the discussion 
 of that question be limited to half an hour, and that at the 
 end of that time the matter shall come up for vote. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Thompson of Warner is stated by the 
 chair. 
 
 Upon amendment offered by Mr. Pike of Haverhill, that 
 the speeches on the subject be limited to five minutes, which 
 amendment was accepted by Mr. Thompson of Warner, the 
 motion was put by the chair and was carried. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I am satisfied that this question 
 relating to the rights of woman's suffrage should not drift 
 through this Convention. I am also satisfied that the propo- 
 sition would be voted down if submitted to the Convention on 
 a thirty-minute discussion. In order that the interests which 
 present this question for our consideration should not be left 
 altogether without a remedy, I offer the following amendment 
 to the resolution submitted by the gentleman from Warner. 
 
 The President The chair is obliged to rule that the 
 amendment is too late unless the other motion is reconsid- 
 ered. 
 
462 JOTJKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Thompson of Warner I would like to suggest that the 
 gentleman from Littleton have his proposed amendment read 
 to the house. 
 
 Secretary reads as follows: 
 
 "The legislature is authorized to suhmit to the people the 
 question whether suffrage shall be conferred upon women, 
 and whenever, upon such submission, two thirds of the legal 
 voters and two thirds of the native born and naturalized 
 women of the state above twenty-one years of age shall have 
 voted in the affirmative upon such question, then any subse- 
 quent legislature may confer full suffrage upon women." 
 
 Upon motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the Convention 
 resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole for the purpose 
 of taking up the discussion of the woman's suffrage amend- 
 ment under the conditions fixed by the Convention. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Kent of Lancaster in the chair.) 
 
 The Chairman Gentlemen of the Committee, we are ready 
 to proceed with the discussion of the resolution that was be- 
 fore the Convention which the clerk will read. 
 
 (Clerk reads resolution of Mr. Thompson of Warner.) 
 
 Mr. Thompson of Warner Mr. President and Gentlemen 
 of the Convention: It is proper for me to say something at 
 this time if I have the courage of my convictions. I regret 
 that some more distinguished member of this Convention is 
 not occupying the position of mover of this important resolu- 
 tion. I owe it to this Convention to tell why I presented to 
 this body the memorial of the officers of the Woman's Suf- 
 frage association of New Hampshire. In common with you 
 all, I received, prior to this Convention, a circular letter ask- 
 ing if I believed in the enfranchisement of women. I 
 answered yes, and hastily and without thought of the conse- 
 quences I added this: "Forty years ago I joined the Union 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 463 
 
 army and served three years that the slaves might be free 
 four years ago I volunteered to help free the Cubans from the 
 tyranny of Spain and served a year, and I am ready now as a 
 delegate to the Constitutional Convention to help free the 
 women of New Hampshire from the injustice of taxation 
 without representation and that they shall no* longer be 
 classed with idiots, the criminal, and the pauper." The offi- 
 cers of the Woman's Suffrage association of New Hampshire, 
 believing I was honest in this statement, came to this hall last 
 week, and though I was a stranger to them asked my assist- 
 ance. Had I, fearing ridicule or ancient prejudice, refused it, 
 I should be despicable; should I now withhold my support I 
 should be a coward, and no man worthy to wear this button of 
 the Grand Army of the Eepublic could do any less than I am 
 doing to-day, when I go out upon this skirmish line, trusting 
 that a majority of this Convention will support me in asking 
 that this proposed amendment to article twenty-seven, part 
 second, of the Constitution, which will, if ratified, enfranchise 
 the women of New Hampshire, be submitted to the legal 
 voters of this state for their action. 
 
 I believe in the enfranchisement of women because it is 
 right, because it is equitable and just. Taxation without rep- 
 resentation is tyranny, and the largest contingent at Bunker 
 Hill came from New Hampshire and there sealed that proposi- 
 tion with their blood. 
 
 For days we have listened to dissertations and learned ora- 
 tions on equality, and times without number we have had 
 quoted to us from article nine, "There shall be in the legisla- 
 ture of the state a representation of the people founded on 
 the principles of equality." In the town of Warner, where I 
 reside, we have a village precinct; in that precinct there are 
 101 homes or homesteads. Fifty- three of these homesteads 
 are owned by women, and forty-eight are owned by men; the 
 minority vote and have representation; the majority cannot 
 vote and have no representation, except as they are counted 
 with children and other non-voting creatures. Is this equal- 
 ity? Where did the men of New Hampshire learn equality? 
 
464 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Down in the yard of this house stands a noble statue of its 
 greatest expounder, Daniel Webster; near by is Gen. John 
 Stark, who fought for it, and at the feet of John P. Hale of 
 the Old Guard, let us relearn the lesson he so nobly taught, 
 that all men are free and equal. When the name of nearly 
 every man in this house is lost in the oblivion of time that of 
 John P. Hale will endure principally because of his labors in 
 the cause of freedom. As a sequence to that noble effort the 
 colored man has the franchise, although abridged in some 
 states in open defiance of the Constitution of the United 
 States. Are not the women of New Hampshire as well fitted 
 for enfranchisement as the negro? 
 
 I yield to no man in my love of equality, and as I look over 
 this Convention I can see where I learned the beneficent les- 
 son. I have learned much from that most distinguished mem- 
 ber of this body, the Hon. William E. Chandler of Concord, 
 whose transcendent ability as a champion of human rights 
 and the equality of all men before the law has had my heart- 
 iest admiration for forty years. I learned much of the worth 
 of free institutions and equal rights from my old army com- 
 rade sitting here, who, forty years ago, come next Saturday, 
 the memorable 13th day of December, 1862, marched with 
 the Eleventh regiment of New Hampshire Volunteers across 
 the pontoon bridge at Fredericksburg into one of the bloodiest 
 battles of the Civil war. I refer to my old comrade, the Hon. 
 James F. Briggs of Manchester. As I have looked into the 
 face of that profound orator and gallant soldier, Col. Henry 
 0. Kent of Lancaster, and have noticed here from day to day 
 the many men who wear the button of the Grand Army, I 
 have learned anew the old lesson, often conned, that freedom, 
 justice, and equal rights are the most beneficent principles to 
 live for, and, if necessary, to die for. Many made the supreme 
 sacrifice in those old days, emphasizing as nothing else can 
 the value of our institutions. 
 
 I have been glad to sit near the Hon. Cyrus H. Little of 
 Manchester, not because he ranks at the head of the younger 
 generation as an orator and statesman, but because of old 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 465 
 
 association with his gallant father, who was an officer of the 
 regiment to which I had the honor to belong and who laid 
 down his life on the field of battle that this nation might live. 
 A large number of men and women of this state ask at your 
 hands the privilege of having submitted to the voters of this 
 state an amendment looking to the enfranchisement of 
 women. That I believe in it may not influence anyone, but I 
 ask your attention to a few authorities. That great scholar, 
 statesman, and patriot, who ten days ago was a living entity, 
 and who lies now in the embrace of mother earth in the state 
 he loved so well, the Hon. Thomas B. Reed, had only kindly 
 words for the enfranchisement of women. In a circular sent 
 to every member of this Convention we find noble words en- 
 dorsing woman suffrage from such men as the Hon. James 0. 
 Lyford, ex-Senator Henry W. Blair, the Hon. H. H. Metcalf, 
 lecturer of the New Hampshire State Grange*, the Rev. Charles 
 S. Murkland, president of our agricultural college, the Hon. 
 Henry F. Hollis of Concord, the Hon. Sherman E. Burroughs 
 of Manchester, Dr. Klock, principal of the State Normal 
 school, Col. Henry B. Quinby of Lakeport, the Rev. Dr. Dan- 
 iel C. Robertsi of Concord, and many others. Where in 
 New Hampshire can you find safer leaders of public thought 
 and action? One more New Hampshire man who endorsed 
 woman suffrage is he who next month the great Republican 
 party of New Hampshire will unanimously elect for his third 
 term in the United States Senate, that statesman and true 
 friend of every best interest of New Hampshire, the Hon. 
 Jacob H. Gallinger, our senior senator. One other distin- 
 guished advocate of the enfranchisement of women, who, in 
 his writings and public speeches and from high official station, 
 has spoken in no uncertain tongue, is he who, as police com- 
 missioner of the great city of New York and as governor of 
 that great state, did so much to raise political thought to a 
 higher level; he who in those days when Cuba reached out her 
 hands, supplicating our aid, left his luxurious quarters in the 
 navy department at Washington and gallantly led his regi- 
 ment of Rough Riders at San Juan hill; he believes in equal- 
 30 
 
466 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ity for women; he who, when our beloved McKinley laid down 
 the cares of life and of state, took up the scepter of the presi- 
 dency and has wielded it so admirably and so well that the 
 name and fame of the United States has received new glory 
 in every country of the earth; a man who, courting neither 
 fear nor favor, strenuously advocates the enfranchisement of 
 women, Theodore Eoosevelt, president of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Cummings of Enfield I did not come to this Conven- 
 tion with the idea of making any speech on any subject unless 
 it were this which is now before the house. For many years 
 I have been in favor of giving women the suffrage, and the 
 first and foremost reason for that is because it is her natural 
 and inalienable right; because she is in all respects the equal 
 of man, and, with the speaker who has just sat down, I will 
 say that I have never known any good reason for withholding 
 this right from her. Upon principles of equity and equality 
 I cannot understand how women, one half of the citizens of 
 this state, should be denied the right to express themselves 
 upon any question of money, or any other question that may 
 come up. I believe every woman of proper age has a sacred 
 right to vote, has as good a right to vote as you or I, sir, and 
 we have no right to deprive her of it. She stands to-day in 
 the category of the minor, the pauper, the idiot, and others- 
 that for some reason are deprived of suffrage. I do not wish 
 my wife, who in all respects is my equal, to stand and be class- 
 ified in such a category as that. I desire her to be represented 
 and to be able to express her own views on subjects of interest 
 to her. I desire my sisters, who are in all respects my equal, 
 should have the same right to vote upon any question that 
 may come up. 
 
 We have had a great deal of talk on the subject of equality 
 and justice, and that we should try to get some system of rep- 
 resentation on the basis of equality and justice. I listened 
 yesterday with a great deal of pleasure to the eloquent re- 
 marks of the gentleman from Lancaster, Mr. Drew. His 
 statement of equality and justice was ably and well put. But 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 467 
 
 I was sorry when he departed from that principle in disclaim- 
 ing his adherence to, the principles of woman's suffrage, and 
 saying that he was not in favor of allowing women to vote. I 
 would like to ask that gentleman's wife, and his sisters if he 
 has them, what their view would be in regard to his repre- 
 senting them. 
 
 We have had a good demonstration here in this Convention 
 of the ladies' ability to act for themselves. They have been 
 before us, and they have given their reason for asking suffrage 
 much better than I could do it. They have come before us in 
 person and demonstrated that we should treat them with the 
 same equity and justice that we demand for ourselves. They 
 have come before us to the number of 2,600 in a petition 
 which the president of the Woman's Suffrage association pre- 
 sented, asking for this thing. Shall we deny them that right 
 or shall we give it to them. 
 
 Mr. Pike of Haverhill Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of 
 the Convention: I believe this question much more im- 
 portant than any other question that has come before the 
 Convention, that we give the rights to women that belong to 
 them equal rights with men. Cannot we trust our mothers 
 and wives and sisters and daughters? Who gave us our first 
 instruction in matters of right and importance? Was it not 
 our mothers ? Who have been our guides, our balance wheels, 
 and upon whose judgment we have depended and acted when 
 we were not sure of our own? Has it not been our wives? 
 Cannot we trust our sisters and daughters ? 
 
 I have heard some gentlemen in the Convention say that 
 their wives and daughters do not want to vote. This may be 
 true in some rare cases, but I believe that the majority of the 
 women in this state will vote, and vote right, if they have the 
 chance. I believe that they will make better students of poli- 
 tics, that they will go deeper into the matter, and that their 
 intuitive sense of right will give them a clear understanding, 
 so they will not only vote, and vote right, but their influence 
 over the men will be in the right direction. 
 
 But supposing the wife of some gentleman here does not 
 
468 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 want to vote. Is that any reason why he should deny the 
 privilege to the other good women of the state? 
 
 Do not the mothers and wives have a greater interest and 
 a more unselfish one in our welfare than anyone else could 
 have? 
 
 Conditions have changed. The thought of the people has 
 changed. I can remember back in the slave days, when the 
 slaveholders said that the slaves did not want to be free, that 
 they were satisfied to be slaves. 
 
 I believe that the majority of the women of our land want 
 the right of franchise want a voice in the government of our 
 land. I believe that they are entitled to have it, and that they 
 are in every way able and fitted to be trusted with it. 
 
 We remember with pleasure the ladies who spoke to us day 
 before yesterday, representing the Woman's Suffrage associa- 
 tions. We are satisfied that these women knew what they 
 were talking about what they wanted. Do we not believe 
 that such women are entitled to vote, and do we not think 
 that they will vote intelligently. Do we not wish to have 
 such bright, intelligent looking ladies as are now in the gal- 
 lery have equal rights with us? 
 
 A resolution has been offered in this Convention to leave 
 God out of the Constitution. Leave God out of the Constitu- 
 tion! Gentlemen, let us put God into it into every section 
 and every article and then let us put women into it, our 
 mothers, our wives, our sisters, our daughters, and our sweet- 
 hearts. Then we can go home and meet their smiling ap- 
 proval, and I believe that if we do nothing else but give to the 
 women of this state the right of suffrage, we will have accom- 
 plished more for our beloved commonwealth than we could 
 accomplish in any other way. 
 
 Mr. Fellows of Tilton I would like to ask the gentle- 
 man from Warner where there is anything in the Constitution 
 to prevent the legislature from giving women the right to 
 vote when the legislature is satisfied that she should have it. 
 
 Mr. Thompson of Warner Article twenty-seven, part two, 
 of the Constitution. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 469 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry Mr. Chairman and Gen- 
 tlemen of the Committee: I yield to no man in my respect 
 and admiration for women; I yield to no man in the' enjoy- 
 ment I experienced in listening to the eloquent words of the 
 ladies who addressed us upon this subject the other evening. 
 I do not believe the people of New Hampshire have voiced 
 any demand for woman's suffrage; I do not believe that the 
 people of this state want anything of that sort when they get 
 but 2,600 signers out of 411,000 people. 
 
 I do not believe that woman is going to be placed in any 
 more advantageous position, or have any more influence when 
 dragged from the high pedestal she now occupies and placed 
 in the arena of political warfare with men. I do not believe 
 that woman cares to vote. I do not believe that in the state 
 of Colorado the women would vote to have woman's suffrage 
 extended a second time, in view of some experiences in that 
 direction that they have had. I know a woman,, raised in New 
 Hampshire, the daughter of a Presbyterian minister, who now 
 lives in Colorado, who when visiting here said that she would 
 never go to the polls again, and that was the position taken 
 by most of the respectable women in the city of Denver. 
 
 It has been well expressed that, "The hand that rocks the 
 cradle rules the world." It was true when it was said, it is 
 true now, and it is truer than it will be if you give women the 
 vote and send them down to dispute with men. 
 
 Napoleon, the great general, at one time, it is said, when 
 asked by Mme. de Stael who was the greatest woman, replied, 
 "She who is the mother of the largest family." 
 
 Do you believe that woman's suffrage will help to build up 
 the homes in New Hampshire? Do you believe that it will 
 make better mothers? Is not the home what we are trying to 
 build up? Is it not necessary that we should have woman at 
 home to bear the children and then raise those children in 
 the years to come? The old countrywoman, the woman whom 
 you and I remember, called "Auntie" by everybody, who lived 
 in the country towns and extended her hands to every one in 
 affliction, who officiated at birth, and who assisted at death, 
 
470 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 had more power than any woman with woman's suffrage will, 
 or can have, in this state or any other. We all admire that 
 motherly woman, a woman who raises her family, directs the 
 feet of her children in the direction they should go, takes an 
 interest in their pleasures and their tasks, educates them and 
 watches over them that is the kind of a woman that we ad- 
 mire, the kind of a wife that any man of New Hampshire 
 should aspire to. In the past we have had those women in 
 New Hampshire, and I hope the women of our state will re- 
 main on the pedestal where we have always worshipped them. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
 of the Committee: I am not sure but that the best thing I 
 can do is to make my remarks the way the lazy man said his 
 prayers. It became tiresome for him to repeat his prayer 
 every night before going to bed, and so he pinned it to the 
 head of his bed, and as he "turned in/' as we phrased it in 
 army times, he pointed to it and said, "0 Lord, them's my 
 sentiments." After hearing the eloquent remarks of the ladies 
 who have addressed us I do not know as I can do more than 
 to say, "Them's my sentiments." I do not believe any gen- 
 tleman on the floor has time, or will have time, to answer the 
 arguments made before this body by those ladies. They are 
 simply unanswerable. 
 
 We are discussing a different question from that in which 
 we have been engaged during the days past. In this question 
 there is no politics. It is simply a question of equity and of 
 right. Is is simply a question of whether we shall change our 
 organic law so as to have new elements in our political organ- 
 ization. I wish to remind you that all life, animal and 
 vegetable, depends upon the ability of the organization to 
 acquire new blood and new growth new elements. The mo- 
 ment any vegetable or any animal ceases to take on new ele- 
 ments, new blood and tissue, that moment it begins to die. 
 That is a natural law, and it is the law not only with the ani- 
 mal and vegetable kingdom, but it is the law with reference to 
 political bodies. 
 
THTJKSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 471 
 
 I know that there is a prejudice that keeps us a great many 
 times from entering upon anything that is new, and it is this, 
 it seems to me, that lies at the root of the whole matter. 
 There is a prejudice against taking on something new, and 
 there is a feeling in favor of continuing in the old paths. 
 That is the feeling, perhaps, of nine* out of ten of this Con- 
 vention. But let me remind you, gentlemen, that principle of 
 action is what has kept poor, old, decrepit China dragging at 
 the wheels of progress for centuries past, and it is because 
 that principle was discarded by little Japan that she has taken 
 her position so famous in the world. Just think of the little 
 island kingdom, having only about forty million inhabitants, 
 and how she has humbled the great empire of China, contain- 
 ing almost one fourth of the population of the globe. The 
 conditions which enabled Japan to do this were brought about 
 simply by the fact that Japan has gone out of the old beaten 
 paths and taken on new life. 
 
 This Convention can honor itself no more than by saying to 
 the women of the state, "Yes, you can submit this question to 
 the people; you can go throughout the length and breadth of 
 the state and advocate your cause, and we will leave it to the 
 people." Is not that fair? There can be no harm in that. If 
 four tenths of the people of the state vote against it there is 
 no harm done by submitting it to them for their decision. 
 Let us meet this request of the ladies in the spirit of courtesy 
 and honor and justice, and allow this question to be submitted 
 to the people of New Hampshire, 
 
 Mr. Dudley of Concord If the time has not already ex- 
 pired I want to say just one word. I do not propose to advo- 
 cate all the merits of this measure. That matter has been 
 more clearly stated to the members of this Committee by the 
 ladies who addressed us the other evening than is possible for 
 me to do. 
 
 The principal objection the only objection that seems to 
 be raised here against submitting this question to the people is 
 .that the people do not want it, that the ladies of this state do 
 
472 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 not want the privilege of voting. That is no argument at all. 
 It was said here by the gentleman from Londonderry,, Mr. 
 Pillsbury, that the women of this state ruled the state, that 
 the women of this country rule the country. In one sense they 
 do, and if this matter is submitted to the people, and the 
 women do not want to vote or to receive the privilege of vot- 
 ing, two thirds of the voters of this state will vote against the 
 amendment and no damage will be done. If they do approve 
 of it and want the privilege, then the amendment will receive 
 two thirds of the votes and will become a law of the state. I 
 say we ought to give them the privilege of submitting this 
 question to the legal voters of this state, and if they vote to 
 place the ballot in the hands of the women I believe we all 
 would be satisfied with it, and I believe we would have better 
 government and less corruption in politics, and it would have 
 no influence in making the homes less happy than they are 
 now. 
 
 The Chairman Gentlemen of the Convention, the half 
 hour has expired. There was some misunderstanding in re- 
 gard to this matter, and the chair feels it proper that before 
 the question is voted upon it may be straightened out, and 
 with the consent of the house I will recognize the gentleman 
 from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I renew the motion that I made 
 in the Convention to amend the resolution of the gentleman 
 from Warner, Mr. Thompson. 
 
 The Chairman The gentleman from Warner, Mr. Thomp- 
 son, moves to amend the Constitution as follows: "Resolved,. 
 That the word 'male' be stricken out of article twenty-seven 
 of the Constitution," and Mr. Aldrich of Littleton presents- 
 as an amendment the following, which the clerk will read. 
 
 Clerk reads as follows: 
 
 "The legislature is authorized to submit to the people the 
 question whether suffrage shall be conferred upon women, and 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 473 
 
 whenever, upon such submission,, two thirds of the legal voters 
 and two thirds of the native born and naturalized women of 
 the state above twenty-one years of age shall have voted in 
 the affirmative upon such question, then any subsequent leg- 
 islature may confer full suffrage upon women." 
 
 The Chairman The chair rules that this be regarded and 
 presented in the way of an amendment. If there is any error 
 in this ruling it can be rectified by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I will say, Mr. Chairman, that 
 I agree entirely with the remarks of some of the gentlemen, 
 that this proposition is one of the most important questions 
 to be submitted to this Convention. It must be understood 
 that if this Convention votes affirmatively upon this question, 
 it passes its judgment to the world that it is in favor of 
 woman's suffrage. I do not think that such a question as that 
 should be disposed of upon thirty minutes' debate; I do not 
 think that any gentleman has a right, by arrangement with 
 another, to estop this Convention by limiting debate to thirty 
 minutes. I am opposed to it. I do not propose to express my 
 position on the main proposition as it stands in five minutes, 
 or anywhere near it. I do think that the question should be 
 discussed fairly, and if it is the sense of this Convention, 
 without giving its endorsement to the proposition of woman's 
 suffrage as a whole, to allow it to be voted upon by the voters 
 of New Hampshire, or by the voters and the women of New 
 Hampshire, the plan I have suggested, or one similar to it, 
 should be the one adopted. It gives the opportunity for the 
 women to vote upon the question; it is fair to this Conven- 
 tion, and fair to the women of the state, 
 
 I move that the time for debate upon this question be ex- 
 tended one hour. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I made no arrangement with 
 anybody about half an hour's debate. I assented to the idea 
 presented by the presiding officer of this Convention, that the 
 gentleman from Warner, Mr. Thompson, should make the 
 
474 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 motion he did without any objection from me. I undoubt- 
 edly could not have prevailed if I had made objection. But 
 the Convention itself fixed the half hour limit, and so the 
 gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, should criticise the 
 Convention and not myself. I agree with him that an ar- 
 rangement of that sort cannot be made by members, but must 
 be made only by the Convention itself and voted upon by the 
 Convention. 
 
 The chair puts the motion of the gentleman from Little- 
 ton, Mr. Aldrich, that the time for debate upon woman suf- 
 frage be extended one hour, and the motion is carried. 
 
 The Chairman The discussion will continue for one hour, 
 and speeches, as at first indicated, will be limited to five 
 minutes. 
 
 Mr. Osgood of Nelson I suppose that everybody recol- 
 lects the time when the law was passed permitting women to 
 Tote in the school meeting. They did vote quite generally for 
 a few years, but now, so far as I am informed, not one in ten 
 in the country towns avail themselves of this privilege. That 
 does not look as if women were anxious to vote. 
 
 A man said here that it was no argument that they did not 
 want to vote. I would like to know why it is not an argu- 
 ment. 
 
 I know that several years ago the women of New York 
 petitioned to the assembly of New York for suffrage, and such 
 petition was circulated, so the New York Tribune said (which 
 I think is good authority), but it did not get a large propor- 
 tion of the women of the state to sign it. 
 
 I undertake to say there is no demand in this state by fifty 
 per cent, of the women for any woman's suffrage amendment 
 to our Constitution. I have n't the least doubt about it, al- 
 though I cannot prove it. The women of this state have now 
 plenty of money, plenty of leisure., and it goes without saying 
 that they can hold office although they cannot vote, and we 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 475 
 
 are quite willing that they should have the opportunity to 
 ;serve their country in that direction. 
 
 Would it not be wise to go slow. The ladies the other 
 night spoke eloquently, and I heard considerable of what they 
 :said. Their arguments were good enough, but I think it is a 
 .greater argument against the proposition that the women do 
 not want the right of suffrage. I know quite a number of 
 women who are quite capable and enlightened enough to exer- 
 cise the right of suffrage as well as the majority of men, but 
 they do not want it, and I see no reason for forcing it upon 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter I do not know whether it is wise or 
 not I have not asked my wife, but shall later. 
 
 The gentleman who has just addressed us has spoken of the 
 lack of effect produced by conferring upon woman the right 
 to vote in school affairs. I have not lived in Nelson, but have 
 in Exeter. The women of Exeter do not exercise the right to 
 vote in school affairs at all times, but they do semi-occasion- 
 ally, and when they do it has a most excellent effect. When- 
 ever they have exercised the right conferred upon them the 
 effect has been good for them and for the whole community. 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord I am unable to share in the positive- 
 ness of the gentlemen on either side of this question as to 
 whether the women of the state do or do not want woman 
 suffrage. My position as to what is best under the circum- 
 stances is also a position of doubt, I shall vote for submitting 
 this in some way to the people, because I am not satisfied it is 
 wrong. On any question where I was satisfied one way or the 
 other, I should vote as I thought was; right, but not being 
 satisfied in this case I shall vote for submitting the question 
 to the popular vote. But I think the proposition advanced 
 by the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, should be 
 adopted. 
 
 As far as my acquaintance goes, as far as I have conferred 
 and talked with the women of my acquaintance about this 
 matter, I have found that they would be practically unani- 
 
476 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 mous against woman's suffrage. I do not believe it would be 
 fair and right to force it upon them if they do not want it. I 
 do not think that there would be any principle of equity up- 
 held by forcing upon the women of New Hampshire a burden 
 they do not want. I think, therefore, that the proposition of 
 the gentleman from Littleton is a fair one, as the decision 
 would not rest wholly upon the men of the state, who would 
 be more or less in ignorance of the wishes of the women about 
 it, but it would give the women themselves an opportunity to- 
 vote upon the question. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Mr. Chairman, I deem it a very 
 great misfortune to myself that I am drawn into the dis- 
 cussion of this question this afternoon. I deem it unfortu- 
 nate for myself, being in opposition to this measure, to be 
 obliged to state my position in five minutes, because if a man 
 finds himself in opposition to the women, even in the little 
 things of life, it requires more than five minutes to explain 
 why he is there. But to be serious, the proposition is startling 
 that a question which involves the overthrow of one of the- 
 pillars of our civic structure should slide through this Con- 
 vention on grounds of chivalry with a five-minute limitation 
 upon members desiring to state the reasons for their action 
 upon so important a measure. If I am in opposition to the 
 proposition to strike the word "male" from the Constitution 
 it is not because I deem women as a class less intelligent than 
 men, nor is it because I deem the sphere of woman less im- 
 portant than that of man. I accord to no man a higher ap- 
 preciation of womanhood than I hold myself. My belief is 
 that the sphere of woman in the world is just as important as 
 that of man. The function of woman in working out the 
 destinies of the home, the destinies of the state, and the des- 
 tinies of the nation, is quite as important and more exalted 
 than that of man. Man receives his inspiration from woman, 
 and he governs his actions by the judgment of woman, as he 
 finds it in the home. I doubt whether the function of woman 
 would be as important in the affairs of life and the affairs of 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 477 
 
 the nation if she were thrust into the tumultuous turmoils in- 
 cident to the town-meetings and the ward meetings. I doubt 
 if the world would get along as well as it is doing now if the 
 position of women in respect to the home and to voting were 
 changed. Woman's sphere is not to walk elbow to elbow 
 with man into the strife and the tumultuous turmoils of the 
 town-meetings and the wars! Man's inspiration, pride, and 
 action largely depend upon his respect and appreciation of 
 woman. I doubt very seriously whether man's chivalric ap- 
 preciation of the inspiring and beautifying influence of 
 womanhood will remain through many generations if woman 
 shall relinquish her exalted position her supreme point of 
 vantage and come down into the struggles of the country 
 and city voting places. It will lower the woman and antago- 
 nize rather than elevate the man. It would disturb the serene 
 security of motherhood, and no insistence upon the idea of 
 the abstract right of women to vote can compensate for such 
 a loss as that. It must be remembered that conferring the 
 right to vote imposes the duty. If bad women exercise the 
 right to vote, all women must, or the equilibrium in voting 
 will be wholly lost. 
 
 I shall not say anything more upon this question, but I ask 
 the attention of the Convention to a few paragraphs from the 
 address of a very distinguished and a venerable man who sat 
 in this hall for many years. He was one of the grandest men 
 I ever knew, one of the most tolerant, one of the most learned 
 and philosophical. I refer to the late lamented Harry Bing- 
 ham. His respect for motherhood and the home was sublime. 
 I remember hearing him say that great nations were impos- 
 sible without great men, and that great men are possible only 
 where great and good mothers preside over the childhood and 
 the home. The address to which I refer was delivered before 
 the Grafton Bar association a few years ago, and I ask the 
 clerk to read the paragraphs which I have marked, and I make 
 them a part of my remarks upon this question. 
 
 The clerk read as follows: 
 
478 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 There are some things that without doubt will always re- 
 main for the men to do,, while other things are left exclusively 
 in the hands of the women. Women will never be called upon 
 to carry the musket or to dig ditches; certainly not except in 
 extraordinary exigencies. The household, the home, the 
 family are the proper dominion of the wife and mother. 
 There she should be supreme. War, invention, discovery, the; 
 subjugation of the wilderness and fitting it for civilization 
 are the business of the men. In a vast number of employ- 
 ments it is not likely that a definite line of demarcation will 
 ever be drawn between what shall be done by one sex and 
 what by the other. No doubt some occupations always will, 
 remain open to both sexes alike. No superiority of one sex 
 over the other is implied because in some matters the services; 
 of one are preferred to the services of the other. The sex en- 
 abled by its peculiar powers to perform a given work better 
 than the other sex can, is preferred and ought to be preferred. 
 
 There are questions more or less discussed at the present 
 time about the ballot; whether or not that should be given to 
 woman, and whether or not her participation in such business 
 would be congenial to herself and tend to promote human 
 progress. The class of women (to whom allusion has been 
 made already as of no account) prancing along on the divis- 
 ional line that society has fixed between the sexes as to man- 
 ners and costume, putting on mannish airs, garments, and 
 headgear, and exhibiting only faint traces of what would indi- 
 cate the sex to which they belong, are extremely urgent and 
 vociferous in their demands for the ballot. Although it must 
 be admitted that there are some women and perhaps some 
 men of character endowed with large intellectual powers, who 
 sincerely believe that the whole domain of politics and gov- 
 ernment ought to be thrown open to women the same as it is 
 to men, that women ought to have universal suffrage and be 
 eligible to all the offices in all departments of the govern- 
 ment, and to all positions in every branch of business; yet 
 much the larger part of the sober-minded, sensible women do 
 not regard it as their duty to seek such an extended opening 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 479 
 
 for female action. On the contrary, they denounce the idea 
 and say that it calls upon them to do what does not belong to 
 them to do according to the natural and proper division of 
 work between the sexes, and that they might just as well be 
 called upon to carry the musket or dig ditches. 
 
 The propriety and rightfulness of thrusting upon women 
 all the turmoil, uproar, and unseemly strife that the carrying 
 out of such an idea would involve is certainly very doubtful. 
 It would not enable her to use her natural and legitimate in- 
 fluence to any better advantage. On the contrary, it would 
 place her in an unnatural position and where she would not 
 feel at home, and thus she would be compelled to exercise her 
 wholesome and necessary influence at a disadvantage. Her 
 influence to be effective and useful must operate through the 
 natural channels of female influence and in accordance with 
 the laws of her being. The suggestion that we ought to wait 
 until the human race is further advanced in light and civiliza- 
 tion before we thrust upon woman the responsibility of the 
 ballot fully extended, and of running the government in all 
 its branches, is certainly reasonable. The intimate associa- 
 tion of woman with children and youth, the deep interest she 
 feels in their welfare, and her special responsibility for them, 
 have caused everybody to agree that she ought to have a po- 
 tential voice in their training and education. In accordance 
 with this general popular assent, a movement was inaugurated 
 some time ago by which women have been made competent 
 voters in school meetings, and eligible to the offices which 
 have the management and control of the schools. 
 
 Certain Rocky Mountain states and other Western states 
 have imposed upon their women the responsibility of the bal- 
 lot, and of taking an equal part with the men in administer- 
 ing the government in all its branches. This movement must 
 be regarded as simply tentative and experimental. We shall 
 do well if we watch it long enough to be satisfied as to its 
 character. We shall then be able to draw inferences that may 
 aid us in determining what we ought to do. It will 
 no doubt be a good disposition of this question if we 
 
480 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 leave it to be determined by the next generation. We have 
 shown already what that generation is expected to be. We 
 have shown that in it and a part of it will be the sons and 
 daughters of mothers who are now girls receiving training and 
 discipline in our numerous institutions for the higher educa- 
 tion of women. We have a right to expect for this reason 
 that the next generation will have the capacity to judge in 
 regard to this and all other questions more wisely than we of 
 this generation can. Also, facts bearing on the question now 
 unknown will have come to light. The results of the experi- 
 ments now going on in the Eocky Mountain and other West- 
 ern states will then be known, and the evidence presented to 
 the next generation may remove all doubt and make very 
 plain the way this question ought to be decided. What gives 
 the question importance is the effect that its determination 
 either way may have upon human progress. Whenever it 
 shall come to pass that the level-headed, sober-minded, sensi- 
 ble women substantially concur in the conclusion that woman 
 never will have her normal position in organized society until 
 she has the ballot and takes equal part with man in govern- 
 mental affairs, and that the welfare and future progress of the 
 race require her to assume those responsibilities, in the inter- 
 est of harmony between the sexes which must be preserved, it 
 will then be necessary to inaugurate and try the experiment 
 without delay. 
 
 In settling this question and all other questions as to the 
 position each sex ought to occupy in society, let it always be 
 remembered that man and woman are partners in the busi- 
 ness of maintaining and improving the human race; that their 
 joint obligation to contribute to the progress of the race will 
 continue until mankind have advanced in knowledge, virtue, 
 and goodness as near to Divinity itself as the lot of humanity 
 will permit. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I do not rise to enter into any discus- 
 sion of the merits of this proposition. I have just a few inci- 
 dental remarks to make, and it seems to me that the first and 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 481 
 
 most obvious one is that the resolution which has been pre- 
 sented by the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, is not 
 favorable to the subject under consideration, and those who 
 are in favor of the submission of the question of female suf- 
 frage to the people of New Hampshire should vote against 
 his proposition. 
 
 It was stated by the gentleman from Nelson, Mr. Osgood, 
 that the women do not vote at the school meeting, and he 
 thinks that is a sufficient argument why a further suffrage 
 should not be presented to them. I would like to ask the gen- 
 tlemen here present, who of them if they had a right to vote 
 in school meetings only would attend those meetings. I ven- 
 ture to say that the proportion of men voters attending the 
 meeting would be as small as that of women voters now. 
 
 This is an open proposition, and it is an occasion on which 
 we all ought to be fair and chivalrous. We are not met here 
 with the proposition that we axe to determine the question of 
 female suffrage at this time. If we vote to submit this prop- 
 osition to the people that they may vote upon it, it does not 
 necessarily follow that we are in favor of woman's suffrage. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton If we vote to strike the word 
 "male" from the Constitution, do we not submit the question 
 to the people with the approval of this Convention? Do you 
 not understand that every gentleman is bound to vote upon 
 this question as he thinks the question should be finally de- 
 termined ? 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Unquestionably as he thinks the ques- 
 tion should be voted upon here, and I believe and hope that 
 there are many men in this hall who are chivalrous enough to 
 think that this question ought to be submitted to the people 
 even though they are not necessarily in favor of woman's suf- 
 frage. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, the ladies have come to us in respectable 
 numbers and with arguments which none of us have at- 
 tempted to dispute and asked of us, not that we shall give 
 31 
 
482 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 them the right of suffrage, but that we shall submit the ques- 
 tion of female suffrage to the people; they ask that of us as 
 chivalrous men, men who believe in accommodating the 
 ladies, men who would grant the request of a wife, or sister, or 
 mother. They ask that we should do exactly that, nothing- 
 more, and nothing less. If I understand their proposition 
 (which has not been communicated to me), they will then go 
 before the people of New Hampshire and make their argu- 
 ments. Gentlemen of the Committee, are we not brave 
 enough, are we not considerate enough, are we not kindly 
 enough, are we not chivalrous enough to give the ladies a 
 chance of a hearing before the people of the state of New 
 Hampshire? I hope we are. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I desire to ask the gentle- 
 man a question. Whether we are here to act upon this propo- 
 sition as a business proposition, or simply as a matter of cour- 
 tesy to the women? 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the 
 Committee: We are met here upon equal grounds, we have 
 equal rights and privileges, we meet exactly on even terms, 
 but the ladies have not the privilege to come here and discuss 
 these questions with us, and I believe in giving them a chance 
 to submit their arguments and their cause to the people of 
 New Hampshire. Why in the name of common fairness and 
 common decency should we not give them a chance to do this. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Mr. Chairman, I do not want to 
 be outdone by the gallant gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, in 
 chivalric devotion to the fair sex. I have a wife and a 
 daughter, and they are both opposed to this proposition, and I 
 am bound in making up my judgment to consider the sanc- 
 tity of the home. Everybody is bound to do that. Now, in 
 voting upon my judgment, I vote against the unqualified 
 declaration to strike the word "male" from the Constitution, 
 because, if the proposition prevails, the impression will go out 
 to the world that this Convention, voting upon its judgment, 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 483 
 
 has declared in favor of woman suffrage. Now, then, voting 
 upon my judgment I should vote against the main proposi- 
 tion, but as a matter of chivalry I will vote to submit this 
 question to the male voters of New Hampshire, if the sense 
 of the women of New Hampshire can also be taken. I say 
 there never wa,s a fairer suggestion than the one involved in 
 the amendment proposed by me here. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Will the gentleman from Littleton per- 
 mit me a question? Will he tell us how that can be? There 
 are no check-lists, and there is no arrangement by which a 
 vote can be taken by the women on this subject. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton It is perfectly easy. The next 
 legislature, or any legislature whenever public sentiment is 
 ripe for it, can devise the means for submitting the question 
 to the people of New Hampshire. If there is merit in this 
 question the gentleman ought to be willing to let it go to both 
 the women and the men of New Hampshire, rather than to 
 ask men who are opposed to this question on their judgment 
 to vote against their conscience and submit the proposition to 
 the people upon grounds of chivalry. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow The proposition of the gentleman 
 amounts simply to this we are willing to transfer to the leg- 
 islature the responsibilities which our position puts upon us. 
 I believe that we should meet this question fairly and 
 squarely here, because we have the opportunity and the duty 
 to do it. 
 
 Mr. Folsom of Dover It seems to me that the statement of 
 the gentleman from Nelson, Mr. Osgood, that there are few 
 women that go to the school meetings is as good an argument 
 for the disfranchising of the men of the state as it is for not 
 enfranchising the women. I think every man here who is 
 from a town in which district school meetings are held knows 
 that occasions arise when but few men go to the school meet- 
 ing. I believe there are men within the sound of my voice 
 
484 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 who did not attend the last meeting in their district, but I do 
 not believe they would consider it an argument for their dis- 
 franchisement that they did not attend such meeting. 
 
 The gentleman from Exeter, Mr. Fuller, has well said that 
 when their presence is demanded the women go to the school 
 meetings, and their presence is effective. Under ordinary cir- 
 cumstances there is nothing to draw them there. Take the 
 men, they do not care, as a general thing, to attend the school 
 meetings. I know of towns where the business of the school is 
 managed by one tenth of the voters, and there are towns 
 where the people themselves say that unless they held their 
 meeting immediately following a town-meeting on the same 
 day, immediately following it will be almost impossible to 
 get more than a very small fraction of the voters of the town 
 present. I have heard that during this session from mem- 
 bers of this Convention. 
 
 I do not know how I should vote at the polls in regard to 
 accepting this amendment, but I am willing the voters of the 
 state should decide. I am willing to submit it to the people of 
 the state to vote upon. Before I came here I asked my wife, 
 my three daughters, my daughter-in-law, and my mother-in- 
 law, and they all said vote "No/' but I am going to vote 
 "Yes." I am going to vote "yes" because I believe in submit- 
 ting the question to the people, and when I get ready to go to 
 the polls if they are still of the opinion that I ought to vote 
 "No," I shall probably vote "No." I suppose if the women of 
 the state want the right to vote they will advise the men of the 
 state to vote "Yes," and the men will vote "Yes." I believe, 
 in time, when the women of the state want to vote, they will 
 be given an opportunity to express their opinions and they 
 will express them that way, and I also believe that when men 
 have an opportunity to vote on the question they will vote as 
 the women want. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I would like to ask a ques- 
 tion of the gentleman from Dover in relation to the men not 
 appearing at the school meetings. In most of the country 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 485 
 
 towns, surely in the towns in which I am acquainted, the ap- 
 propriations for the school are raised in the town-meetings, 
 and that is where the men's greatest interest centers where 
 they raise their appropriations. The school committee are 
 usually there, and they tell them how much money they want 
 to carry on the school, and it does not seem necessary for them 
 simply for the purpose of electing a school committee an 
 affair which is all cut and dried to attend the school meet- 
 ings. I think that is a fair explanation why the men do not 
 take a greater interest in the school meetings about which 
 there has been more or less criticism here. 
 
 Mr. Starr of Manchester Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: 
 It is a great pleasure to me, as I imagine it must be to every 
 member in this Convention, to know that there is one member 
 here who is not afraid of his mother-in-law. I hold in my 
 hand a little pamphlet which was sent me to-day, and which 
 so much better expresses my views in regard to this question 
 that I am going to read a very small portion of it. 
 
 The suffragists claim the franchise for women on the fol- 
 lowing grounds: 
 
 First, That the right to vote is a natural and inherent one, 
 of which they are deprived. 
 
 Second, That women are taxed but not represented, con- 
 trary to the principles of free government. 
 
 As to the justice of their claim to an inherent, natural right 
 of which they are deprived, we answer that the right of suf- 
 frage is not inherent or inalienable. In all political history 
 there is not one phrase which could be construed into meaning 
 that men have the right of suffrage because they are human 
 beings. Society does not exist by the consent of those who 
 enter it. Our government was established long before the 
 present generation existed; so the consent of the governed 
 must be taken for granted (except as changes are made by con- 
 stitutional methods) until a rebellion arises. 
 
 Suffrage cannot be the right of the individual, because it 
 does not exist for the benefit of the individual, but for the 
 
486 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 benefit of the state itself. "Unless a doctrine is susceptible of 
 being given practical effect, it must be utterly without sub- 
 stance" (Cooley's Constitutional Law); and this doctrine of in- 
 herent right cannot be given practical effect, since this would 
 imply that minors, insane, idiots, Indians, and Chinese (now 
 wholly or partially restrained) would have a right to exer- 
 cise the franchise. A gift from nature must be absolute, and 
 not contingent upon the state to prescribe qualifications, the 
 possession of which shall be the test of right of enjoyment; 
 and no restrictions of age or education could be put upon it, 
 such as now exists. Liberty itself must come from law, and 
 cannot, in any institutional sense, come from nature. Eights, 
 in a legal sense, are born of restraints, by which every one 
 may be protected in their enjoyment within the prescribed 
 limits. In prescribing limitations, the framers of the Consti- 
 tution showed that they did not consider suffrage an inherent 
 right. The article of the Bill of Eights which refers to in- 
 alienable rights has nothing whatever to say about suffrage. 
 
 The suffragists claim that women are taxed without repre- 
 sentation. Those advancing this argument exhibit their en- 
 tire lack of understanding of the theories of taxation and suf- 
 frage, and prove that they, at least, are not yet ready to enter 
 intelligently into politics. We have founded our government 
 on manhood suffrage, not because our male citizens own more 
 or less property, or any property at all, but because they are 
 men; because behind the law must be the power of enforcing 
 it. Without sufficient force to compel respect and observance, 
 laws would be dead letters. To make laws that cannot be en- 
 forced, is to bring a government into ridicule and contempt, 
 and invite anarchy! The insuperable objection to woman suf- 
 frage is fundamental and functional, and nature alone is re- 
 sponsible for it, since she has created man combatant and 
 woman non-combatant. 
 
 The reason we have adopted as the basis of our political sys- 
 tem that the will of the majority must prevail over that of the 
 minority, is that we recognize the fact that the majority can, 
 if the minority rebel, compel them to acquiescence. There- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 487 
 
 fore, suffrage has been given to men, because they can back 
 laws by force enough to compel respect and observance. It 
 becomes thus a duty to be performed, not a privilege to be 
 enjoyed, and women are exempt because of what it would en- 
 tail; their present position in the state, as its mothers and edu- 
 cators of future citizens, being held as more than equivalent to 
 any political service. 
 
 The duty of voting is in no sense dependent in this state 
 at least upon the fact that the voter pays taxes or owns prop- 
 erty. A man who has no property has the same voice in 
 voting as the millionaire. Property of a town, city, or state is 
 justly liable for the current expenses of the government which 
 protects such property, and thus increases and preserves its 
 value. The only question the law asks is: Is there prop- 
 erty ? If so, it imposes a tax. The laws of taxation are gen- 
 eral, and not particular, taxation being simply a compensation 
 to the government for protection of property, that such prop- 
 erty may have value. Woman's property receives exactly the 
 same protection as man's and she benefits as much thereby; 
 there is therefore no injustice to her. 
 
 Mr. Woolson of Lisbon Although I have not consulted my 
 wife and mother-in-law, and do not know what their wishes 
 are on this question, I shall vote in favor of the proposition 
 of the gentleman from Warner, Mr. Thompson. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord I hastened through my former 
 remarks because I thought the vote would have to be taken 
 immediately. I wish but a moment longer. I wish to answer 
 the objection raised by the gentleman from Londonderry, Mr. 
 Pillsbury. Napoleon said to Mme. de Stael, "I consider that 
 woman the greatest woman in the land who is the mother of a 
 large family." It was perfectly natural for a man like Na- 
 poleon to make that remark. He wanted soldiers, he wanted 
 men to stand up and be killed. It was all right for him to 
 make that remark, but it would seem to have no authority in 
 the present stage of our civilization. 
 
488 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Wason of Nashua I rise to a point of order. Dis- 
 cussion has been limited to five minutes, and the gentleman 
 from Concord exhausted his five minutes in his first speech., 
 and now he has started on a second heat. 
 
 The Chairman The chair decides that half an hour was 
 appropriated to this discussion. No person to exceed five min- 
 utes during that time. The gentleman from Concord,, Mr. 
 Lamprey, had five minutes and took his seat, and then an- 
 other hour was put upon the time for discussion. Nothing 
 was said that a speaker should not speak a second time, and 
 the chair rules that Mr. Lamprey has the privilege of speaking 
 five minutes. He has but two minutes more and should make 
 the best of it. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord The claim has been made that 
 the women did not want to vote. So far as I am concerned, it 
 would not make the least difference in the world whether they 
 did or not. I stand here on the eternal principle of right. 
 Though there were but one woman in the state who wanted to 
 vote, I would vote to give her that right. Why, gentlemen, it 
 is recorded in history that when the Bastile was broken down 
 and the cells were entered there were prisoners chained there, 
 and there was one old man who was let out of the prison and 
 begged to be taken back again. He had been there so long 
 that he had lost the sense of freedom. The women have been 
 under subjection to the men so long that perhaps a majority 
 of them have lost a proper sense of their individual rights, but 
 that is nothing to me. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter I did not propose to say anything 
 on this question. I had made up my mind to vote in favor of 
 the proposition in some way, and when the amendment was 
 presented by the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, it 
 struck me favorably. It seems there is some objection to it on 
 the ground that it requires the vote of the women in order to 
 make it of binding force. It probably does not make much 
 difference to the gentleman who proposed the amendment 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 489 
 
 whether the women vote upon it or not, and I rise to suggest 
 that the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, withdraw 
 that portion of his amendment which seems to be objection- 
 able. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I am being drawn into this deli- 
 cate situation deeper than I intended. I want it distinctly un- 
 derstood that my judgment as a man is against the proposition 
 to strike the word "male" from the Constitution. I think it 
 fair, however, to the women that they should have this ques- 
 tion go to the people. I supposed it would be fair to them to 
 have it go to their own sex as well as to the men, and I believe 
 it is a matter altogether within the function of the legislature 
 to determine the method in which it should be submitted to 
 the people. If there is any earthly objection to allowing the 
 women to vote upon the proposition, I withdraw that and am 
 willing that what is said about referring it to the women be 
 stricken from the resolution I have proposed. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester I would like to have the amend- 
 ment as it will be after the part withdrawn is stricken out read 
 so that we may all know what we are voting upon. 
 
 (Clerk reads the amendment as amended.) 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concojd I desire to ask the gentleman from 
 Littleton if it is his purpose to get two thirds of all the legal 
 voters of the state or two thirds of those voting, and also what 
 objection is there, he having been gracious enough to with- 
 draw that part of his amendment that seemed to be offensive 
 what objection is there why he is not willing to withdraw 
 the entire amendment and let the vote come entirely on the 
 proposition submitted by the gentleman from "Warner, Mr. 
 Thompson? 
 
 The Chairman The gentleman from Concord asks a ques- 
 tion of the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich Here it is again, Mr. Chairman. I have stated 
 
490 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 several times that I think it fair to the women that this ques- 
 tion should be submitted to all the people. My belief is,, that 
 if the members of this Convention feel bound by their judg- 
 ment, the main proposition will be voted down and the women 
 who have so graciously and gracefully addressed the Conven- 
 tion will be turned away without any remedy. My proposition 
 will permit such men as myself and others who believe as I do. 
 to conscientiously submit this question of woman suffrage to 
 the people; while if we vote upon the other proposition we 
 must either vote against the women or vote against our con- 
 science. For that reason I decline now, and shall decline, to 
 withdraw the proposed amendment, 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I would like to ask the gentleman 
 whether, in his opinion, this Convention can authorize the leg- 
 islature to do anything which the legislature has not the 
 power to do. We cannot set aside the fundamental law of the 
 state. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton My answer is that we are making 
 a constitution and not setting aside a constitution. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I am opposed to the question 
 being put in the manner in which it is put by the gentleman 
 from Littleton. I propose to vote upon the direct question o 
 submit this matter to the people. On that question I shall 
 vote "Yes." 
 
 The motion of Mr. Aldrich of Littleton, to amend the reso- 
 lution of Mr. Thompson of Warner, is stated by the chair, and 
 on a viva voce vote is declared lost. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Unless there are gentlemen who 
 desire to proceed in the discussion, I will move that the com- 
 mittee arise and report the resolution of Mr. Thompson of 
 Warner favorably. I will withdraw that if anybody desires to 
 speak. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Lyford is stated by the chair and carried. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 491 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Kent, chairman, reported that the Committee of the 
 Whole had had under consideration the proposed amendment 
 to the Constitution offered by Mr. Thompson of Warner, re- 
 lating to woman's suffrage, and had voted to rise and report 
 the resolution favorably. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the report of the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole be accepted?" a division was called for 
 and resulted in 151 gentlemen voting in the affirmative and 
 102 gentlemen voting in the negative, and the report of the 
 committee was declared adopted. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry, nine other members concur- 
 ring, called for the yeas and nays. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester moved that the resolution be laid 
 upon the table. The motion did not prevail. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the affirmative: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Kimball of Danville, Kelsea of 
 Deerfield, Eastman, Follansby, Leddy, Hooke, Sanborn of 
 Hampstead, Weare, Shaw, Chase of Kingston, Pollard, Evans, 
 Gate, Kelsey of Nottingham, Howard, Norris, Ham, Cullen, 
 Sawyer of Rye, Wheeler, Locke of Seabrook, Jewell of South 
 Hampton, Clark of Windham. 
 
 STKAFFOKD COUNTY. Morang, Folsom, Nute of Dover, 
 Nutter of Farmington, Willson of Farmington, Moore, Cham- 
 berlain, Nute of Rochester, Meader, Springfield, Edgerly. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Demeritt, Colbath, Cogswell, Gorrell, 
 Smith of Meredith, Smith of New Hampton, Rogers. 
 
 CAEEOLL COUNTY. Nickerson, Gibson, Morrill of Conway, 
 Harmon, Merrow, Murch, Meserve, Gilman, Brown of Ossipee, 
 Page of Tarn worth, Morrison of Tuftonborough, Clow. 
 
 MEEEIMACK COUXTY. Stone of Andover, Baker, Frame, 
 
492 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Dudley of Concord, Foote, Hollis Lyford, Niles, Lamprey of 
 Concord, Ingalls, Chandler, Dolbeer, Putnam, Wyatt, Green 
 of Pittsfield, Thompson of Warner. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Hubbard, Kimball of Benning- 
 ton, Fessenden, Downes, Bacon, Powers of Hollis, Clyde, Wil- 
 kinson, Briggs, Little, Eose, Farrington, Harvey, Allen, 
 McQuesten, Powers of Manchester, McElroy, Greager, Whita- 
 ker of Mason, Worcester, Hamblett, Clough of Nashua, Wason 
 of Nashua, Eunnells, Flather, Desmarais, Dodge of New Bos- 
 ton, Blanchard, Morrison of Peterborough, Scott, Hadley, 
 Simons. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Cooke, Amidon, Blake, Poole, An- 
 nett, Newell, Buckminster, Eugg, Clement of Surry, Good- 
 now. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Mitchell of Acworth, Brooks, Eos- 
 siter, Fairbanks, Ide, Hanson of Goshen, Noyes, Bartlett, 
 Newton. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Carbee, Ashley, Cumings, Parker of 
 Franconia, Pike of Haverhill, Dewey, Woolson, Morris, Mel- 
 vin, Warden, Eussell, Woodbury of Woodstock. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Paine, Miles, Titus, Britton, Crawford, 
 Kent, Perkins, McKellips, Blanchard, Watson, Philbrook, 
 Aldrich of Whitefield. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the negative: 
 
 EOCKINGHAM COUNTY. Sanborn of Auburn, Flanders of 
 Brentwood, Sanders, Fuller, Towle, Pillsbury, Ham. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Cochrane, Gunnison, Libby, Leary, 
 Hall of Strafford. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Morrill of Gilford, Thompson of La- 
 conia, Fellows. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Hobson, Dorr, Sanborn of Wakeneld. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Buxton, French of Bradford, Vir- 
 gin, Mitchell of Concord, Foster, Walker of Concord, Howe, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 493 
 
 Casey, Ford of Danbury, Leach, dough, of London, Chicker- 
 ing, Truesdell, Webster, Sawyer of Salisbury, Lang. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Whitaker of Peering, Peavey, 
 Fogg, Smith of Hillsborough, Tarbell, Lambert, Cross, Green 
 of Manchester, Jones, Lord, Hill, Starr, Sullivan, Griffin, 
 Quirin Joseph, Clement of Manchester, Hall of Manchester, 
 Trinity, Raymond, Spring, Woodbury of Nashua, Shedd, Sea- 
 vey, Chapman. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Learned, Farwell, Buckley, Hall of 
 Keene, McClure, Stone of Troy. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Holmes, Brockway. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Bucklin, Parker of Benton, Morrill of 
 Bridgewater, Chase of Bristol, Pulsifer of Campton, Richard- 
 son of Canaan, Walker of Grafton, Ward, Colby of Hanover, 
 Sloane, Jewell of Hebron, Drake, Aldrich of Littleton, Morse, 
 Stoddard, French of Orange, Ford of Piermont, Wentworth, 
 Craig of Rumney, Green of Waterville. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Laplante, Rich, Daley, Boudreau, Young 
 of Clarksville, Pike of Stark, Hinman. 
 
 And 143 gentlemen having voted in the affirmative, and 94 
 in the negative, the affirmative prevailed and the report of 
 the committee was accepted. 
 
 After the roll had been called, but before the vote was de- 
 clared, Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry and Mr. Sanborn of 
 Auburn, who voted in the negative, changed their votes to the 
 affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry gave notice that on to-mor- 
 row, or some subsequent day, he would move a reconsidera- 
 tion of the vote whereby the Convention voted to adopt the 
 favorable report of the Committee of the Whole upon the 
 resolution of the gentleman from Warner, Mr. Thompson, in 
 amendment of article twenty-seven, part second, of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
494 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I move to reconsider the vote at 
 this time, and to lay the motion upon the table until more of 
 the members shall be present. The motion prevailed, and the 
 motion to reconsider was laid upon the table. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the Convention re- 
 solved itself into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of 
 considering the various resolutions relating to trusts. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Baker of Bow in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of 
 the Convention: It is not my intention to detain the Com- 
 mittee long at this time. Indeed, I have purposely avoided 
 preparing to speak upon trusts, for I am conscious it would be 
 difficult to keep a speech, prepared on the subject in hand, 
 within any reasonable limits. Moreover, I have thought this 
 subject had been so fully considered by the people at large, 
 and by the members of this Convention, that the latter would 
 be prepared to act without any extended debate. 
 
 The proposition which I have submitted for an amendment 
 to the Constitution is as follows: 
 
 "Individual enterprise and competition in trade should be 
 protected 1 against monopolies which tend to hinder or destroy 
 them. It shall be the duty of the legislature to limit the size 
 and functions of all corporations, to prohibit fictitious capital- 
 ization therein, and to so provide for their supervision and 
 government that they will be the servants and not the masters 
 of the people." 
 
 I also read the following amendment: 
 
 "The legislature shall have power to define, regulate, pro- 
 hibit, or dissolve trusts, monopolies, or combinations whether 
 existing in the form of a corporation or otherwise." 
 
 This last proposition with the first words "The congress'' 
 instead of "The legislature," has the merit of having received 
 the votes of all the Republican members of the house of rep- 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 495 
 
 resentatives in congress. It was opposed by the Democrats 
 solely on the ground that they believed the states alone should 
 exercise exactly that power; so that, when the proposition is 
 now presented, not to congress, but to a state legislature, it is 
 in a form to receive the approbation of this whole Convention 
 precisely as it received in its spirit the unanimous approba- 
 tion of the house of representatives at Washington. 
 
 The gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Starr, has offered an 
 amendment in these words: 
 
 "Amend article eighty-two by adding thereto the following: 
 
 "And, further, full power is hereby granted to the said gen- 
 eral court to enact laws to prevent, by civil and criminal pro- 
 cess, the operations within the state of any trust or corpora- 
 tion, foreign or domestic, which endeavors to raise the price 
 of any article of commerce by restraint of trade, monopoly, or 
 other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of all cor- 
 porations doing business within the state, and prevent their 
 encroachments upon the liberties of the people." 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, it is 
 my purpose to request from the Committee an expression in 
 favor of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting trusts and 
 requiring the legislature of the state to deal with trusts for 
 the purpose of preventing monopoly, and if such a vote is 
 given, I shall be perfectly willing to have the precise language 
 of the Constitutional amendment considered and fixed by the 
 appropriate committee; because I hold, Mr. Chairman and 
 gentlemen, that inasmuch as we are amending the funda- 
 mental law of the state, we ought to be extremely careful 
 about the language used. 
 
 As you all know, an unobjectionable principle may some- 
 times be expressed in objectionable terms, and so what I de- 
 sire is to put a direction or a command into the Constitution 
 in the most precise language in which the amendment can be 
 framed. 
 
 Now I will read from the platforms of th*e two political 
 parties in the state of New Hampshire. 
 
 The Democratic state convention of September 10, 1902, 
 contained the following plank: 
 
496 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 "STATE ISSUES. State control of trusts. We demand the 
 enactment of state laws to prevent by civil and criminal pro- 
 cess, the operations within the state of any trust or corpora- 
 tion which endeavors to raise the price of any article of com- 
 merce by restraint of trade, monopoly, or other unfair means." 
 
 The above plan is entirely limited to the control of monop- 
 olies and unfair trade, but I desire to have recorded our inflex- 
 ible opposition, not only to the evils of monopolies, but also 
 to all menaces from corporations, complete control of which 
 corporations should be given to the legislature. 
 
 The Republican convention was held on September 17, 
 1902, and in the platform of that party are found these words: 
 
 "While we favor legitimate combinations of capital which 
 will reduce the price of necessities to the people, we condemn 
 any such combinations as will restrict business and throttle 
 competition by unjust and tyrannical practices." 
 
 Here we see, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the man- 
 dates of our two political parties, so far as such mandates may 
 have any effect upon future legislators and delegates to such 
 a convention as this, have been issued in favor of some suit- 
 able action against trusts and we only need appropriate lan- 
 guage in which to express the idea which we wish to express. 
 
 It may be asked, Why is it necessary to adopt constitutional 
 amendments on this subject? Has not the legislature of New 
 Hampshire now the power to legislate against trusts and mo- 
 nopolies? 
 
 I answer, I think the legislature has such power, but we are 
 assembled here to give the people's instructions through this 
 Convention, to the future legislatures of this state, and we are 
 justified, nay, more, we are required, I think, to give the same 
 commands to the legislature of our state which other states 
 have felt impelled to give to their legislatures. 
 
 In order to avoid detaining the Convention by submitting 
 extracts from the Constitutions and laws of the several states, 
 I prepared and the Convention has printed a very interesting 
 paper which I ask delegates to read (Document of Tables No. 
 102). It appears that fourteen states of this Union have not 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1902. 497 
 
 deemed it sufficient to rely upon the powers which have hith- 
 erto existed in legislatures to control trusts, to prevent mo- 
 nopolies, and to provide for competition in trade, and these 
 fourteen states have adopted from time to time constitutional 
 amendments directed against trusts. These amendments are 
 all printed, and in addition there is printed the full and ex- 
 plicit title of the Georgia act. The acts are long and refer- 
 ences are made to them in this printed paper which is before 
 you, and you can see for yourselves that the people of these 
 fourteen states deemed it insufficient to wait for such action 
 of their legislatures as might be taken without the stimulus of 
 a constitutional requirement. 
 
 In twenty-five of the states there have been statutes passed; 
 in ten, trusts are prohibited both by constitutions and by 
 laws, leaving only sixteen states of the Union which have 
 not hitherto acted upon this subject, either by their constitu- 
 tions or their laws. 
 
 Xow, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this is the general sit- 
 uation, and I need not enter into a debate here in order to 
 demonstrate to you the importance to the community in 
 which we live the importance to every free community of 
 individual enterprise. 
 
 The foundation of society is the effort of every individual 
 man to make something of himself in the community in 
 which he lives; and the foundation of national prosperity is 
 the effort of every individual to secure his personal prosperity. 
 Whatever crushes out the individual, whatever keeps down 
 the many striving to get a living, striving to make money, 
 striving to accumulate property, tends in the end to the in- 
 jury of the whole people. These principles are well recog- 
 nized, and the progress of society is involved in the right of 
 acquiring private property, and it never was intended since 
 the beginning of civilization that the industries in any coun- 
 try should be controlled by a few men. 
 
 But I will not this afternoon, and I think that I shall not, 
 if there is to be only brief discussion, endeavor at any time to 
 set forth the general facts which prove that the trusts and mo- 
 32 
 
498 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 nopolies and the suppression of competition in trade are an 
 injury to society, nor to state why trusts and monopolies and 
 the suppression of competition need to be dealt with, by both 
 the constitutions and laws of the states of the Union. If the 
 debate is prolonged, I may take occasion to exhibit to the 
 Convention the constitution and character of the United 
 States Steel Corporation, taking that as an illustration of the 
 consolidations of capital that are taking place in the United 
 States at this time. But for the present, I yield the floor to 
 another gentleman who desires to discuss the subject. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord moved that the Committee arise, 
 report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 In Convention. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Baker, chairman of the Committee of the Whole, re- 
 ported that the Committee had had under consideration the 
 general subject of trusts, and had voted to rise, report prog- 
 ress, and ask leave to sit again. 
 
 Leave was granted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lang of Bedford, the Convention ad- 
 journed. 
 
 FKIDAY, DECEMBER, 12, 1902. 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment.- 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 
 The reading of the journal having been begun, on motion 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 499 
 
 of Mr. Webster of Pittsfield, the rules were so far suspended 
 that further reading was dispensed with. 
 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin gave notice that he should move to 
 adjourn at 11:30 o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
 Mr. Knight of Milford, from the Committee on Mileage, 
 submitted the following report: 
 
 "Resolved, That each member be allowed the number of 
 miles travel set opposite his name in the list submitted, and 
 that the secretary be instructed to make up the mileage roll 
 of the Convention in accordance therewith." 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 MILEAGE ROLL. 
 
 Abbott, Charles W 60 
 
 Abbott, Jacob J 40 
 
 Adams, Edward H 120 
 
 Aldrich, David M 260 
 
 Aldrich, Edgar 230 
 
 Allen, Henry W 38 
 
 Amidon, George F 202 
 
 Annett, Albert 190 
 
 Ashley, Herbert H 131 
 
 Avery, Bert H 128 
 
 Bacon, Stephen H 160 
 
 Baker, Henry M 5 
 
 Bales, George E 104 
 
 Bartlett, George H 80 
 
 Barton, Jesse M *. 84 
 
 Battles, Daniel F 134 
 
 Blake, Amos J 192 
 
 Blanchard, Edwin F 176 
 
 Blanchard, Harvey A 376 
 
 Blodgett, Frank E 16 
 
500 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Blodgett, Isaac N 40 
 
 Boivin, Joseph A 40 
 
 Boudreau, James A 310 
 
 Boutwell, Henry W 40 
 
 Bowles, Marshall A 138 
 
 Bradley, Arthur C 86 
 
 Briggs, James F 36 
 
 Britton, Frank 260 
 
 Brockway, Willie D 72 
 
 Brooks, Lyman 134 
 
 Brown, Joseph L 74 
 
 Brown, Levi W 242 
 
 Bryar, Fred E 52 
 
 Buckley, Fred A ' 166 
 
 Bucklin, Alpheus S 76 
 
 Buckminster, Charles W 140 
 
 Burley, Harrison G 104 
 
 Burpee, Moses P 106 
 
 Busiel, John T 56 
 
 Buxton, Willis G 14 
 
 Caldwell, Horace 20 
 
 Carbee, Henry C 196 
 
 Casey, Michael "? 
 
 Cass, Lewis E 156 
 
 Cate, Charles F 60 
 
 Chamberlin, Horatio G 166 
 
 Chandler, William E 2 
 
 Chapman, Joseph C 64 
 
 Chase, Amos C 128 
 
 Chase, Ira A 66 
 
 Chesley, Daniel 120 
 
 Chickering, Jacob E 14 
 
 Clark, Allan C 86 
 
 Clark, George H 70 
 
 Clement, Frank 38 
 
 Clement, Stephen H 140 
 
 Clough, Jeremiah A 26 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 501 
 
 dough, Joseph L 70 
 
 Clow, Stephen W 200 
 
 Clyde, George W 72 
 
 Cochrane, George E 132 
 
 Cogswell, Thomas 108 
 
 Colbath, Horace N 60 
 
 Colby, George W 52 
 
 Colby, Ira G 110 
 
 Colby, James F 152 
 
 Cole, Wallace W 80 
 
 Collins, Clinton 116 
 
 Collins, John S 144 
 
 Colman, Dudley C 200 
 
 Conley, Elmer E 146 
 
 Cooke, Charles H 186 
 
 Corey, Guy E 120 
 
 Craig, Charles C 114 
 
 Craig, Eockwell F 162 
 
 Crawford, George W 276 
 
 Cross, David : 40 
 
 Cullen, William A. A 120 
 
 Cumings, Henry 118 
 
 Daley, Daniel J 312 
 
 Davis, Carlos C 154 
 
 Day, Auburn J 140 
 
 Dearborn, Henry C ^ . 92 
 
 Dearborn, Luther E 288 
 
 Demeritt, George H 180 
 
 Desmarais, Leon 72 
 
 Dewey, Jesse E 130 
 
 Dodge, James E 36 
 
 Dodge, Lendell 64 
 
 Dodge, William F 260 
 
 Dolbeer, John H 36 
 
 Dole, Charles A 130 
 
 Dorr, Henry F 120 
 
 Downes, George E 134 
 
502 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Drake, Charles B 130 
 
 Dresser, John 120 
 
 Drew, Irving W 270 
 
 Dudley, David F .- 14 
 
 Dudley, Jason H 350 
 
 Earley, Thomas, Jr 72 
 
 Eastman, Edwin G 114 
 
 Eaton, George E 66 
 
 Edgerly, James A 130 
 
 Emery, Samuel W 120 
 
 Emery, Simon P 120 
 
 Emory, Warren W 192 
 
 Evans, Alfred E 306 
 
 Evans, David H 130 
 
 Everett, Edward H 74 
 
 Fairbanks, George E 126 
 
 Farrington, Henry A 36 
 
 Farwell, Frank C 104 
 
 Fellows, William B 36 
 
 Fessenden, Orville D 142 
 
 Flanders, Ephraim G r . . . 92 
 
 Flanders, Robert L 112 
 
 Flather, William J 72 
 
 Flood, John J 72 
 
 Fogg, George H 92 
 
 Follansby, William H. C 110 
 
 Folsom, Channing 122 
 
 Foote, Charles E 12 
 
 Ford, Edward 190 
 
 Ford, John V ; 78 
 
 Foskett, Liberty W 130 
 
 Foster, William A 2 
 
 Frame, James 14 
 
 French, John E 56 
 
 French, John H 110 
 
 Frink, John S. H 110 
 
 Fuller, Arthur 110 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 503 
 
 Furbush, George P 140 
 
 Gelinas, Gaspard A 140 
 
 Gerrish, Fred E 120 
 
 Gibson, James L 304 
 
 Gillispie, Charles F 60 
 
 Gilman, Samuel J -. 262 
 
 Gilmore, George C 42 
 
 Glancy, William F 40 
 
 Glazier, Van B 210 
 
 Goodnow, Edwin J 158 
 
 Goodwin, Andrew J 104 
 
 Gordon, Francis A 54 
 
 Gorrell, Horace W 56 
 
 Greager, Herman 40 
 
 Green, George H 140 
 
 Green, Henry F 230 
 
 Green, Oliver B 40 
 
 Greene, Frank P 56 
 
 Griffin, Dennis F 40 
 
 Grover, Horace T 84 
 
 Guerin, Moise 40 
 
 Gunnison, William T 140 
 
 Hadley, Herbert 162 
 
 Hall, Dwight 122 
 
 Hall, Frank H 182 
 
 Hall, James M 40 
 
 Hall, William C 130 
 
 Hallinan, Stephen L 72 
 
 Ham, Samuel F 118 
 
 Hamblett, Charles J 72 
 
 Hanson, Burnham 124 
 
 Hanson, Frank L 94 
 
 Harmon, Horace W 250 
 
 Harriman, Walter C 72 
 
 Hartley, William H 272 
 
 Harvey, Warren 40 
 
 Head, Eugene S 18 
 
504 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Healey, James M 76 
 
 Henry, James E 152 
 
 Hersey, Fred E 200 
 
 Hibbard, Clarence E 130 
 
 Hildreth, Eugene E 44 
 
 Hildreth, Henry A 250 
 
 Hill, Bushrod W 40 
 
 Hinman, Havilah B 320 
 
 Hobson, Sewell M 292 
 
 Hollis, Abijah 6 
 
 Holman, Samuel W 54 
 
 Holmes, Herbert A 166 
 
 Hooke, Lincoln F 124 
 
 Horan, Timothy E 40 
 
 Howard, Alfred F 112 
 
 Howe, DeWitt C 2 
 
 Hubbard, Eugene C 80 
 
 Hunt, Nathan P 40 
 
 Ide, Daniel ._.... 102 
 
 Ingalls, Horace L 4 
 
 Irwin, Fred T 40 
 
 Jennings, Henry 40 
 
 Jewell, Benjamin K 80 
 
 Jewell, Edward M 168 
 
 Jewett, Stephen S . . . . . 58 
 
 Johnson, Thomas F 340 
 
 Jones, Edwin F 40 
 
 Jordan, John 
 
 Kelsey, James H 100 
 
 Kelsey, John M 100 
 
 Kent, Henry 270 
 
 Kidder, Daniel 126 
 
 Kimball, Benjamn A 
 
 Kimball, Charles H 72 
 
 Kimball, Eugene F 126 
 
 Kiniry, William H 186 
 
 Knight, Carl E i 94 
 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 505 
 
 Knowles, Charles H 84 
 
 Knox, James E 52 
 
 Lambert, Elliot C 40 
 
 Lamprey, George W 190 
 
 Lamprey, Maitland C 2 
 
 Lang, Frank A 34 
 
 Laplante, Louis M 310 
 
 Leach, Edward G 40 
 
 Learned, Henry D 110 
 
 Leary, Michael J 150 
 
 Leddy, John 82 
 
 Ledoux, Henri T 74 
 
 Leighton, George 1 126 
 
 Lewis, Edwin C 56 
 
 Lihby, Joseph 150 
 
 Little, Cyrus H 40 
 
 Littlefield, John C 42 
 
 Locke, Alphonzo B 122 
 
 Locke, James A 150 
 
 Locke, John W 150 
 
 Lord, Harry T 40 
 
 Lyf ord, James 2 
 
 Madden, Joseph 130 
 
 Marsh, Jonathan A 42 
 
 McAllister, George 1 40 
 
 McClure, Cummings B 100 
 
 McDonough, Joseph M 40 
 
 McElroy, William 40 
 
 McGlynn, Michael 72 
 
 McKay, William J 82 
 
 McKellips, George W 296 
 
 McQuesten, John K 40 
 
 Meader, Stephen C 140 
 
 Melvin, George 174 
 
 Merrow, Arthur P 260 
 
 Meserve, Jonathan 336 
 
 Messer, George J 70 
 
506 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Miles, Charles S 258 
 
 Miller, George E 14 
 
 Mitchell, Abraham M, 112 
 
 Mitchell, John M 2 
 
 Moffett, John D 310 
 
 Moore, James D 190 
 
 Morang, Charles H 136 
 
 Morin, Oliver 150 
 
 Merrill, Frank E 120 
 
 Morrill, Henry H 146 
 
 Morrill, James E 58 
 
 Morrill, Joel E 292 
 
 Morris, George F 208 
 
 Morrison, Charles E 122 
 
 Morrison, John D 218 
 
 Morrison, Mortier L 92 
 
 Morse, Harry M 228 
 
 Moulton, Charles T ^ 124 
 
 Murch, Merville B 338 
 
 Murphy, Patrick W 120 
 
 Murray, Charles A 310 
 
 Nealley, John H : 122 
 
 Nettle, Albert 40 
 
 Newell, Hiram F 130 
 
 Newton, Charles A 94 
 
 Nickerson, Archie '. . . . 289 
 
 Niles, Edward C 2 
 
 Norris, True L 120 
 
 Noyes, Loren A 110 
 
 Nute, Andrew E 146 
 
 Nute, John H 120 
 
 Nutter, George W 132 
 
 Nutter, Henry C 172 
 
 Osgood, George W 100 
 
 Page, Horace A 226 
 
 Paige, David A 56 
 
 Paige, Nelson W 45 
 
FHIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 507 
 
 Paine, William H 310 
 
 Park, William R., Jr 142 
 
 Parker, Edward E 72 
 
 Parker, Lebina H 206 
 
 Parker, Wilbur F 240 
 
 Paul, Clarence H 122 
 
 Peaslee, Daniel M 140 
 
 Peavey, George S 128 
 
 Peirce, George W 154 
 
 Penniman, Robert R 134 
 
 Perkins, Napoleon B 296 
 
 Philbrook, Charles E 360 
 
 Phipps, Learned K 328 
 
 Pike, Edwin B 168 
 
 Pike, William T 302 
 
 Pillsbury, Rosecrans W 60 
 
 Plante, Joseph G 40 
 
 Plummer, Bard B 170 
 
 Pollard, Christopher A 100 
 
 Poole, Joel H 198 
 
 Powers, Edward J 40 
 
 Powers, Marcellus J 100 
 
 Precourt, Albert J 40 
 
 Pressler, Adolph W 128 
 
 Proctor, Clayton B 72 
 
 Provost, Frank T 40 
 
 Pulsifer, Charles L 58 
 
 Pulsifer, Charles W 116 
 
 Putnam, George M 28 
 
 Quirin, Eugene 40 
 
 Quirin, Joseph 40 
 
 Raymond, Charles H 100 
 
 Rich, George F 310 
 
 Richards, Seth M 86 
 
 Richardson, Milton A 104 
 
 Richardson, Warren B 104 
 
 Richer, Joseph 40 
 
508 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Rideout, Henry M 330 
 
 Ripley, Leon D 362 
 
 Roberts, William H 120 
 
 Robinson, Edwin R 40 
 
 De Rochemont, Frederic W 142 
 
 Rogers, Charles C 38 
 
 Rose, Clarence E 42 
 
 Rossiter, George P 114 
 
 Rotch, William B 94 
 
 Roy, Clement 150 
 
 Rugg, Daniel W 138 
 
 Runnells, Frederic D 72 
 
 Russell, Frank W 104 
 
 Sanborn, Edward B. S 36 
 
 Sanborn, Henry C 66 
 
 Sanborn, Jeremy L 34 
 
 Sanborn, John C 108 
 
 Sanborn, John W 174 
 
 Sanders, Walter R 66 
 
 Sawyer, Edward 1ST 50 
 
 Sawyer, Horace 136 
 
 Scott, Charles 92 
 
 Seavey, Charles L 90 
 
 Shaw, Weare N 108 
 
 Shedd, Albert 72 
 
 Shute, Calvin T 142 
 
 Simons, George 78 
 
 Slattery, Joseph T 76 
 
 Sloane, Scott 186 
 
 Smith, George F 76 
 
 Smith, John B 54 
 
 Smith, Kenrick W 62 
 
 Spaulding, Frank A 181 
 
 Spencer, William * 314 
 
 Springfield, George H 144 
 
 Spring, John R 72 
 
 Starr, William J 40 
 
FKIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 509 s 
 
 Stearns, Willis D 170 
 
 Stockwell, George T 114 
 
 Stoddard, Willard A 210 
 
 Stone, George E 38 
 
 Stone, George W 60- 
 
 Stone, Melvin T 200 
 
 Streeter, Frank S 2 
 
 Sullivan, Michael E 40 
 
 Taft, James S 130 
 
 Tarbell, Walter S 112 
 
 Tenney, Edward J 110 
 
 Thompson, Arthur 38 
 
 Thompson, Edwin P 52 
 
 Thurston, Eemember B 400 
 
 Titus, Charles C 364 
 
 Todd, Jacob H 78 
 
 Tonery, Michael 40 
 
 Towle, John W 140 
 
 Towne, Omar A 40- 
 
 Tremblay, Joseph 40 
 
 Trinity, Joseph F 42 
 
 Truesdell, Edmund E 14 
 
 Virgin, Fales P 2 
 
 Walker, John .' 106 
 
 Walker, Joseph E 9& 
 
 Walker, Eeuben E 2 
 
 Ward, Edwin D 60 
 
 Ward, Simon 150 
 
 Warden, Alexander 210 
 
 Warner, Franklin G 72 
 
 Wason, Edward H 72 
 
 Watson, Laban M 294 
 
 Way, Osmon B lift 
 
 Weare, Benjamin F 150 
 
 Webb, John W 102 
 
 Webster, Edward K 50> 
 
 Wentworth, Alvin F 104 
 
510 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Westgate, Tyler 170 
 
 Wetherell, Albert S 112 
 
 Wheeler, Benjamin E 80 
 
 Whitaker, Hermon 144 
 
 Whitaker, William F. 69 
 
 Whittier, Moses T 2 
 
 Wight, Adam W 340 
 
 Wight, Joseph H 312 
 
 Wilkins, Charles A 40 
 
 Wilkinson, Euf us 40 
 
 Willson, Edward T 158 
 
 Wilson, Eoyal L 54 
 
 Wingate, Joseph C. A 100 
 
 Woodbury, Arthur K 72 
 
 W^oodbury, Elmer E 136 
 
 Woodbury, Gordon 44 
 
 Woolson, Augustus A 208 
 
 Woodward, Clement J 130 
 
 Worcester, George A 94 
 
 Wright, Charles, 2d 130 
 
 Wyatt, Otis C , 42 
 
 Young, Charles A 252 
 
 Young, Willis E , 374 
 
 On motion of Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth, the resolution 
 introduced by him relating to the educational qualification of 
 voters, was withdrawn from Committee of the Whole and re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the Legislative Department. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton moved that all resolutions relating 
 to the increase of the senate be either taken from the table 
 or withdrawn from Committee of the Whole, wherever they 
 may be, and referred to the Committee on the Legislative De- 
 partment, and it was so ordered by the Convention. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Wingate of Stratham, the resolution of- 
 fered by him to strike out the word "subject" from the Bill 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 511 
 
 of Eights, was withdrawn from Committee of the Whole and 
 referred to the Committee on the Bill of Rights. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord I wish to move that the several reso- 
 lutions in amendment of article six of the Bill of Rights, 
 which at a previous session of the Convention were referred to 
 the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department, 
 be withdrawn from that committee and referred to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, together with the resolution on the same 
 subject introduced by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I have no objection to that proceeding. 
 Individually I am in favor of it, but I think there was a little 
 error in statement on the part of the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Mies. If my memory serves me, a vote was never 
 taken on them and they axe still in the Committee of the 
 Whole. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord My resolution was referred on my 
 own motion to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Execu- 
 tive Department, and that of Mr. Baker was referred to the 
 Committee of the Whole. The motion was made that the 
 resolution of the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, should be 
 taken from the Committee of the Whole and referred to the 
 Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department, and 
 that motion was pending when the Committee of the Whole 
 arose. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow That is correct. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua Would it not be well to ask the 
 Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department to 
 render their report before we take this matter out of the 
 hands of that committee? It seems to me that would be the 
 usual course to take. Let the Committee on Bill of Rights 
 and Executive Department make a report on this resolution 
 and if they fail to give us the report, then ask that the reso- 
 lution be recalled. It seems to me this is an improper and 
 
512 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 unusual proceeding to take the resolution from that com- 
 mittee without giving them an opportunity to report. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord There is nothing in this except 
 simply an attempt to do what I understand everyone wants,, 
 and to do just what the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, 
 wanted in the Committee of the Whole the other day, namely, 
 to get the whole thing into the hands of some committee, 
 either the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive De- 
 partment or the Committee of the Whole. The measures can 
 be considered together, and it has seemed to us all that the 
 Committee of the Whole is the proper place to consider them. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua It is an unusual proceeding, as 
 this matter has already been referred to a special committee. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I simply rise to state that there 
 seems to be a misapprehension between the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Niles, and the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. 
 Hamblett, in respect to the situation. The several proposi- 
 tions are now in the Committee of the Whole, and the propo- 
 sition as I understood it was to follow in the line of the 
 other motions made here this morning in order to advance the 
 business of the Convention that is, the recalling of the sev- 
 eral resolutions from the Committee of the Whole and send- 
 ing them to a standing Committee on Bill of Rights. Of 
 course I make no suggestion as to which course should be 
 pursued. It is immaterial to me. I only wish it understood 
 that the resolutions are now in the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Upon call of Mr. Hamblett of Nashua the motion of Mr. 
 Niles of Concord is stated by the President. 
 
 The President The secretary informs the chair that there 
 are three resolutions on this matter. One was introduced by 
 the gentleman from Hanover, Mr. Colby, one by the gentle- 
 man from Concord, Mr. Niles, and one by the gentleman 
 from Bow, Mr. Baker; that the first two are in the Committee 
 on Bill of Rights and Executive Department, and that the 
 resolution of the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, is in the 
 Committee of the Wliole. The gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 
FEIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 513 
 
 Niles, moves that the two resolutions sent to the Committee 
 on Bill of Eights his own and that of the gentleman from 
 Hanover, Mr. Colby be recalled from the Committee on Bill 
 of Rights and referred to the Committee of the Whole, to be 
 considered in the Committee of the Whole with the resolution 
 of the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett That is the way I understand it. It seems 
 to me that is a very unusual proceeding. Two resolutions 
 have been referred to the Committee on Bill of Eights and 
 Executive Department, and that committee has made no re- 
 port, and no reason is given why these should be taken from 
 the committee. I believe that the whole matter should be 
 considered by a special committee, and then the Convention 
 have the information and result of the deliberations of that 
 committee. It would seem to me that the resolution of the 
 gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, should be referred to a spe- 
 cial committee, and that would be in the line of progress. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord I agree with the gentleman from 
 Nashua, Mr. Hamblett, on that proposition. That is what I 
 contended for the other day, to have the resolution of the 
 gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, go to the Committee on Bill 
 of Eights where the other two resolutions were, but there was 
 objection to that, and in order to obviate such objection I 
 made the motion I have to-day. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I presume the desire on the part of all 
 is to do something. Now this matter has been considered for 
 perhaps an hour or more in the Committee of the Whole, and 
 the only anomalous condition in the whole matter is that one 
 resolution is before the Committee of the Whole and two be- 
 fore a standing committee. We are getting to that stage in 
 the Convention where it seems to me it would be just as well 
 to take the two from the standing committee and refer them 
 to the Committee of the Whole as to reverse that position. If 
 the resolutions should be considered by the standing com- 
 mittee they would perhaps be reported at a late day and leave 
 33 
 
514 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 no time to discuss the question before the Committee of the 
 Whole. I very much prefer, and think it is as regular, that 
 the resolutions before the standing committee should be re- 
 ferred to the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord For the purpose of testing the ques- 
 tion, I will withdraw my motion and I will move that the 
 resolution of the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, be referred 
 to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Depart- 
 ment. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Mies is stated by the chair, and upon 
 viva voce vote is carried. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Eastman of Exeter, the resolution of- 
 fered by the gentleman from Hanover, Mr. Colby, in relation 
 to article eleven, Bill of Rights, was withdrawn from the 
 Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution 
 and Other Proposed Amendments, and referred to the Com- 
 mittee on the Legislative Department. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Truesdell of Pembroke, it was voted that 
 when the Convention adjourn this morning it adjourn to 
 meet Monday evening at 7:30 o'clock. 
 
 COMMITTEE REPORTS. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord, from the Committee on the Legis- 
 lative Department, to whom was referred the resolution of 
 Mr. Starr of Manchester to amend article eighty-two of the 
 Constitution by the addition of a provision relative to trusts, 
 reported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the amendment be referred to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, to be considered with amendments of 
 like character/' 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr Lyford of Concord, from the Committee on the Legisla- 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 515 
 
 tive Department, to whom was referred the amendment of Mr. 
 Edgerly of Somersworth to article eleven of the Bill of Rights 
 relative to an educational test for voting, reported the same 
 with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the amendment be adopted." 
 
 The report was accepted, and the question being stated, 
 "Shall the resolution be adopted?" 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter I do not know what effect this 
 may have on the resolution referred to the committee this 
 morning the resolution of the gentleman from Hanover, Mr. 
 olby, which relates to an amendment of the same article of 
 ihe Constitution. I move that the resolution of the gentle- 
 man from Somersworth, Mr. Edgerly, be referred to the Com- 
 mittee on the Legislative Department, that the two resolu- 
 tions may be considered together. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I think the members of the com- 
 mittee were aware this other amendment was before the Con- 
 vention, or before the committee in some form, but they felt 
 that this was a general proposition which should go by itself, 
 and I, knowing the character of the amendment offered by 
 the gentleman from Hanover, Mr. Colby, think we should 
 consider each one of them separately. 
 
 The President The question is upon the adoption of the 
 resolution of the Committee on Legislative Department. 
 
 Upon motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, it was voted that 
 "his name" in line seven of the resolution be stricken out, so 
 that part of the amendment will read, "But no person shall 
 have the right to vote or be eligible to office under the Con- 
 stitution of this state who shall not be able to read the Con- 
 stitution in the English language and to write." 
 
 Mr. Lambert of Manchester I should like to know if that 
 means write in the English or in a foreign language Chinese, 
 perhaps. 
 
516 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the resolution, as amend- 
 ed, be adopted by the Convention ?" the affirmative prevailed,, 
 and the proposed amendment to the Constitution offered by 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth was declared adopted. 
 
 Mr. Howard of Portsmouth, from the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department, to whom was referred the amendment 
 of Mr. Baker of Bow to article seven, part second, of the Con- 
 stitution in relation to the powers of the general court, re- 
 ported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution 
 in this respect/' 
 
 The report was accepted, and the question being stated, 
 "Shall the resolution of the committee be adopted?" 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Gentlemen of the Convention: If r 
 in the minds of the committee, it is inexpedient to take up 
 this subject at this time, I have no words of protest. If, on 
 the other hand, it is the purpose of the committee to report 
 against the subject matter as being inappropriate or unjust, 
 I have something to say. I am not going to detain you more 
 than two or three minutes in either event. 
 
 The only purpose of this resolution to amend is very well 
 stated in the closing clause to which you have listened. "In 
 all cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local 
 or special law shall be enacted." In other words the entire 
 object of this amendment is that there should be fair play to- 
 all parties and all interests in the state of New Hampshire in 
 regard to the subject matter mentioned. It would do away 
 with what is generally known as the "lobby," if such exists; 
 it would prevent the granting of any special privileges to any 
 corporation existing or proposed to exist, and it would do- 
 that which is done almost everywhere else in the United 
 States make it necessary to pass laws which would be appli- 
 cable to everybody, and which would not give any special 
 privileges or advantages to anybody. 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 517 
 
 It seems to me, notwithstanding the report of the commit- 
 tee, that we do not have time to consider the general welfare 
 of the state, even in a Convention limited as this is in point 
 of time. 
 
 I know of no reason why one individual or set of individ- 
 uals should be given any corporate rights or right to build a 
 railroad track, or any other thing, which any other body of 
 men proposing to do the same thing may not have equal 
 opportunity to do. I think if this proposed amendment had 
 been a part of the Constitution of New Hampshire for the last 
 twenty-five years all the railroad fights which have disgraced 
 the state would have been avoided and that we should have 
 'been quite as well off in every particular as we are now. It is 
 my experience, gentlemen, in the legislature, that a consid- 
 erable portion of the time is occupied in granting special char- 
 ters which ought not to be granted to anybody; but that a 
 legislature should be compelled by some such provision as I 
 have proposed to pass a general corporation law which would 
 permit each and every person, upon equal terms, to incorpo- 
 rate as he or they might desire. 
 
 Mr. Cross of Manchester I would like to ask the gentle- 
 man from Bow, Mr. Baker, one question. I would like to 
 know if it were not possible for you to draft an article in a 
 few words, saying what you say at the close of your present 
 resolution? The committee, in reading it over, felt appre- 
 hensive that if it were presented to the people they would not 
 take the time to read it and would vote against the amend- 
 ment and the gentleman would be defeated in his purpose. If 
 the gentleman from Bow will draft the amendment in a few 
 words, the committee may consider it again. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I thank the gentleman from Manches- 
 ter for his suggestion, and I shall try to comply with it and 
 attempt to submit a draft which the Legislative Committee 
 may be willing to consider. I suppose it would be necessary, 
 in order to relieve the legislative situation that the report of 
 the committee be recommitted to them, and I therefore move 
 
518 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 that the report of the Legislative Committee be recommitted 
 to that committee for subsequent action. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Baker of Bow being stated, prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord, from the Committee on the Legis- 
 lative Department, to whom was referred the resolution of- 
 fered by Mr. Morris of Lisbon, in relation to extending the 
 jurisdiction of police courts, reported the same in the follow- 
 ing new draft and recommended its adoption: 
 
 "Resolved, That article seventy-seven, part two, of the Con- 
 stitution be amended by the addition of the following words: 
 
 "And the general court are further empowered to give to- 
 police courts jurisdiction to try and determine, subject to the- 
 respondent's right of appeal and trial by jury, criminal causes 
 wherein the punishment is less than imprisonment in the 
 state prison." So that when amended said section shall read: 
 
 "The general court are empowered to give to justices of the- 
 peace jurisdiction in civil causes, when the damages demanded 
 shall not exceed one hundred dollars and title of real estate is 
 not concerned, but with right of appeal to either party to 
 some other court. And the general court are further empow- 
 ered to give to police courts jurisdiction to try and determine^ 
 subject to the respondent's right of appeal and trial by jury, 
 criminal causes wherein the punishment is less than imprison- 
 ment in the state prison." 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Question, "Shall the resolution, as amended by the com- 
 mittee, be adopted?" 
 
 Mr. Cullen of Portsmouth I would like to know the rea- 
 son, from some member of the committee, why it is necessary 
 to amend and give the police justices more authority than 
 they have at present. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord As a member of that committee, I 
 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1902. 519 
 
 can make a statement in regard to this, but I hope the gentle- 
 man from Lisbon, Mr. Morris, will speak upon the subject. 
 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin This question may result in more or 
 less debate, and it seems to me that it would be impossible to 
 close it at this time if this Convention is to adjourn in time 
 for the people in the northern part of the state to take the 
 train for home. If that is so, I wish that the resolution may 
 be withdrawn from consideration of this body to-day, or at 
 least in time so that we can go home. 
 
 The President The chair would suggest to the gentleman 
 from Lisbon, Mr. Morris, that the chair would not have taken 
 up this report at this time if he had supposed there was to be 
 much discussion. The chair believes that reports of this kind, 
 involving discussion, should be taken up at a later time than 
 at present. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord If the President will pardon me, 
 the impression of the committee is that after the gentleman 
 from Lisbon has made his statement of what is sought to be 
 accomplished by this amendment there will be no opposition 
 to it. If there does develop opposition to the amendment the 
 question could be passed to some other day. 
 
 Mr. Morris of Lisbon I think this should be taken up in a 
 full house, when a full discussion of it may be had. I will 
 state briefly the purpose of the proposed amendment. In the 
 first place, I would like to have the members of the Conven- 
 tion notice that this amendment does not in itself confer in- 
 creased jurisdiction on a police court. It simply authorizes 
 the general court in its wisdom to do so if it sees fit. 
 
 Now, the question is upon the necessity of any such amend- 
 ment to the Constitution. It is well known to the attorneys 
 in the Convention and probably to most of the members of 
 the Convention, that back in 1867 the legislature of this state 
 assumed to authorize justices of the peace to take jurisdiction 
 in criminal matters in cases wherein the punishment did not 
 
520 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 exceed a fine of $20 or imprisonment for six months. That 
 remained the law of the state until 1895. Then the legis- 
 lature attempted to increase the jurisdiction to cases wherein 
 the punishment did not exceed a fine of $200 or imprisonment 
 not exceeding one year, which is practically the limit placed 
 in this proposed amendment. 
 
 Then it occurred to some members of the bar that perhaps 
 the law was unconstitutional. The matter was taken before 
 the supreme court of the state of New Hampshire in the case 
 of State vs. Gerry, reported in the 68th N. H., p. 495, and a 
 divided court held that the law was unconstitutional. Then 
 another case was taken before the supreme court, State vs. 
 Jackson, 69th N. H., p. 511, and Judge Chase, in quite an 
 elaborate opinion, speaking for a majority of the court, de- 
 cided that the jurisdiction of police courts, or justices of the 
 police courts, extended only to cases wherein the fine did not 
 exceed $10, with certain exceptions. 
 
 So it was discovered that the court of New Hampshire had 
 been acting under an unconstitutional law from about 1867 to 
 1898, when this case of State vs. Jackson was decided. 
 
 Now, it seems to me that the limit of $10 fine for the juris- 
 diction of the police court such as we have in the city of Man- 
 chester, or the police courts of towns in this state, is a very 
 limited jurisdiction. I understand in a great many of them it 
 has been the practice in cases that they wanted to take care 
 of, when they did not have jurisdiction, for the respondents 
 to consent in writing that they would waive their constitu- 
 tional rights and would accept the jurisdiction of the court. 
 It seems to me this is wrong. If the courts want to take juris- 
 diction of matters which they are not empowered to take juris- 
 diction of now, they should be authorized, so as to do it in a 
 legal manner, and the Constitution should be so amended that 
 a subsequent legislature will have the authority to increase the 
 jurisdiction of those courts. 
 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin moved that the Convention adjourn. 
 The motion was declared lost on a viva voce vote. Mr. Lyford 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 521 
 
 of Concord called for a division, which resulted in 189 gen- 
 tlemen voting in the affirmative and 22 gentlemen voting in 
 the negative, and the Convention was declared adjourned un- 
 til Monday evening, December 15, at 7:30 o'clock. 
 
 MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 15, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 No quorum heing present, on motion of Mr. Madden of 
 Keene, the Convention adjourned. 
 
 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. Buckshorn of Concord. 
 
 The journals of Friday and Monday evening were read and 
 approved. 
 
 The resolution of Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth, which 
 passed the Convention on Friday, December 13, in amend- 
 ment of article eleven, Bill of Rights, relative to an educa- 
 tional test for voters, was referred to the Committee on Time 
 and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments 
 Agreed to by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Bartlett of Sunapee offered the following resolution: 
 "Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to make up the 
 
522 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 pay-roll of the Convention to include the number of days the 
 Convention has actually been in session, which shall be in full 
 compensation for the attendance at the present convention." 
 
 Mr. Bartlett of Sunapee If this Convention shall adjourn 
 on Friday next, as I hope it will, it will have been in actual 
 session twelve days. This number of days will absorb the ap- 
 propriation of $25,000. Any other pay-roll larger than this 
 cannot be paid by the state treasurer, and the whole business 
 will have to go over to the next legislature. It seems to me 
 $25,000 is an adequate appropriation for the work this Con- 
 vention will do. I hope the resolution will pass. I am not 
 particular whether this resolution be laid upon the table, re- 
 ferred to a committee, or immediate action taken. 
 
 The resolution was declared lost on a viva voce vote. On 
 motion of Mr. Kent of Lancaster, the resolution was laid upon 
 the table. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton asked leave of absence for the re- 
 minder of the session for Mr. Drew of Lancaster. 
 
 Leave was granted. 
 
 Leave of absence was also granted Mr. Warner of Antrim 
 on account of illness. 
 
 COMMITTEE KEPORTS. 
 
 Mr. Norris of Portsmouth, from the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed 
 Amendments, to whom was referred the amendment of Mr. 
 Worcester of Milford to article ninety-six, part second, of; the 
 Constitution, relative to the money standard of the Constitu- 
 tion, reported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu- 
 tion in this respect." 
 
 The report was accepted and the question being stated, 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 523 
 
 "Shall the resolution of the committee that it is inexpedient 
 to amend the Constitution in this respect?" be adopted, the 
 affirmative prevailed and the resolution of the committee was 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Norris of Portsmouth, from the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed 
 Amendments,, to whom was referred the amendment of Mr. 
 Farrington of Manchester to article ninety-six, part second, of 
 the Constitution, relative to the money standard of the Con- 
 stitution, reported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution 
 in this respect." 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Paine of Berlin, from the Committee on Future Mode 
 of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amend- 
 ments, to whom was referred the resolution offered by Mr. Gil- 
 more of Manchester to- amend part second of the Constitution, 
 article forty-one, by striking out the words, "And whose 
 title shall be His Excellency," reported the same with the 
 following resolution: 
 
 ''Resolved, That it is inexpedient to> make the amendment 
 suggested." 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Woodstock, from the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department, to whom was referred the resolution 
 introduced by Mr. Gilmore of Manchester relating to the elec- 
 tion of secretary, treasurer, and commissary-general, reported 
 the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to recommend such an 
 amendment." 
 
 The report was accepted, and the question being stated, 
 
524 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 "Shall the resolution reported by the committee be adopted/' 
 the affirmative prevailed on a viva voce vote. Mr. Hubbard of 
 Amherst called for a division. The division showed 139 gen- 
 tlemen voting in the affirmative and 63 gentlemen voting in 
 the negative. 
 
 The President stated that the division did not show a 
 quorum, but a quorum being manifestly present he called for 
 another division. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester It is evident that, as the Presi- 
 dent has said, there is a quorum in the house, and as this is 
 an important matter I want a record to go to the people. I 
 believe all of these officers should be elected by the people bi- 
 ennially. I intend that a record shall be made, and if I can 
 get nine men to support me I will call for the yeas and nays, 
 and let the people know who is running this Convention and 
 what for. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Hubbard of Amherst, the report of the 
 committee and the proposed amendment of the gentleman 
 from Manchester, Mr. Gilmore, was laid upon the table and 
 made a special order for Wednesday, December 17, at 2:30 
 o'clock in the afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord, from the Committee on the Leg- 
 islative Department, to whom was referred the resolution of- 
 fered by Mr. Baker of Bow, with reference to amendment of 
 articles thirty-two, thirty-three, forty-one, and sixty, of part 
 second of the Constitution, providing for the substitution of 
 the word " plurality," for "majority," in said articles, reported 
 the same in the following amended form, and recommended 
 its adoption: 
 
 Amend part second, title "Senate," articles thirty-two and 
 thirty-three, article forty-one, title Executive Power Gov- 
 ernor, and article sixty, title Council, by striking out the word 
 "majority" wherever it occurs in said articles, and substitut- 
 ing therefor the word "plurality." 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 525 
 
 The report was accepted and the question being stated, 
 "Shall the recommendation of the committee be adopted," the 
 affirmative prevailed on a viva voce vote. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester called for a division, and, pending 
 it, moved to lay the resolution, with the recommendation of 
 the committee, upon the table. On the motion to lay on the 
 table, the negative prevailed on a viva voce vote. 
 
 The same gentleman withdrew his call for a division. 
 
 Mr. Briggs of Manchester called for the yeas and nays upon 
 the question. Pending the calling of the roll, Mr. Briggs 
 moved that the resolution be laid upon the table. The nega- 
 tive prevailed on a viva voce vote. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester Debate, I suppose, is not in order 
 in this matter. I have one suggestion to make, and by unani- 
 mous consent I would like to proceed for a moment. 
 
 The President There being no objection unanimous con- 
 sent is granted. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester This is one of the most im- 
 portant matters that has been brought before this Convention. 
 It changes the system of election of the governor, senators, 
 and council from what has been the rule in this state since 
 the adoption of the state Constitution, in this, that a plurality 
 of votes shall under this amendment elect all those officers, 
 whereas, heretofore, we have always required a majority. It 
 seems to me it is an important matter and should be consid- 
 ered in a house where more members are present than now. 
 It was for this reason I made my motion to lay upon the table, 
 which was voted down. Of course those of us who are op- 
 posed to such an amendment as this will submit with all good 
 grace to the action of the Convention, but we simply ask that 
 the motion may be held over to such time as it may be more 
 carefully and generally considered. It has been brought in 
 
526 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 here without any discussion. Nobody has stated any reason 
 why we should make this change except that the committee 
 has recommended it. It does seem to me that a matter so im- 
 portant as this ought to receive some discussion,, and ought to 
 be voted upon by a large majority of the Convention, instead 
 of in a Convention where a division shows that a quorum is 
 not present. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I move the Convention resolve 
 itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the trust 
 resolutions. 
 
 The President The chair will be obliged to rule that the 
 motion of the gentleman from Concord is not in order. 
 
 Mr. Chandler It is my impression that a motion to pass 
 over any subject under consideration to take up another one 
 is always in order. I see no reason, however, why the Con- 
 vention should be governed by a mere parliamentary rule. 
 
 Mr. Briggs of Manchester By unanimous consent I with- 
 draw my call for the yeas and nays and move that the further 
 consideration of this resolution be postponed until to-morrow 
 at 11:30 o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry. 
 What will be the status of this matter at that hour? Will it 
 then be open for debate, or will it be on the call for yeas and 
 nays? 
 
 The President The motion for yeas and nays has been 
 withdrawn and the chair will rule that the matter would stand 
 as it did this morning, and be open for debate. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord This motion being tabled, I desire 
 to make this statement. This report comes in here from the 
 committee of which I am a member, and it comes as a matter 
 of surprise to me. I know the matter has been under consid- 
 eration by the committee, and undoubtedly a vote has been 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 527 
 
 taken at some time when I was absent from the committee, 
 although I have attended all its sessions. I think the matter 
 should have the consideration of this Convention before it is 
 voted on. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Since the adoption of the state gov- 
 ernment there have been twelve instances where the governor 
 has been elected other than by the people. The first three by 
 the senate under the old form of the Constitution,, and since 
 then in nine instances by the legislature. In eight of those 
 instances the man having a plurality of votes has been elected, 
 while in four of those instances a man in the minority has 
 been elected; once in 1785, where a man having 474 was 
 elected against a man having 2,751; in 1790, where a man hav- 
 ing 1,626 was elected against one having 2,369; in 1812, where 
 a man having 15,492 was elected against a man having 16,613, 
 and in 1863, where a man having 29,035 was elected against 
 another having 32,833. I think the Convention will agree 
 with me that in each and every instance an outrage was com- 
 mitted on the people of New Hampshire. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia Owing to misfortune I have been 
 unable to give much attention to the work of the committee, 
 and was not present when this matter was taken up before the 
 committee. I think it is an important matter, and ought to be 
 considered when the house has a larger attendance. It seems 
 that when the members consider this question there ought not 
 to be any doubt in any member's mind that every one ought 
 to give it more consideration than has apparently been given 
 it at this time. Certainly while I have decided views upon the 
 question, I would like to think a little more upon this report 
 than I have had time to do yet. Now, for the purpose of mak- 
 ing one more trial, I move the Convention adjourn and pend- 
 ing that motion I move the matter be laid upon the table and 
 made a special order for to-morrow at eleven o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord A motion to adjourn, and then 
 a motion to do something else before we adjourn I never 
 
528 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 heard anything of that kind in parliamentary procedure be- 
 fore. I did not suppose that the same member could move to 
 adjourn and then move that the Convention do something 
 else before adjourning. 
 
 I shall vote for a plurality rule when it is voted upon. I 
 hope,, however, that the friends of the plurality rule will allow 
 the friends of the majority to have this delay until to-morrow. 
 I ask this especially because the subject of trusts ought to 
 come up this morning, as there are one or two gentlemen who 
 wish to speak upon it and are prepared to speak at this time. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I intended to say before I sat down that 
 I- object to a hasty consideration of this matter, and would 
 agree to the motion of the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. 
 Briggs. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia In order that there may be no mis- 
 take, I hope the Convention will bear in mind that the mo- 
 tion of the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Briggs, fixed the 
 time for the consideration of this matter at 11:30 o'clock to- 
 morrow, while my motion was for 11 o'clock. Perhaps the 
 gentleman from Manchester will accept 11 o'clock as an 
 amendment. 
 
 The gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Briggs, accepted the 
 amendnient, and further consideration of the question was 
 postponed until to-morrow, December 17, at 11 o'clock in the 
 forenoon. 
 
 Mr. Peavey of Greenfield, from the Committee on the Leg- 
 islative Department, to whom was referred the amendment of 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin to article twenty-eight, part first, of 
 the Bill of Rights, by adding a section relative to the author- 
 ity of cities and towns exempting from taxation certain prop- 
 erty, reported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution 
 in this respect." 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 529 
 
 Question, "Shall the resolution of the committee be 
 adopted?" 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin As I introduced this amendment, 
 I think I owe it to myself to say a single word before the Con- 
 vention votes upon the resolution of the committee. The 
 resolution, I take it, is reported adversely by the committee 
 on acount of their disagreeing with the principle involved in 
 the proposed amendment, and not on account of the form of 
 the resolution as it stands. Now if the principle is wrong, 
 gentlemen, then either it is so because the Constitution al- 
 ready provides for equal taxation or because equal taxation is 
 wrong. 
 
 I take it that we all understand that the Constitution as it is 
 provides for equality of taxation. I take it, gentlemen, if we 
 have a Constitution which enables a to\pi rightfully to tax 
 your neighbor at the rate of 1 per cent, and tax you at the rate 
 of 2 per cent., there is occasion for amending the Constitution 
 in this respect. If we have a Constitution that is of such a 
 character, then towns can say to any people who come in from 
 outside the town that they will tax them at a rate per cent, 
 only one half of what the people in the town are taxed, then 
 this Constitution ought to be amended. Now we all know 
 that for forty years, since 1860, we have had a statute which 
 gives towns authority to exempt from taxation certain manu- 
 facturing corporations for a term of ten years, and the effect 
 of that statute is that the other people of the town have to 
 pay the portion of taxes which I believe ought to be paid by 
 these manufacturing corporations. 
 
 Now it may be said that the Constitution is clearly against 
 this. This matter, however, is in such a condition that the 
 people of the state have been unable to ascertain whether this 
 statute permitting exemption from taxation is constitutional 
 or not. Twice this question has been referred to the supreme 
 court. Once about 1879 by the house of representatives. 
 They asked the opinion of the supreme court as to whether 
 the law was constitutional, and what, gentlemen, was the 
 34 
 
530 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 reply? It was briefly this, "Whether a true construction of 
 the Constitution authorizes the making of any exemption of 
 taxation is a question that would require so much time that a 
 well considered answer could not be given in season to furnish 
 any aid to your body/' That was in 1879. Again, at the last 
 session of the legislature, the senate having quite a number of 
 bills for the exemption of property from taxation, asked the 
 supreme court for their opinion as to whether this law ex- 
 empting manufacturing property from taxation, or any law 
 exempting property from taxation, was constitutional. I 
 thought I had the answer of the supreme court with me, but 
 it is so recent that every lawyer in the state will recollect it. 
 The court adopted almost precisely the language of the court 
 in 1879, and said that whether the true construction of the 
 Constitution would enable towns to exempt property from tax- 
 ation was a question that would require so much time to give 
 a well considered answer that there was not time during the 
 session of the legislature. 
 
 So, gentlemen, the question involved in this amendment is 
 a question of so much difficulty and is so much in doubt that 
 the supreme court of this state, although having been asked 
 twice once by the house of representatives, and once by the 
 senate to give their opinion on the constitutionality of the 
 statute, has both times said that there was insufficient time 
 during the session of the legislature to give a well considered 
 opinion on that question. So, gentlemen, it seems to me, 
 there being so much doubt about the Constitution as that, it 
 is a question that ought to be made clear. I think that some 
 action should be taken on this question because the condition 
 of things that existed when this law was passed in 1860 has 
 entirely changed from what it was at that time, and although 
 there might have been occasion at times for a statute of that 
 sort and it might have been beneficial for the people of the 
 state, that condition of things no longer exists. This statute 
 when it was passed was an act to encourage manufacturing. 
 As you all know, at that time manufacturers in this state had 
 to compete not only with business in this country, but all over 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 531 
 
 the globe. Since that time all men engaged in manufactur- 
 ing, or practically all of them, have received the benefit of the 
 protective tariff, which prevents competition from any men in 
 the same business outside of the United States. So manu- 
 facturers have ample protection from outside competition 
 which they did not have in 1860 when the statute was passed. 
 
 Again, another condition has arisen which is this, that men 
 have found that the only method, or the principal method, in 
 which business can be done is by combination and in forming 
 what you call "trusts/' and the condition is fast approaching 
 when nearly all kinds of manufacturing will be brought into 
 the hands of large corporations which are able to compete not 
 only with their competitors in foreign countries, but 
 against any one doing business in this country individuals 
 and small corporations and when you continue this statute 
 for exempting property from taxation you have to apply that 
 principle of exemption of property to these large corporations 
 which you call^trusts, but which I do not believe is the proper 
 term. 
 
 Again, not only has the condition of things entirely 
 changed since this statute was passed, but the purposes for 
 which the statute was passed, the causes for which it was up- 
 held, have been entirely lost sight of, and it has been used for 
 quite a different purpose. The theory, as I understand it, 
 under which this statute was originally passed was that ex- 
 emption should be granted to property that might be brought 
 into being on account of tax exemption. < Now, so far as my 
 observation has extended, in nine cases out of every ten where 
 exemption of this sort has been granted, the matter of exemp- 
 tion from taxation has not had anything to do with the estab- 
 lishing of these new industries. The question of trade, the 
 question of help, and of freight rates, etc., have determined 
 the question of whether or not manufacturing industries would 
 locate in a certain locality, and the practical result has been 
 that these industries have generally decided where they would 
 locate before they brought up the question of exemption from 
 taxation. In my judgment, the principle involved in the 
 
532 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 original statute has been wholly lost sight of, and the result 
 has been that now almost every manufacturing industry that 
 is even making an addition to their plant want an exemption 
 from taxation, and their exemption is decided not on the ques- 
 tion of whether or not it is necessary, but on the ground that 
 because it has been granted to others it should be granted to 
 them. 
 
 Now I think that there is great danger in allowing this 
 principle of exemption from taxation to stand longer upon the 
 statute book. At the last session of the legislature what prop- 
 ositions came before the senate, which had nearly all of them 
 passed the house and came very nearly being adopted? There 
 was one proposition from gentlemen in Massachusetts and 
 other states, who had bought up a large tract of wild land and 
 intended to occupy it for a park, and they came to the legis- 
 lature and asked to be exempted from taxation on that land, 
 and they had strong support for it. Another party came to 
 the legislature and asked to have the legislature authorize a 
 certain city to exempt from taxation a sanatorium. When we 
 inquired into the condition of things it appeared that this 
 sanatorium had already been built and was already in opera- 
 tion and was a purely business enterprise not a charitable 
 one. Another proposition was submitted to authorize a cer- 
 tain town to exempt from taxation certain summer homes in 
 a general way, all summer homes, I think, which were built in 
 that town. Another town came there with a proposition to 
 authorize them to exempt from taxation a hotel which had 
 burned down. And several other propositions came before the 
 legislature at the last session. 
 
 ISTow I say that this statute remaining longer upon the stat- 
 ute book will tend .to bring all sorts of bills to the legislature 
 by people who are trying to get exemption from taxation. It 
 seems to me that this matter is all wrong, that it is a gross 
 violation of the fundamental principle of the Bill of Rights 
 that every man is entitled to equal protection before the law, 
 and therefore he is bound to contribute his share for the sup- 
 port of the government. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 533 
 
 Now, gentlemen, if you agree with me in this matter that 
 this amendment should be recommended, then I ask you to 
 vote against the adoption of the resolution which is reported 
 here by the committee that it is inexpedient to take any action 
 upon this question. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I had not expected to ad- 
 dress this Convention again during its sittings, but this is a 
 question which is very important to the state of New Hamp- 
 shire. It is not a question that should come before this Con- 
 vention, but should be settled upon its merits in each indi- 
 vidual case by the legislature of New Hampshire. 
 
 I disagree with the gentleman from Franklin in his state- 
 ment that this is an exemption of trusts from taxation. It is 
 a policy which has done more to build up this little state of 
 New Hampshire, situated way back in the northeast part of 
 our country, than any other one law upon our statute books. 
 It has given to this state the largest industry in the state one 
 in which I am very much interested. It has given to this state 
 the shoe industry an industry in which there never will be, 
 or can be, a trust. It has given to this state taxable property 
 of immense value, because under the legislation of the state 
 you can exempt no corporation for a term longer than ten 
 years. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I will bring up an illustration. In 1870 
 my father went to the town of Derry where there was an 
 empty shoe factory, and was exempted from taxation. That 
 fact induced him to establish himself in business there. Peo- 
 ple from other states came there, and a town was built up 
 which to-day has a population of over 5,000 people. They 
 have increased the taxable property until the town of Derry 
 stands as one of the three or four large towns of the state. 
 They have built up an industry there which is permanent, and 
 which pays to labor over half a million dollars a year. They 
 have added to the taxable property of that town on which the 
 exemption has run out $300,000. They have added over 
 $200,000 in property in buildings this year. 
 
534 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 I do not believe the state of New Hampshire wants to put 
 any handicap on the building up of our industries. I do not 
 think we can afford to do that. We have to come in competi- 
 tion with the great West where shoe factories are springing 
 up, where capital is being invested, where they have a market 
 at their doors, and it is necessary in order to meet these people 
 on even terms that some inducements or advantages be given 
 us here. They exempt their shoe factories, they have labor 
 which they can procure at 20 per cent, less than we can here 
 in New Hampshire, and it seems to me we should be placed 
 upon even footing. 
 
 It is not necessary for this Convention to endorse such a 
 measure as this as a part of the organic law of the etate. It 
 seems to me fair to leave it as it should be left, to the common 
 sense of our future legislatures. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover Much has been said at different 
 times in our legislatures relative to the question of exempting 
 property from taxation, and to-day, for the first time, I have 
 heard a gentleman give reasons in favor of exempting the shoe 
 manufacturers. 
 
 As the gentleman from Franklin has said, instead of this 
 law being used to induce new industries and new enterprises 
 to start in a town, it has been applied more especially to the 
 enlargement of business. If there is anything vicious in prin- 
 ciple and vicious in practice, it is exempting property from 
 taxation under the statutes of this state as it is practised to- 
 day. 
 
 The shoe manufacturers, if I mistake not and I am not" 
 speaking of any particular firm or any particular individual 
 the shoe manufacturers for the most part have been wander- 
 ing Jews, going from place to place wherever they could get 
 exemptions from taxes or other inducements. For instance, 
 the town of Northwood. If I am not mistaken, that town ex- 
 empted a shoe business from taxation for the period of ten 
 years. I speak of the shoe industries, not because the business 
 is not all right, but as I understand it they can easily pull up 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 535 
 
 and go from town to town. If I mistake not, the town of 
 Northwood was practically ruined by exempting such, prop- 
 erty from taxation. Property went in there, men built homes 
 relying upon the faith that these companies would stay there. 
 I was a member of the legislature when a manufacturing com- 
 pany came before the legislature in 1885, asking for a second 
 exemption for ten years. I remember that the honorable gen- 
 tleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, left the speaker's chair 
 and came down upon the floor of the house and denounced it, 
 and did what he could to prevent a further extension of that 
 exemption. I remember that General Marston denounced the 
 principle and did what he could against it, and more particu- 
 larly against what has been done by certain branches of indus- 
 tries which could easily move from place to place. 
 
 Now, Mr. President and gentlemen, I do not believe a legit- 
 imate industry comes into a town, or refuses to come into a 
 town, because they can or cannot get exemption. 
 
 I do not want to select instances, but I have in mind an 
 industry which has not long been started and it has paid in a 
 few years a dividend of from 60 to 100 per cent. Only a few 
 years ago they made an extension, and asked and received 
 further exemption. We hear talk against trusts, against favor- 
 itism to large industries and corporations, but yet if there is 
 one instance where favoritism is permitted, it is here. An in- 
 dustry goes into a little town, perhaps, and asks for exemption, 
 and as very often happens, a meeting is held not a general 
 town-meeting, but a special meeting, where the exemption is 
 granted with a very few of the voters of the town present. I 
 have yet to learn of a single instance coming under my ob- 
 servation where a, single industry has been built where it 
 would not have been built even if they had not been exempted 
 from taxation. I presume possibly near the line of Massachu- 
 setts, if the laws of Massachusetts (about 'which I am not in- 
 formed) do not permit these exemptions, I presume likely 
 that our law may have the effect of bringing in some indus- 
 tries along the state line. But it seems to me that the princi- 
 ple of the law is altogether wrong. It is exempting one class 
 
536 JOUHNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of people at the expense" of another class. It is exempting a 
 class of people as well able, and better able, to pay its fail- 
 share of the burden of taxation at the expense of another class 
 which is not as well able. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Franklin I am thoroughly opposed to ex- 
 empting property from taxation on the principle of equal tax- 
 ation by all the people and an equal bearing of the burdens of 
 government by all the people in the state. . It costs so much to 
 run the state government, to run the counties and towns, and 
 if the property in any town, or any portion of it, is exempt 
 from taxation the other property which is taxed has to pay the 
 taxes for the exempted property. Now I believe in equal taxa- 
 tion. Let the capitalist who is running a hundred thousand, 
 or a two or three hundred thousand, dollar plant, pay his pro- 
 portion of the taxes with the laboring man that works for him 
 at two dollars a day. Don't exempt him for ten years on a 
 two hundred thousand dollar plant and then raise the money 
 necessary to carry on the government out of his workmen, but 
 tax them all equally. Let them all bear the burdens of the 
 town and general government. Let us all bear our share of 
 the burdens, and let no man be exempt. 
 
 Now the gentlemen who have spoken have given some in- 
 stances of how this exemption works. We have an instance 
 right in Franklin, and I am going to bring it to the attention 
 of this Convention. We have an industry in Franklin, capi- 
 talized at $75,000. For two years it has paid 100 per cent, 
 dividends, and last year it paid 60 per cent, dividend. This 
 year that same corporation, earning its 60 or 100 per cent, 
 dividend, wanted to enlarge its plant. It wanted to build two 
 wings on to its plant. It came before the city council of my 
 city, composed of nine members, and five of them voted to 
 exempt that plant from taxation, or the additions that they 
 might build on to them, for six years. That exemption was 
 given them, and the plant has been enlarged, and the people 
 of the town have got to pay the taxes that the rich corporation 
 ought to pay. I am thoroughly in favor of having equal taxa- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 537 
 
 tion, and I hope the resolution introduced by my colleague 
 from Franklin (who is thoroughly competent and knows what 
 he is talking about in this matter) will prevail and that the 
 recommendation of the committee will not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth I had not expected to say 
 anything upon this resolution offered by the gentleman from 
 Franklin. I had supposed that a resolution of this kind would 
 meet with the approval of every member of this Convention, 
 and I was surprised when the report of the committee came in 
 adverse to it. 
 
 We are all familiar with what happens when towns and 
 cities attempt to bring business into their locality by means 
 of exemption of property from taxation. We have all wit- 
 nessed its injurious effects. We have seen factories built by 
 public subscription, and exempted from taxation for ten years, 
 to induce industries to come into our midst, and when ten 
 years have expired, and they could get no further exemption 
 from taxation, they have almost invariably gone to some other 
 locality, where they could obtain exemption for ten years 
 more. There are numerous places in my section of the state 
 that are to-day suffering from the effects of exemption of prop- 
 erty from taxation. When an industry is induced to come 
 into a town on account of a vote to exempt their property 
 from taxation, it usually brings in quite a large number of 
 people, many of whom are anxious to own homes. They have 
 a few hundred dollars in the savings bank, which they draw 
 out and pay towards such homes, and give a mortgage upon 
 them for the balance of the purchase money. When these in- 
 dustries, at the end of their ten years of exemption from taxa- 
 tion, pull up and leave the town, it leaves these poor laborers, 
 who are owing for their little homes, without employment, 
 and utterly unable to raise the amount due on these mort- 
 gages; consequently/ all the hard earnings, saved by them to 
 pay for a home, are lost. 
 
 I am opposed to the exemption of any kind of property 
 from taxation. It is entirely wrong in principle, and I do not 
 
538 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 believe in it. We have many towns and villages with good 
 water-power and other natural facilities, which will bring to 
 them industries, without exemption from taxation, but no 
 place can derive any permanent improvement from those in- 
 dustries that we have to hire to come, and pay them to stay. 
 I hope, with all due deference to the committee, to whom 
 this resolution was referred, that their recommendations will 
 not be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I would like to ask the gen- 
 tleman from Franklin if this exemption does not apply to 
 churches and charitable institutions. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin If the gentleman has read the reso- 
 lution he will find that it includes such property as is used for 
 profit and gain only. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry That was the point to 
 which I wish to call the attention of this Convention. Gen- 
 tlemen have been talking about just and equal taxation, and 
 that everything should be taxed. This does not look as if 
 they meant it. 
 
 The only trust I have seen here is the lawyers' trust speak- 
 ing upon this question, and it seems to me the gentleman 
 from Franklin, Mr. Stone, is a little sore because he didn't 
 get part of the 100 per cent, dividend. 
 
 The gentleman on my left has spoken in relation to the 
 town of Northwood. He cannot be familiar with the reason 
 why a shoe factory establishment cannot exist in Northwood. 
 The competition in the shoe business is so great that you 
 have to be on the railroad where you can get good transporta- 
 tion facilities or you cannot do business without exemption 
 from taxation and that was the reason why the business was 
 obliged to leave Northwood. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover Was it not true that a shoe industry 
 in Northwood a few years ago came before the legislature and 
 asked that a bill be passed permitting a further ten years' ex- 
 tension to it, on the ground that they should leave the town 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 539 
 
 of Northwood unless such, exemption was given it, and that 
 that bill was defeated, and they thereupon went to another 
 town where they were exempt? 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry That was true, but the rea- 
 son they asked for the exemption was because if they did not 
 have it they were unable to compete with, business on the lines 
 of transportation. That is a big consideration, and when a 
 gentleman rises upon the floor and insinuates that the shoe 
 business shifts from place to place every ten years he is stat- 
 ing what is not true. Take for instance Nashua. Estabrook 
 & Anderson have been in Nashua for years, and so has Brack- 
 ett, paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for 
 labor, building up the city of Nashua. And Manchester, 
 which is about the eleventh city in the manufacturing of 
 shoes in the United States, has come to that position on ac- 
 count of the exemptions she has given these shoe manufactur- 
 ers. They came there because they could get exemption, and 
 they have stayed and helped build up the city of Manchester. 
 Exeter has profited by the shoe industry, and so have Little- 
 ton and Keene. And in these United States, with a gain of 
 $39,000,000 in the shoe industry in the last ten years, New 
 Hampshire made the magnificent sum of over $11,000,000, 
 and made it because she had these laws, while Massachusetts, 
 which has been spoken of as refusing to exempt new indus- 
 tries, has increased less than a million. The shoe manufactur- 
 ers in this country, or in this part of the country, have come 
 into New Hampshire because she had more just and equitable 
 laws and they could compete better with the West in New 
 Hampshire than in Massachusetts. 
 
 It is not a question of abstract principle as stated by these 
 lawyers. I agree with them that no firm should be exempted 
 more than ten years, and no firm should go from one town to 
 another in New Hampshire in order to be exempted. I agree 
 with them on that proposition, but I do not assent to the prop^ 
 osition that we can induce capital to come into this state from 
 other states and assist us in building up taxable property here 
 
540 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 without doing something to attract them. Theoretically they 
 may be right, but if they are that theory applies to every 
 church and every religious organization in the state of New 
 Hampshire. If they are going to put it on principle and on 
 theory they should tax all property, but if they are going to 
 put it on the broad basis of helping business in this state, of 
 building up New Hampshire, and placing her in a position to 
 compete with other states, then leave the law as it is and not 
 make this proposed amendment a part of the organic law of 
 the state. 
 
 Mr. Richards of Newport Mr. President and Gentlemen 
 of the Convention: I have listened to the remarks of the 
 various gentlemen that have preceded me, the gentleman from 
 Andover, Mr. Stone, the gentleman from Somersworth, Mr. 
 Edgerly, and also the gentleman from Londonderry, Mr. Pills- 
 bury, who represents Derry, as I understand, in this Conven- 
 tion. The two gentlemen first mentioned were members of 
 the house in 1885 when the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. 
 Aldrich, was speaker. I, myself, was a member of that legis- 
 lature, and I remember very well the contest before that leg- 
 islature for the extension of the ten years' exemption to indus- 
 trial enterprises in New Hampshire. I was opposed to that 
 extension, but have been in favor of ten years' exemption of 
 industries in our towns and cities, and have advocated and 
 supported it by my vote. 
 
 I am to-day of a different opinion. The town of Newport 
 has had experience in exempting industries, not only shoe in- 
 dustries, but other industries. The shoe industries we have 
 exempted have not proved successful in all respects. We have 
 raised money by subscription, installed the plants, furnished 
 water-power for these companies, and after ten years have ex- 
 pired they come to us and say, "What are you going to do for 
 us now?" We say, "We suppose you are willing to pay a fair 
 tax with the rest of the people." But they say, "No, we can 
 go to other places and get exemption," and they ask us to 
 pay their taxes for them and take it out of our pockets. They 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 541 
 
 ask us to provide their water-power and buildings and all the 
 facilities for their business, and to pay their taxes, and if we 
 fail in one respect to do what they ask tttey hold over our 
 heads the threat that they will move to some other place 
 where they can get all of these facilities. So they ignore us 
 and threaten constantly and continuously to leave after hav- 
 ing taken the advantages we have given them of exemption 
 of taxes, to say nothing about the stock we have subscribed 
 and paid for and on which we have not received any dividend. 
 
 I say that I did start out as an advocate of exemption to 
 these industries for ten years, and I have voted for it, and the 
 industries have received their exemptions, but I have seen the 
 working of the principle in its practice, and 1 believe that the 
 effects of it are evil in the end. 
 
 There may be special instances like the one the gentleman 
 from Londonderry, Mr. Pillsbury, has stated in Derry, and 
 there may be instances in Manchester, but take the state as a 
 whole I venture to say that the practice has been bad and it 
 has not tended to the advantage of the state. 
 
 I hope the resolution introduced by the gentleman from 
 Franklin, Mr. Leach, will not be defeated, and I hope that we 
 shall not support the recommendation of the committee that 
 it is inexpedient to amend. I am in favor of the Leach resolu- 
 tion and opposed to the recommendation of the committee, 
 
 Mr. S. W. Emery of Portsmouth I hope we shall make no 
 mistake here in the consideration of this question. It is true 
 there is no rule which always works well, and some instances 
 have been cited here in which the exemption of taxation has 
 not worked well. But, Mr. President, I take it those in- 
 stances are not enough to condemn the law. 
 
 If the principle of this proposition of the gentleman from 
 Franklin, Mr. Leach, prevails it means that no more rail- 
 roads, either steam or electric, can be constructed in this 
 state which can be exempted from taxation in New Hamp- 
 shire; it means that we can get no other industries to settle in 
 the state which we now get by this exemption. 
 
542 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 In Portsmouth we have an industry that has settled there 
 among us that is to invest six million dollars in a plant and 
 that will employ* 2,400 men. When nine years more have 
 passed they will be subject to taxation in the city of Ports- 
 mouth and will pay $150,000 a year. There is another indus- 
 try which has invested a million dollars, and in eight years 
 will pay a tax of $20,000 a year, and that industry is our best 
 water customer, and pays from seven to eight thousand dol- 
 lars a year in that way. The other industry will pay us, I 
 venture to say, $2,000 a year for water rent. And then there 
 is the construction of houses for the employes of these com- 
 panies, which means a large increase in the taxable property 
 of more than a million dollars more. I want to ask you if 
 these instances which have been working ill ought to be set 
 up against the instances where the law has worked a benefit 
 to the state, and ought to be allowed to outweigh those bene- 
 fits. 
 
 This talk about trusts is not one that should frighten us. 
 A trust is not always an evil. I say these great corporations 
 that come into the state and that mean so much for the state 
 by bringing money and employment into the state, ought to 
 be exempted from taxation. If you are going to pass an 
 amendment of this kind you are going to discourage these 
 people. You are going to discourage the railroad people and 
 capitalists of all kinds. Does not that amount to anything? 
 You are going to discourage the construction of great plants 
 like these that I have mentioned in Portsmouth. I say, let 
 us not be misled by any talk about trusts, or of instances 
 where the application of this principle of exemption has not 
 worked well. Let us not be misled by talk of principle and 
 theory. We are here simply to decide a practical question in 
 a practical way, and I hope it will be so treated. 
 
 Mr. Smith of Hillsborough This principle of exemption 
 may be false in theory, but it seems to me it has worked well 
 in practice in New Hampshire. In the matter of shoe fac- 
 tories there may be some migratory shoe shops in New Hamp- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 543 
 
 shire, but they are few in numbers and importance as com- 
 pared with large establishments such as exist in Manchester, 
 Deny, and Nashua, and which have been such an aid in 
 building up those towns. 
 
 I have in mind another branch of industry. In the town 
 where I live, Hillsborough, there are two establishments 
 which were induced to come there in the first place by this 
 tax exemption. They have gone on increasing their plant, 
 and neither of them has asked for further exemption, al- 
 though they have been continually adding to and enlarging 
 their business and have been instrumental in building up the 
 community, and have added a large amount of taxable prop- 
 erty that would not have been there but for them. 
 
 I hope this report of the committee will prevail. I am not 
 in favor of the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
 Franklin, Mr. Leach. 
 
 Mr. Howe of Concord Mr. President and' Gentlemen of 
 the Convention: I belong to the "lawyers' trust," so-called. 
 This, gentlemen, is a Constitutional Convention called for 
 the purpose of revising the present Constitution, as I under- 
 stand it. It seems to me, gentlemen, that it is nothing to 
 this Convention whether the legislatures of the past have en- 
 acted good laws or bad laws, or constitutional laws or uncon- 
 stitutional laws. It is a question for the judicial department 
 of the government to determine whether a statute is constitu- 
 tional or not. Now the gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Leach, 
 has said that the supreme court has twice, not exactly de- 
 clined, but neglected to answer the question put to them, 
 once by the house of representatives and once by the senate, 
 namely, whether the provision of the statute by which man- 
 ufacturing corporations are entitled upon vote of the town to 
 ten years' exemption is constitutional or not. As I remem- 
 ber those decisions, the opinions rendered by the justices were 
 put upon the ground, as the gentleman from Franklin states, 
 that there was insufficient time in which to consider the ques- 
 tions. The question was submitted to the court in each in- 
 
544 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 stance at, or very near, the close of the legislative session, 
 and there was insufficient time to consider an important ques- 
 tion of that kind. 
 
 It seems to me that the only thing which concerns us here 
 is the present Constitution whether it needs amendment or 
 not. And in order to determine that question we should 
 know what the present Constitution provides upon this ques- 
 tion. The provision is simply this. Part two, article four, 
 under the head of "general court," gives the general court 
 power to appropriate and levy proportionate and reasonable 
 assessments, rates, and taxes upon all the inhabitants and all 
 the residents of the state, and upon all property within the 
 same. That is the only provision in the Constitution which 
 has any bearing upon this subject, Now how are you going 
 to frame a provision as an amendment which is more compre- 
 hensive than what you already have? It seems to me that the 
 recommendation of the committee should be adopted and 
 that this matter should be allowed to stand upon the present 
 Constitution as it does now, and then any dissatisfaction with 
 the existing conditions under the existing statute can be 
 passed upon by the supreme court. If it comes to such a 
 point that some one wants to. raise this question, when a 
 town votes to exempt a manufacturing industry, a citizen 
 taxpayer of the town can apply to the court and it will then 
 be in order for the court to determine whether this statute is 
 constitutional or unconstitutional. Until the supreme court 
 has determined that question I think we best not tinker with 
 the present Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Morris of Lisbon This question is now before the su- 
 preme court of this state, in a case from Grafton county 
 which has already been argued. I understand the court has, 
 in an opinion which is in a comparatively recently volume of 
 the New Hampshire Reports, expressed an opinion on the 
 constitutionality of this law, and in favor of it. I understand 
 the courts in other states have broken away from this princi- 
 ple, and that is the general tendency to break away from 
 tax exemption as it is not equality. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 545 
 
 I have seen some of the workings of this law on a small 
 scale. I have seen towns, covered with forests and with val- 
 uable timber vote to exempt lumber manufacturers for terms 
 of ten years. The plants were established in the towns, cut 
 off the timber, and at the expiration of ten years moved away 
 or failed, and the timber went with them. That robbed the 
 towns not only of the taxes on the plants, but also robbed 
 them of the taxes that should have been paid upon the lands. 
 It robbed the towns of their forests, and, in short, left them 
 in a very much worse condition at the end of the ten years. 
 A law that permits any town to vote such an exemption is 
 pernicious in principle and dangerous in practice. 
 
 Mr. "VVason of Nashua I have sat here and listened to the 
 debate upon this subject with some interest. Like my friend 
 from Londonderry, I did not anticipate the necessity of any- 
 body speaking upon this subject. Listening to the remarks 
 of several gentlemen, I have wondered if all the manu- 
 facturers in the state of New Hampshire were dishonest 
 men; because it seems to be the spirit of the arguments of the 
 majority of the speakers that a man will come to the city of 
 Concord, or of Manchester, or some other town or city, and 
 make a contract with that town or city that they will go there 
 and manufacture and stay there if they are exempted for ten 
 years, and then after the ten years, if they can, they leave. 
 They lead the people to believe that they will have permanent 
 industries in those cities if the business is a success, but in- 
 stead of that when ten years has passed they forget their con- 
 tract made when they desired exemption and leave the cities. 
 Is not that dishonest, and are the manufacturers of the state 
 dishonest? That is what the arguments of my friend from 
 Franklin, Mr. Leach, and the arguments of the other gentle- 
 men speaking in the same line would intimate. I deny the 
 truth of these insinuations most emphatically. Our manu- 
 facturers are as honest as any man that sits in this Conven- 
 tion. I come from the second city of New Hampshire, a city 
 that has been benefited and has prospered under the wise 
 35 
 
546 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 legislation in favor of exempting manufacturers. I have in 
 mind at this present moment that years ago, in the city of 
 Nashua, was a watch factory that by misfortune was burned, 
 and the people who owned it asked for favors from the tax- 
 payers. The taxpayers acted honestly and what in their 
 judgment they thought was for the best good of the city, but 
 time has proved that they acted unwisely. They let that 
 watch factory go away for want of exemption from the city 
 and move to Waltham, and to-day it is employing a large 
 number of persons, I do not know how many, and I do not 
 know how much money it pays in taxes to the town of 
 Waltham, but it is a large sum, or how much money it is pay- 
 ing out weekly to support themselves and the families of the 
 employes, but it is enough so that Nashua wishes it were 
 there. There is no citizen in Nashua to-day, I believe, but 
 what wishes that the Waltham watch factory had been kept 
 in Nashua. If it had, we to-day would be reaping the benefit 
 of the taxes and the benefit of the manufacturing of watches 
 in our city instead of a city in the neighboring state of Mas- 
 sachusetts reaping those benefits. 
 
 Now, then, one word as to the suggestion of the gentleman 
 from Lisbon, Mr. Morris, about the wood-working establish- 
 ments depleting the forests of his town. I am astonished that 
 the bright people of Lisbon would vote to exempt from taxa- 
 tion a plant in order to establish a temporary manufactory for 
 the purpose of depleting the property of the town. If tney 
 did that, they need legislation to protect themselves but not 
 legislation to deprive other places of the benefits they get 
 from a wise use of this beneficent law. Certainly the people 
 of Lisbon were wrong in their judgment, and my suggestion 
 to- him is to go back when this Convention, adjourns, if it 
 ever does, and to lecture to his neighbors and citizens in Lis- 
 bon and point out to them as clearly as he has to this Con- 
 vention their mistake and their lack of wisdom, and I believe 
 they will rally around him and do as he suggests and refuse to 
 exempt such manufacturers or enterprises from taxation. 
 
 I would also speak of the shoe industry which has been 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 547 
 
 criticised considerably here. In my city we have large fac- 
 tories of that industry, and we have been benefited by them, 
 as they have helped to build up the city of Nashua until it has 
 become the second city in size in the state. Certainly Nashua 
 has benefited by this principle of exemption. 
 
 One man suggested that he wanted every piece of property 
 taxed equally. That is a big proposition, because each man 
 in a city or town will see to it that his property is not valued 
 quite as high as that of some other man. 
 
 But that is not the question here. The question is, what 
 shall we decide to do with reference to amending the Consti- 
 tution of New Hampshire in this respect. If the city of 
 Nashua, or the town of Lisbon, wishes to exempt a manu- 
 facturer from taxation what harm does it do to you, or to the 
 citizens of the other towns or cities. You are asking the cities 
 and large towns to bear the burden of taxation, and we do not 
 murmur at that. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster We do. 
 
 Mr. Wason Perhaps you do. We don't. Now we ask you 
 to let us govern ourselves, and if a permanent manufacturing 
 establishment wants to locate in the city of Nashua, let the 
 taxpayers determine whether they will allow them to come 
 free from taxation for ten years and whether the rest of us 
 that are not exempt are willing to make up the little defi- 
 ciency arising therefrom. It does not affect you from the 
 town of Lisbon, or you from the city of Concord, or of Man- 
 chester, but it does affect the city of Nashua. How does it 
 affect us? If that establishment comes there with a large 
 number of employes who establish homes in the city, it in- 
 creases the population of the city, it increases the taxable 
 property of the city, and the state board of equalization then 
 comes to us and they make us contribute more to the state 
 and county taxes. In that way we are benefited., not only 
 ourselves, but we are benefiting the county, and we are bene- 
 fiting the whole state. We of the city who are taxpayers 
 have to make up the deficiency from our own pockets, but 
 
548 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 you of the other cities and towns of the county and of the 
 state get some benefit and do not have to pay any of the ex- 
 pense. 
 
 To the country town whose forests are being cut down and 
 carried away I would say that you can refuse to exempt the 
 corporation or individual that comes into your town to do 
 that, and I hope the suggestion that I make will be followed. 
 But that is no argument why you should say that Nashua 
 should not have the privilege of getting what benefit it can 
 from the law relating to the exemption of manufacturing 
 plants that is now on the statute book. 
 
 Mr. Johnson of Colebrook Gentlemen of the Convention: 
 I hope this Convention will vote to sustain the recommenda- 
 tion made by this committee. I believe it is still safe to trust 
 this matter to the vote of the towns and the cities. I believe 
 there has been no injustice shown here as a cause for any 
 change in our Constitution or organic law. I believe it is safe 
 to trust the men who are carrying on the affairs of their towns 
 and their counties, and I say I hope the report of this com- 
 mittee will receive the sanction of this body. 
 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin I have the honor, Mr. President and 
 gentlemen of the Convention, to represent Ward Two of the 
 city of Berlin. In 1880 the town of Berlin had, if I remem- 
 ber correctly, a population of 1,142. At that time there was 
 a small sawmill in what is now the city of Berlin. In 1885, 
 the question was presented to the then town of Berlin as to 
 whether or not it would exempt from taxation a corporation 
 which desired to locate there, known as the "Glen Manufac- 
 turing company." The little town in its sovereign capacity 
 voted to do so. That corporation in response to the induce- 
 ments thus offered to them located in the town of Berlin. 
 
 That act on the part of that corporation, that act on the 
 part of the town, formed the nucleus for the future city of 
 Berlin, for an immense increase in the taxable property in the 
 city of Berlin, and an enormous increase in the population, 
 and an enormous increase in the amount of money collected 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 549 
 
 by taxation. This increase is a direct result of the law which 
 the proposed amendment, introduced by the gentleman from 
 Franklin, Mr. Leach, seeks to abolish. 
 
 To-day the population of the city of Berlin is in the neigh- 
 borhood of 10,000. Twenty years ago it was only 1,100 and 
 some odd, and up to 1885, when the Glen Manufacturing 
 company first commenced the establishment of their plant, it 
 was very little in excess of what was given by the census of 
 1880. So it resulted that in seventeen years from the time 
 that manufacturing establishment came there, to the present 
 time, under the magnificent operation of this law, the city has 
 increased in population to 10,000 people. To-day there are 
 several diversified interests in the city which are the direct re- 
 sult of this law. 
 
 I say further in answer to the gentleman from Lisbon, Mr. 
 Morris, regarding the depletion of forests, that the forests in 
 our town are depleting, but to offset that, within three 
 months, one of the important corporations of the city of Ber- 
 lin has purchased in Canada, on a tributary to the St. Law- 
 rence river, an immense tract of timber land. They have pur- 
 chased an entire township and are ready to cut, or go to cut- 
 ting, that off, and all that timber is coming from Canada to 
 be manufactured in the city of Berlin. 
 
 Now I want to know whether it is wise, taking this as a fair 
 sample of the operation of the law, for us to come here and 
 recommend a change in the organic law of the state which 
 will practically cut off towns of that character from the privi- 
 leges which they now enjoy. 
 
 Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I trust 
 and hope that the recommendation of the committee will 
 prevail. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover Just a word in reply to the gentle- 
 man who has just spoken. He has said that Berlin has in- 
 creased to 10,000 in population. Very true. Why? It is 
 the magnificent water-power, the forests of wood, and the 
 peculiar adaptability of the surroundings and facilities of that 
 
550 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 town to the different manufacturing companies which have 
 gone there and established their business there. Does the 
 gentleman believe that because these corporations or indus- 
 tries were exempted from taxation is the reason why the town 
 has prospered so? 
 
 The gentleman from Portsmouth says the same thing, that 
 they have a large industry there. Do you think it is wholly 
 because they were exempted from taxation that they came to 
 Portsmouth and established themselves in that city? 
 
 I think Berlin is a clear instance where taxation had 
 nothing to do with it at all. In my own village we have one 
 of the largest manufactories of its kind in the United States, 
 but it did not grow up there because exempted from taxation. 
 
 One thing more. This amendment introduced by the gen- 
 tleman from Franklin does not touch any of the property or 
 the existing rights of any one in New Hampshire, but simply 
 says that hereafter exemption from taxation will not be al- 
 lowed, that this inequality shall not go on any longer. It 
 affects no industries now established. 
 
 Mr. Abbott of Derry Don't you think that these manu- 
 facturing establishments will not leave Massachusetts and 
 come into New Hampshire and establish themselves here un- 
 less they can see some advantage to themselves? 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover I do not believe that any legiti- 
 mate industry will hesitate to locate in a place because they 
 are not exempted from taxation. If they can get exemption 
 from taxation they will do so, but if there is a place where 
 they can come and earn money they will build whether they 
 are exempted or not. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord The gentleman from Andover 
 says that this amendment will not affect any property in the 
 state except new property hereafter created. Gentlemen, that 
 is the object of the law. The object of the statute is to en- 
 courage the increase of property and to make it applicable to 
 property brought here and invested. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 551 
 
 Now the view of the committee was this: 
 
 The Constitution provides for equality in the apportion- 
 ment and assessment of taxes. If that prohibits this exemp- 
 tion it is sufficient. The ground on which exemptions of this 
 character have been upheld, as I understand the decisions of 
 the court, is the contractual rights resulting from the town's 
 vote, and the investment of capital thereunder. Under the 
 existing constitutional provision, with reference to equality 
 of taxation, as I understand, it has never been judicially de- 
 termined whether exemptions of this character are constitu- 
 tionally permissible. If application was made to the court to 
 enjoin the action of a town or city with respect to granting 
 this exemption there could be a judicial determination of the 
 constitutionality of our present law. 
 
 A town cannot now exempt any property in existence at 
 the time the vote is passed. It can exempt new property only. 
 The legislature should be entrusted, with the right to with- 
 hold or continue the right to permit the different municipali- 
 ties of the state to grant or withhold such exemptions. 
 
 New enterprises need all the legitimate encouragement 
 that can be accorded them; and they should, at least, have all 
 the means of encouragement now existing. Those should be 
 increased rather than diminished. 
 
 Mr. Pike of Haverhill Mr. President and Gentlemen of 
 the Convention: I came in late and do not know exactly how 
 the matter stands before the Convention, but I have heard 
 enough of the discussion so that I want to give a little per- 
 sonal illustration. It is this: We have recently located a 
 plant at Littleton, N. H. We were debating for some little 
 time where we would build that mill and rather wished to 
 locate it in Haverhill, K H., but Haverhill would not give one 
 particle of encouragement to us, and would not aid us by ex- 
 empting us from taxation or do anything in that line. Lit- 
 tleton would, and we located our plant in that town. Up to 
 .this time we have put between thirty and forty thousand dol- 
 lars into the property, we have from sixty to seventy skilled 
 
552 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 employes there with, their families, and the taxable property 
 in the town of Littleton has been largely increased on account 
 of our business, so that they will receive more profit yearly 
 from our business than all they gave us. 
 
 I find that many towns in different states are offering in- 
 ducements in the way of exemption from taxation and in 
 other ways to bring in manufacturing industries, and if there 
 is any state in the Union that needs such industries more than 
 New Hampshire I do not know where it is. 
 
 Mr. Bartlett of Sunapee The most of our discussion has 
 come from gentlemen from the large cities and towns. I wish 
 to state how this matter has worked in the little republics. 
 Within the last few years we have exempted two manufactur- 
 ing plants for a term of ten years. Taxable property in our 
 town has been increased about $100,000, and there has al- 
 ready been built thirty or forty thousand dollars in houses, 
 and so it has been a great benefit to our little republic. We 
 have institutions there that have come to stay and come to 
 benefit the town and the state. 
 
 We have had in the past several calls from those tramp shoe 
 shops, and we tell them they had better go to Newport where 
 the people are rich, as well as generous, and the result has 
 been as told us by Mr. Richards. 
 
 Mr. Kimball of Bennington Years ago the town of Ben- 
 nington voted five per cent, of its valuation to the railroad 
 from Hillsborough to Peterborough and again they voted the 
 same thing when the first term of years had expired. The sec- 
 ond term expired with not better prospect that the road would 
 be built. By and by the Manchester & Keene railroad started 
 up, and we again voted to assist that railroad, thinking the 
 Peterborough & Hillsborough road would never be built. 
 When the Peterborough & Hillsborough railrad was built it 
 passed directly through our village to Peterborough, while 
 the other was a mile and a half from the village. 
 
 In a little while a gentleman proposed to come into our 
 town to do business if we would exempt him for a term of 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 553 
 
 ten years. The thing was done, and he came to us, and dur- 
 ing the time "between the time that the railroad came and this 
 business came into the town to the present, the number of 
 tenements have doubled, and the population has largely in- 
 creased. We have a thriving little community there to-day. 
 
 A year ago last spring a paper mill company, W. T. Barker 
 & Co., of Boston, asked exemption to them for a term of ten 
 years, and the vote of the town to exempt them was unani- 
 mous. To-day they are laying out for the purpose of a new 
 mill which is to take the place of an old one, about $250,000. 
 We voted to exempt them on the improvements and the stock 
 in trade, and we expect as a result of this exemption that the 
 number of help employed in the new mill will be twice, if not 
 three times, as many as in the old one. 
 
 I am a member of a small manufacturing firm myself, who 
 with its predecessors have paid one hundred cents on a dollar 
 on all our debts for the last forty years or more, and we voted 
 to exempt the paper mill company, and I would vote again 
 if I had the chance. 
 
 I hope the statute will remain as it is. 
 
 The question being stated, Mr. Lyford of Concord called for 
 a division, which resulted in 260 gentlemen voting in the af- 
 firmative and 37 gentlemen voting in the negative, and the 
 resolution of the committee that it is inexpedient to amend 
 the Constitution in this respect was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lamprey of Concord, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 AFTERNOON. 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the Convention re- 
 solved itself into Committee of the Whole, to consider the 
 various resolutions relating to trusts. 
 
554 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Norris of Portsmouth in the chair.) 
 
 The Chairman Gentlemen, we are now in Committee of 
 the Whole. The questions before the committee are the reso- 
 lution offered by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, 
 and the other resolutions on trusts. The chair awaits the 
 pleasure of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: In my opinion, the one thing, more than 
 any other, which is creating unrest among the people of this 
 country, and the one thing, more than any other, which in 
 the near future, unless checked, will disturb and endanger the 
 stability and usefulness of our government, is the spirit of 
 commercial greed which manifests itself in the purpose to 
 wrest business from its natural channels, and to put the 
 industries, upon which the output of the necessaries of life 
 depends, into the hands of a few. In short, to make the 
 business of the country and the necessaries of life depend up- 
 on the imperious will of a few gigantic corporate combina- 
 tions known as trusts. The harm is that such a situation in 
 effect destroys, and it is intended by the promoters of trusts 
 that such a situation shall destroy, free and fair competition 
 in the trades and industrial pursuits. 
 
 I rise at this late day in the session to' discuss this great 
 question with no small degree of trepidation. I shall be 
 frank with the convention and say that it was my purpose, 
 when coming here, to take part in the discussion of the ques- 
 tions relating to the principle involved in these resolutions 
 and to limit my activity to these measures. But as you know, 
 I have been drawn into some other matters. That fact, how- 
 ever, makes my sense of duty no less in respect to these vari- 
 ous resolutions. 
 
 I am not standing before you as the paid attorney for or 
 against any trust or corporate combination. My life for the 
 last few years has been far removed from such relations. I 
 am fully aware that the man who expresses the sentiments 
 which I am to express this afternoon, puts himself in a situa- 
 tion to be affected by the influences which the great combi- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 555 
 
 nations of our country throw against any man who raises his 
 voice to speak what ought to be spoken. Therefore I am not 
 speaking with a view of personal advantage. I am speaking, 
 Mr. Chairman, from a sense of duty. I shall say what I be- 
 lieve, and with that, shall be entirely content. 
 
 I desire at the outset, Mr. Chairman, to invite the attention 
 of this assembly to the recent utterances of that very distin- 
 guished gentleman in the West the Federal Judge in the 
 Seventh Circuit, if that is the Chicago Circuit, and I believe 
 it is, who is much talked of as the successor of the present 
 Chief Justice of the United States, when that distinguished 
 jurist shall retire, a very courageous and very learned man, 
 who became famous, as you will remember, a few years ago in 
 connection with the great strike in Chicago. I refer to Judge 
 Grosscup. Judge Grosscup, a few days ago, speaking to the 
 University of Nebraska, gave utterance to these startling 
 words: 
 
 One-third, or more, of the industries of the United States have 
 passed from the ownership of individuals, or local corporations, into 
 the great bodies of property known as the trusts. Should the pro- 
 cess go on until all our industries are thus consolidated, as many 
 well-informed men now think probable, the so-called trusts will have 
 absorbed nearly one-sixth of all the wealth of all kinds in the United 
 States. Nothing in history, outside of the rise of the federal sys- 
 tem, has left so striking a change in what may be called the per- 
 sonnel of ownership. If the process of the last few years goes on 
 uncha-nged, the universality of ownership that characterized our 
 past, an ownership of our industries widely spread among the peo- 
 ple, will be all but lost. 
 
 Mr. President, if we are not there now, we are on the swift 
 road to commercial despotism. Eead the story of the fate of 
 the republics of the past! Read the story of the Israelitish 
 Commonwealth, the first republic of which we have any re- 
 cord, and it was essentially a republic, existing fifteen hun- 
 dred years before the birth of Christ, where they had a consti- 
 tutional provision, limiting the ownership of real estate to 
 twenty acres, and other constitutional safeguards against 
 aggregations. This republic existed for four or five hundred 
 years but was finally brought under the dominating influence 
 of property interests. One safeguard after another was 
 broken until ninety-five per cent of the property and the 
 
556 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 wealth, of the country was in the hands of five per cent of the 
 people and the government was overthrown! This is the 
 story, speaking generally, of every republic that has existed 
 since. Property aggregations with their unbalancing, over- 
 reaching, and dominating influences have been the rock upon 
 which they have been wrecked. 
 
 As Judge Grosscup has observed, there is no parallel in the 
 history of the world to our progress in the direction of com- 
 mercial domination. The swiftness of the race in our coun- 
 try towards despotic control of the industries outruns any- 
 thing in history. 
 
 It is against this evil that the resolution of the distin- 
 guished gentleman from Concord, Ex-Senator Chandler, is 
 directed. The phraseology of the resolution is in the incisive 
 and emphatic style of expression of which that gentleman is a 
 master. The basic principle of the declaration, which he pro- 
 poses as an amendment to the constitution of our state, clear- 
 ly embraces the idea of the natural and essential right of free 
 and fair competition in the trades and industries. It is as 
 follows: 
 
 "Kesolution offered by Mr. Chandler of Concord: 
 
 "Article 82; at the end thereof add: 
 
 Individual enterprise and competition in trade should be protected 
 against monopolies which tend to hinder or destroy them. It shall 
 be the duty of the legislature to limit the size and functions of all 
 corporations, to prohibit fictitious capitalization therein, and to so 
 provide for their supervision and government that they will be the 
 servants and not the masters of the people. 
 
 Is any gentleman going to stand up in this convention and 
 maintain the negative of the proposition that it shall be the 
 duty of the legislature to limit the size and functions of all 
 corporations, and to prohibit fictitious capitalization? "Who 
 opposes that proposition and maintains before an intelligent 
 people that fictitious capitalization, or in other words, watered 
 stock, should be sustained as a principle in business? The 
 resolution further declares it to be the duty of the legislature 
 to provide for the supervision and government of corpora- 
 tions, so that they will be the servants, and not the masters, 
 of the people. I am interested to see who will take the nega- 
 tive of that proposition, and maintain that the great corpora- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 557 
 
 tions of the country shall be the masters, rather than the ser- 
 vants of the people. This resolution also declares that indi- 
 vidual enterprise and competition in trade should be encour- 
 aged and protected against monopolies which tend to hinder 
 or destroy them. Who will maintain in New Hampshire, or 
 elsewhere, that individual enterprise or competition in trade 
 should not be encouraged and protected, but hindered and 
 destroyed by monopolies? 
 
 This resolution clearly states a great fundamental prin- 
 ciple, in language which the people of this state will under- 
 stand, and it clearly expresses a truth which the trusts ought 
 to understand as one which rests in the heads and hearts of 
 New Hampshire people. The form of expression employed 
 in the resolution is satisfactory to me save in a single respect. 
 The one suggestion I would make to the distinguished gentle- 
 man is that he so amend his resolution as to clearly express 
 the idea of publicity. This may be a matter of detail and I 
 do not insist upon it. Very likely it is better to leave it to 
 the legislature to supply the details. But it is essential that 
 the people should know, and that the government should 
 know, how much the people are being cheated on the neces- 
 saries of life, like sugar, and beef and oil, and hundreds of 
 other things, and it is necessary that they should know what 
 dividends are being made on watered stock. 
 
 This resolution proclaims a truth which, in my judgment, 
 may properly be set forth, among the principles declared in 
 the Bill of Eights, as a principle which should govern among 
 men. 
 
 The resolution of the gentleman from Manchester (Mr. 
 Starr), and that of the gentleman from Nashua (Mr. Ledoux), 
 involve the same general principle and relate to the duty of 
 the legislature, and undertake to confer upon that body fur- 
 ther powers in respect to the control of trusts. These reso- 
 lutions, as I understand it, and I suppose it is a proper mat- 
 ter to be stated here, were drawn by the distinguished and 
 accomplished gentleman who was the representative of the 
 great Democratic party in the last gubernatorial campaign, 
 Mr. Hollis. Now while I do not speak in any political sense 
 or partisan sense, because I believe this to be a business ques- 
 tion and one of the most important ones that ever confronted 
 the people of this state, I do say, that these resolutions, taken 
 
558 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 altogether, declare a truth which ought to be proclaimed 
 through the instrumentality of the Constitution of New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 I call, Mr. Secretary, for the reading of the resolutions. 
 
 The Secretary read as follows: 
 
 "Kesolution offered by Mr. Starr of Manchester. 
 
 "Amend Article 82 by adding thereto the following: 
 
 And, further, full power is hereby granted to the said General 
 Court to enact laws to prevent, by civil and criminal process, the 
 operations within the state of any trust or corporation, foreign or 
 domestic, which endeavors to raise the price of any article of com- 
 merce by restraint of trade, monopoly, or other unfair means; to 
 control and regulate the acts of all corporations doing business 
 within the state, and prevent their encroachments upon the liberties 
 of the people. 
 
 "Besolution offered by Mr. Ledoux of Nashua. 
 "Amend Article 82 by adding thereto the following: 
 
 The General Court is authorized and directed to pass such laws as 
 will most effectually prevent monopoly, the stifling of competition, 
 the artificial raising of prices, and any unfair methods of trade; to 
 control and regulate the acts of all corporations doing business 
 within this state, and to prevent their encroachments upon the lib- 
 erties of the people. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the three resolutions to which I have re- 
 ferred, and which have been read, involve the same funda- 
 mental principle and may well be considered together. 
 
 At the outset, let me say, it is no answer to these proposi- 
 tions that the prices demanded now for the necessities of life 
 are in some instances less than in former times. If by rea- 
 son of improvements in machinery and in agricultural imple- 
 ments, the necessaries of life can be produced at a less cost 
 than formerly, it is the right of the people to receive the bene- 
 fit of such improvements. 
 
 Some one may ask why a declaration of a natural right 
 should be incorporated into the Constitution. The answer is 
 that conditions have arisen in this country in the present gen- 
 eration which violate the natural and essential rights of the 
 people, and there is the same propriety and the same duty 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 559 
 
 upon this generation of declaring against present oppression 
 as that which rested upon our forefathers when, under dif- 
 ferent forms of oppression, they declared, as they did in Arti- 
 cle 1 of the Bill of Rights that: "All men are born equally 
 free and independent," or, as declared in Article 2 of the Bill 
 of Rights that: "All men have certain natural, essential and 
 inherent rights, among which are the enjoying and defending 
 life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting proper- 
 ty," or, as declared in Article 82 of the Constitution, that it 
 shall be the duty of the legislature to encourage commerce, 
 trades, and manufactures, or, as in Article 10 of the Bill of 
 Rights, that: "The doctrine of non-resistance against arbi- 
 trary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive 
 of the good and happiness of mankind." 
 
 Now, then, we have what we call jurisdictional lines be- 
 tween the governments, lines which separate the powers of 
 the state governments from those of the federal government, 
 and which exclude the states from the control of some things 
 and the federal government from the control of, or interfer- 
 ence with others, and which leave some things to be dealt 
 with and regulated by the federal and state governments con- 
 currently. It is, therefore, a question whether the remedy 
 for the evils we are considering, lies with the federal govern- 
 ment, or the state governments, or in part with each. By 
 making this declaration in the fundamental law of the state 
 as a concrete proposition on which the people of New Hamp- 
 shire insist, we help ourselves by helping others situated as 
 we are in respect to these great industrial questions; we help 
 other states; we help our senators and our representatives. 
 The people of other sections of our country cannot come to 
 New Hampshire and go from house to house to see what the 
 people desire, and the congressmen of the country cannot read 
 all our newspapers to get the consensus of opinion with ref- 
 erence to this matter, but they may well look to the constitu- 
 tion of the state to see whether New Hampshire insists that 
 there shall be free, fair, and open competition in the trades 
 and industries. 
 
 And so far as the will of New Hampshire weighs, 
 we help Congress, which must grapple with this ques- 
 tion; and so far as the will of New Hampshire weighs, we 
 help the man who at this moment is presiding over the des- 
 
560 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tinies of this great nation, and who, with supreme honesty 
 and superb courage, has declared that so far as it in his pow- 
 er lies, the people shall be protected against the dominating 
 encroachments of these great trust combinations and to the 
 same extent because this is non-political such a declara- 
 tion in the Constitution of New Hampshire will help to sus- 
 tain and guide any future President of the United States to 
 whatever political party he may belong. 
 
 Let a concrete expression like this be made as the essential 
 and imperative demand of New Hampshire through a Consti- 
 tutional Convention, and let it be ratified by the people of 
 New Hampshire, and it will become a barrier against which 
 all must throw themselves, who propose to organize trusts for 
 the purpose of controlling all commodities in one line; a bar- 
 rier which they must scale in order to entrench themselves 
 here and deprive the people of New Hampshire of their 
 rights. 
 
 For another reason I say this. A very distinguished law- 
 yer who represents many of the great trust interests of New 
 York, Mr. Auerbach, has recently written a very elaborate arti- 
 cle which appears in the current number of the North Ameri- 
 can Eeview, in which he maintains that all power of the 
 states to regulate or deal with business transactions relating 
 to commodities coming from other states may be wrested from 
 the state governments by an act of Congress authorizing the 
 organization of corporations, to transact interstate business 
 and deal with interstate commerce. He bases his argument 
 upon a noted decision of the Supreme Court, which many of 
 you know about, the United States Bank case, in which 
 the doctrine is held that the federal government may main- 
 tain United States banks. He argues, in effect, if that is so, 
 that Congress may well, under the power conferred by the 
 states, establish corporations for the transaction of interstate 
 business and that then the whole subject will be beyond the 
 control of the states and in the hands of the federal govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, under our system of government, all rights 
 not expressly conferred upon the federal government were 
 reserved to the states; and I trust the doctrine will never be 
 established that all phases of the subject and all questions as 
 to the manner of dealing with commodities produced by the 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 561 
 
 various states the oil, the coal, and all the products which 
 become the subject of interstate commerce, are wholly and 
 exclusively within the power and control of the federal gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 For this reason I say it is the imperative duty of New 
 Hampshire to declare now that she insists, so far as it is in 
 her power to insist, that the trades and industries shall be 
 open, and free, and subject, certainly, to incidental control 
 by the state. 
 
 The declarations proposed as amendments to the consti- 
 tution relate to commerce, and commerce is expressly made 
 a subject of protection by Article 82 which I have read, and 
 present conditions present oppressions, demand that we 
 should more distinctly declare in favor of free competition 
 and against monopolies in respect to the industries and the 
 commerce which affect our state. The purpose involved in 
 the proposition, which I urge, is disassociated from any sup- 
 posed attack upon any particular interests here, and, so far 
 as I am concerned, it will be discussed upon such lines. 
 
 The resolutions under consideration are not factional, and 
 this is not a factional discussion. It involves no attack upon 
 our great manufacturing interests or upon our great rail- 
 roads that cross the state from sea to mountain. We com- 
 mend our local enterprises engaged in the development of 
 the resources of the state, and it is believed that they are 
 equally interested with others in maintaining the great prin- 
 ciple under discussion. 
 
 Nobody complains of trusts in New Hampshire. It is of 
 the influence of outside trusts upon New Hampshire inter- 
 ests the control of commodities which come into the mar- 
 kets of New Hampshire and which have a right to come into 
 the markets of New Hampshire, that we complain. A rail- 
 road system limited to New Hampshire is not a railroad 
 trust; but the proposition to put into one combination all 
 the railroads of the country, which is the proposition involved 
 in the great scheme of monopoly now going on, would be a 
 railroad trust, and I imagine no gentleman would stand up 
 here and advocate that kind of combination. 
 
 Now I wish also to say that my remarks will not only not 
 be factional, but will have no reference to any particular 
 36 
 
562 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 cases pending in the courts with which I am connected, and 
 my official relations with the government are such, if I may 
 be pardoned for referring to it, that propriety requires that I 
 should speak in measured terms and with moderation. 
 
 Moreover, I shall speak cautiously for I am fully aware 
 that I am speaking to a notable body of four hundred sen- 
 sible, discriminating, and hard-headed New Hampshire men 
 who are assembled in Constitutional Convention not to be 
 moved by sentiment, or extravagant speech, but to fairly con- 
 sider and boldly proclaim, some of the great principles that 
 underlie a beneficent and intelligent civilization, which they 
 are bound to courageously uphold. 
 
 In my judgment, the question whether the principle in- 
 volved in these resolutions shall be adopted and sent to the 
 people as a proposition to be ratified and incorporated into 
 the constitution of the state, is, by far, the most important 
 question to come before this Convention. 
 
 That no great trusts exist in New Hampshire is no reason 
 why the declarations contained in the resolutions should not 
 be adopted. Every man who raises grain, deals in grain, or 
 consumes grain, is affected by the trusts, whether they are in 
 New Hampshire, in New York, or in Chicago. Every man 
 who consumes sugar, or deals in sugar, is likewise interested. 
 The same is true of beef and of pork. Every man who wears 
 shoes, deals in shoes, or makes shoes, is interested. The great 
 concerns that use copper in connection with electric lights 
 and the telephone are interested. The great railroads that 
 consume coal in their railway works and in their locomotives 
 are interested. It is, therefore, no answer that the trusts are 
 largely outside the state. We are affected by them wherever 
 they are. The Revolutionary Tea Party was not in New 
 Hampshire, it was in Boston. Citizens were not shot down 
 by British soldiers surrounding the Colonial Assembly at 
 Exeter in New Hampshire, but in King Street in Boston, sur- 
 rounding the Colonial Assembly of Massachusetts, yet New 
 Hampshire's interests were affected and it was their general 
 policy to uphold the cause of the people of all the colonies. 
 Human slavery did not exist in New Hampshire, yet New 
 Hampshire declared against it. Secession was not in New 
 Hampshire, yet she poured forth her money and her men to 
 maintain the Union and to establish Federal authority, and 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 563 
 
 the same duty is upon her today to engage in a peaceful war 
 against the wicked and criminal monopoly of the trades and 
 industries of the country which affect her people in common 
 with the people of all the states. 
 
 The commodities to which I have referred and hundreds of 
 others become the subject of commerce between the people of 
 the different states, including New Hampshire, and any com- 
 bination destroying free, open, and fair competition is in vio- 
 lation of the rights of New Hampshire people. The princi- 
 ple of free, open, and fair competition in respect to subjects 
 of interstate commerce casts its protecting lines around every 
 community and into every home in New Hampshire, and it 
 is a protection that we are entitled to have. 
 
 Here is an essential right prostrated, as I shall show you 
 further on; the independence in trade and free competition 
 is so far gone from the people in this country that it can never 
 be restored except through the power of the governments of 
 the states and of the Federal government. No man can 
 wrestle with these great combinations. This is oppression 
 that falls upon all the people alike, and it is, therefore, the 
 duty of the government of the state and of the Federal gov- 
 ernment to take the initiative and restore this important busi- 
 ness principle to the people. The essential truth which has 
 been buried under an avalanche of monopoly and oppression, 
 should, so far as New Hampshire is concerned, be here resur- 
 rected and proclaimed as a fundamental principle. It is no 
 answer that the legislature may have the power now. The 
 question of legislative power under the constitutional grants 
 and limitations, is at least a debatable one, and the fact that 
 it is debatable, is fatal to vigorous and resolute action. The 
 question of power should be distinctly and emphatically put 
 above all questions of debate or cavil. It is, therefore, no 
 answer, that the legislature may have the power. Fair com- 
 petition, as has been said, is an essential principle in business 
 which has been buried beneath an avalanche of corporate 
 trust combinations so far buried that business cannot re- 
 store it, and it should be resurrected by a Constitutional Con- 
 vention and the people should ratify this principle. This 
 principle should be asserted in a concrete form so that the 
 legislature of this state, and the legislature of every other 
 state, will understand that it is a principle upon which New 
 Hampshire insists. 
 
564 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, when our system of government was organ- 
 ized, our forefathers repudiated what was called the law of 
 primogeniture, a rule of law under whose operation estates in 
 England descended from eldest son to eldest son and were 
 carried along in that way; and they adopted the idea that 
 future interests must vest within a life, or lives in being and 
 twenty-one years. The reason for this, as taught by our fore- 
 fathers, was that property should not be locked up, and that, 
 under these rules, no great estates would be perpetuated until 
 they should assume proportions which would destroy the equi- 
 librium of the body politic. Now, it still remains that these 
 rules in respect to individual ownership of estates exist, and 
 that we insist emphatically upon these principles as a safe- 
 guard. 
 
 Conditions, however, arose which made it necessary, in or- 
 der to develop the great resources in this country that corpor- 
 ations should be organized, that money should be aggregated. 
 
 Now, I am not here in any unfriendly spirit towards cor- 
 porations because of the fact that they are corporations. 
 Legitimate corporate enterprises are necessary to our civiliza- 
 tion; they are necessary to the development of our country 
 and they should be upheld and encouraged in all reasonable 
 ways. 
 
 Disregarding the principle involved in the rule to which I 
 have referred in respect to personal ownership of estates, our 
 legislatures early adopted the policy of creating corporations 
 without any limitation as to life or time of existence, except 
 to reserve to the governments the right to alter and amend 
 charters as justice might require in order that the interests 
 of the public should be protected. The effect of such a 
 policy, of course, was to allow, not for a life, or lives in being, 
 and twenty-one years, but forever, the perpetuation of great 
 aggregations of wealth through corporate organizations, sub- 
 ject only to the limitation or the qualification in respect to 
 the public right to which I have referred as involved in the 
 right to alter and amend the charters or organizations. 
 
 Now, it followed, very soon, that corporations, disregarding 
 the policy of the government in respect to the statutory reser- 
 vation of the power to alter and amend in the interests of the 
 public, and for the purpose of making the statutory reser- 
 vation for purposes of regulation, difficult of enforcement, be- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 565 
 
 gan to tie themselves up with other corporations not at first 
 for the purpose of controlling everything in a given line, but 
 for the purpose which I have stated. This was first done by 
 tying up for twenty years, then for ninety-nine years, and 
 now, in order to deprive the government of its right to pro- 
 tect the people under its reserved power, and to make trust 
 domination more absolute, they have recently adopted the 
 idea of associating themselves together and tying themselves 
 up for nine hundred and ninety-nine years. There is an 
 organization of interests in New York, aggregating $200,000,- 
 000, where four or five corporations entered into a trust and 
 tied themselves up for nine hundred and ninety-nine years 
 with agreements to pay themselves seven per cent. The divi- 
 dends are to be earned from the public. That is the way 
 they deal with the reserved public right! 
 
 Under the doctrine of eminent domain, corporations get 
 the right to do public business, run over land and through 
 houses in the prosecution of the public right, and then to ren- 
 der inoperative and to destroy the rights of the public, the 
 control and the power of the government in the interests of 
 the public, they proceed to mix themselves up with guaran- 
 ties to themselves for nine hundred and ninety-nine years. 
 That is a fearful exercise of a public function! There is no 
 thought of the public good, or of the public right, except to 
 confuse, impair, or destroy them. 
 
 These schemes are entirely commercial. There is not only 
 no thought of the public good or the public right, but no re- 
 spect for the government, and no thought of the government, 
 except to break down and render inoperative the reservations 
 which it has made in the interests of the public. 
 
 A very distinguished lawyer and accomplished gentleman, 
 Mr. Eose, President of the American Bar Association, recently 
 said in an address before that body, that: 
 
 We have at present more than four thousand monopolies, to say 
 nothing of price and rate-fixing and profit-sharing pools, with buy- 
 ing and selling agencies, exercising functions similar to those of the 
 trusts, all organized for the purpose of fixing prices arbitrarily. 
 
 Think of that! Four thousand great trusts, embrac- 
 ing all of the more important industries of this country 
 and nearly all of the necessaries of life, many diverse inter- 
 
566 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ests aggregated for the purpose of fixing prices arbitrarily 
 and without any regard to the public right or the public in- 
 terests! Mr. Kose, continuing, says: 
 
 Without the advantage of fixing prices in this manner, there 
 would be no motive for the combination of many diverse interests 
 in one. In most cases, neither the purpose nor the power is denied; 
 on the contrary, they are proclaimed for the object of raising the 
 price of corporate securities. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, under modern conditions, we must 
 have large aggregations of capital. And if these combina- 
 tions were to develop the resources of the earth, well and 
 good; but the prevailing scheme is to combine the various 
 developed industries and to destroy competition between 
 them, not to create a combination to enter upon some new 
 scheme, or to develop some new resource or industry. The 
 scheme is to take hold of developed industries and to put 
 them under one interest and one management, that they may 
 control the price, both to the producer and the consumer. 
 This is wrong. It offends a natural right. It offends a 
 wholesome law of trade. No people will long rest peaceably 
 under a commercial and industrial policy which forces busi- 
 ness from its natural competitive channels, and especially so, 
 when the policy is justified only by the idea that a fe\v can do 
 all the business and furnish all the necessaries of life to the 
 many at a less price than they can do it themselves. It is 
 natural for men to do business, and no community would put 
 all its business into one man's hands, allowing him to do all 
 of it, and rest peaceably, because he claims that he can do it 
 cheaper than they can do it themselves. 
 
 Such greed for power and for commercial control threatens 
 trade, threatens civilization, threatens the very existence of 
 government. The remedy is largely with the states and re- 
 sides largely in a bold expression of public sentiment. 
 
 As I have said, the states reserved to themselves all powers 
 to govern and regulate business and to protect the people 
 which were not conferred upon the general government. 
 Contracts in restraint of trade have for centuries and every- 
 where been held illegal illegal both under federal and state 
 law, and under the law of all civilized nations. 
 
 This idea is the basis of the Sherman Act. The Sherman 
 Act was directed especially against contracts in restraint of 
 trade. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 567 
 
 Now my assertion is, that combinations and here is the 
 point combinations in restraint of trade are in spirit and in 
 effect the same as contracts in restraint of trade, and it re- 
 quires no stretch of that doctrine to declare combinations for 
 such purpose against public policy and illegal. Let me ask 
 you if the effect is not the same if the contract of two men 
 in restraint of trade is illegal as against public policy, upon 
 the same vital principle, is not a combination of corporations, 
 entered into for the same purpose, as much against public 
 policy and may not a situation created by such a .combination 
 of corporations well be declared, either by federal or state law, 
 to be against public policy and one which will not be upheld? 
 
 I am one of those who believe that every government has 
 the inherent power of self-preservation and the inherent 
 power of protecting its people, and I believe the states may 
 deal directly with some phases of this subject. 
 
 It has always been said that we will not enforce contracts 
 in restraint of trade. It may well be said, that we will for- 
 bid combinations in restraint of trade. The general govern- 
 ment may regulate interstate commerce. It has always acted 
 upon the idea that it would not enforce contracts in restraint 
 of trade. It may, as well, forbid combinations in restraint of 
 interstate trade and declare that it will not tolerate combi- 
 nations in restraint of free competition in interstate com- 
 merce. 
 
 In more than one great crisis, which has directed the atten- 
 tion of our people to some particular clause in the framework 
 of our general government, to some particular phrase in the 
 fundamental law, we have had occasion to marvel at the wis- 
 dom and the forethought of those who framed our consti- 
 tution. It is said that both Gladstone and Bismarck the 
 two most noted modern European statesmen have declared 
 that in their judgment the men who assembled to work out a 
 system of government in this country I think they were re- 
 ferring to the constitution were the greatest set of men ever 
 assembled for such a purpose since the world began. 
 
 The framers of the Federal government put into the consti- 
 tution the provision that Congress shall have power to regu- 
 late commerce with foreign nations, and among the several 
 states. Mark the word! Power to "regulate" commerce. Not 
 power to grant free and unbridled immunity, not to guarantee 
 
568 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 an unrestrained right to trade, but to "regulate"; not to pro- 
 tect combinations to break down commerce, but to "regulate" 
 the manner in which the commerce shall be carried on. It is 
 equivalent to saying that Congress may define the manner in 
 which interstate business shall be conducted. Very likely 
 the leading idea was to clothe the general government with 
 power to protect interstate commerce from unreasonable 
 restrictions by the states. But it is manifest that the framers 
 reflected, and having reflected, that they selected the right 
 word, to the end that the manner of conducting interstate 
 commerce might be regulated, so that the people of the states 
 should not be imposed upon or oppressed through the instru- 
 mentality of a trade or commerce over which the general 
 government was to assume jurisdiction and control. If, be- 
 cause they have conferred it, the states have not full power to 
 regulate interstate trade and protect the people, where does 
 the power to adequately regulate reside, unless with the gen- 
 eral government? Is the power of regulation, the power of 
 protection, lost between the two? 
 
 Now clearly, under this provision, this power to regulate 
 Congress may well declare against combinations and con- 
 spiracies affecting interstate commerce, and say, that combi- 
 nations to create a monopoly and to destroy competition shall 
 not do business outside of the state where they are created. 
 That is to say, that while it lies with the states to alter, 
 abridge, and limit the corporations which they have created, 
 and to confine them to a legitimate prosecution of the enter- 
 prise for which they are created, if they fail to do it, and if 
 the great corporations of New Jersey, and other states I might 
 name, assume to arbitrarily destroy competition and to 
 control the necessaries of life and to furnish the people of 
 other states with commodities at their own prices arbitrarily 
 fixed, the Federal government under this provision of the 
 constitution, may declare, through an act of Congress, that 
 interstate commerce shall not be conducted in that way; that 
 it amounts to a conspiracy against the rights of the people. 
 
 Congress may well declare officials of corporations conspir- 
 ing for such a purpose and doing business outside the state, 
 to be guilty of conspiracy against the people, and that upon 
 proper proceedings, that they may be dealt with in the courts. 
 
 The trust combinations are running wild. They seem to 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 569 
 
 recognize no law, save the law of selfishness. They are all, 
 in fact, exercising a public function, because they are, in fact, 
 created by legislative enactment. The oppression is'upon all 
 the people. The people must get their redress through gov- 
 ernment, state or federal. No individual, no business con- 
 cern is strong enough to grapple with this situation. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, it was said more than two hundred 
 and fifty years ago by Lord Chief Justice Hale that when pri- 
 vate property he was talking about private property when 
 private property is affected with a public interest, it is subject 
 to government control so as to prevent imposition and extor- 
 tion. This rule still more clearly holds good in respect to 
 corporate rights, rights created by law. Upon the principle, 
 stated by Lord Chief Justice Hale, power to justly regulate 
 and control all corporations and to protect the public, unques- 
 tionably resides in the state and federal governments. Every 
 corporation doing business is affected and qualified by the 
 public right because they are created by the public through 
 law. They are therefore exercising a quasi-public function 
 and may, and should, be regulated by the public through law. 
 
 Corporate rights are not natural or inherent rights. They 
 are rights founded upon law and qualified by law. Every 
 property right created by law is a qualified right, and may be 
 so regulated that it shall not impose upon the public. 
 
 I shall not read much law. I shall only refer to three or 
 four decisions of the Supreme Court to show the power of 
 governments to protect the public right, residing in corpora- 
 tions created by law and exercising a quasi-public franchise. 
 The proposition of Lord Chief Justice Hale, uttered two hun- 
 dred and fifty years ago or more, has been approved by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States in a somewhat recent 
 case. (Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113.) After stating that 
 doctrine, the court proceeds to say at page 125: 
 
 Under these powers [inherent in every sovereignty] the govern- 
 ment regulates the conduct of its citizens one toward another, and 
 the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such reg- 
 ulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise it 
 has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this 
 country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common car- 
 riers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, etc., and in 
 so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services ren- 
 
570 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 dered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day 
 statutes are to be found in many of the states upon some or all of 
 these subjects, and we think it has never yet been successfully con- 
 tended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional 
 prohibitions against interference with private property. 
 
 In another and a more recent case, in the Supreme Court, 
 that of Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (177 U. S. 43), it is 
 said: 
 
 A corporation is a creature of the law and none of its powers are 
 original. They are precisely what the incorporating act has made 
 them and can only be exerted in the manner which that act author- 
 izes. In other words, the state prescribes the purposes of a corpora- 
 tion and the means of executing those purposes. Purposes and 
 means are within the state's control. This is true as to domestic 
 corporations. It has even a broader application to foreign corpora- 
 tions. 
 
 In another case (Company v. Needles, 113 U. S. 580) the 
 Supreme Court says the right of a plaintiff to exist as a cor- 
 poration, and its authority in that capacity to conduct the 
 particular business for which it is created, are granted sub- 
 ject to the condition that the privileges and franchises con- 
 ferred shall not be abused and that when abused or mis- 
 employed, may be withdrawn or reclaimed by the state in such 
 way and by such means of procedure as are consistent with 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, speaking for the Supreme Court, 
 has recently said: 
 
 The right to contract is not absolute but may be subjected to" the 
 restraints demanded by the safety and welfare of the state. (Rail- 
 way v. Paul, 173 U. S. 404, 409.) 
 
 Chief Justice Shaw ,the greatest judge, perhaps, that ever 
 lived in this country, save Marshall alone, many years ago 
 laid down this principle: 
 
 Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, 
 are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment, as 
 shall prevent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable 
 restraints and regulations established by law, as the legislature, un- 
 der the governing and controlling power vested in them by the con- 
 stitution, may think necessary and expedient. 
 
 This doctrine was referred to and approved by the Supreme 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 571 
 
 Court of the United States in Holden v. Hardy, reported in 
 169 U. S. 366, 392. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, the dominant idea in the country is 
 that commercial equilibrium shall be restored. No one would 
 destroy corporations or deal unjustly with corporate prop- 
 erty. No one would advocate the absolute destruction of 
 trusts. It is only proper regulation and proper conduct that 
 the interests of the public require. Combinations may be 
 necessary, and are necessary, for legitimate purposes, but they 
 must not overthrow competition. No one objects to a great 
 corporation whose purpose it is to develop a line of industries. 
 The objection is to the control of all industries in a given line 
 and the arbitrary fixing of prices. 
 
 Now, in view of the decisions I have read, think for a mo- 
 ment of the steel trust, under whose domination, American 
 iron and steel are so absolutely and arbitrarily controlled and 
 dominated that iron and steel can be bought by English rail- 
 roads, delivered at Liverpool, cheaper than American rail- 
 roads can buy it on the cars at the mines or mills. Think of 
 the beef trust and of the leather trust and the flour combi- 
 nation! 
 
 I want your attention for a moment to the beef trust. To- 
 day the prices of beef are such as to be practically prohibitive, 
 with probably ninety per cent of the American people. No 
 laboring man, no artisan, no ordinary man in the professions 
 can afford the red meats, even once a day, if he has anything 
 of a family. 
 
 You will pardon me if I speak of a personal experience. 
 Yesterday, for my lunch, I went to one of the Boston hotels, 
 and it was not one of the most expensive ones either. I had 
 two lamb chops. They were not larger than your thumb. I 
 had boiled eggs and dry toast. When the waiter brought me 
 the check, there was an item of two chops, seventy cents. I 
 said, "Waiter, show me a printed bill of fare with two chops 
 charged at seventy cents." I recalled that chops a few years 
 ago at this season were forty cents. The waiter came back 
 with a bill of fare and there was the price, two lamb chops, 
 seventy cents. I said, "What does this mean? I want you 
 to go to the management and tell them I want to know why 
 two chops cost seventy cents." The waiter went out and 
 coming back, gave his answer, "It is the trusts. Meats are 
 higher than they used to be." 
 
572 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 I do not refer to this seriously as showing the price of meats 
 but as showing the iniquity of the pernicious principle of 
 monopoly. If it begins at the head it is used to cheat the 
 whole length of the line from there to the consumer. 
 
 Today meats of all kinds cost the consumer nearly double 
 what they did ten years ago. Now, gentlemen, the trouble is 
 not that there are not as many cattle raised in the country as 
 there were ten years ago, but it is because the prices are arbi- 
 trarily controlled. And they are not only arbitrarily con- 
 trolled as against the consumer but as against the producer, 
 the raiser of the cattle as well. Today, the cattle sheds of 
 Chicago are overrun and overflowing with live cattle waiting 
 to be slaughtered, and yet beef steaks cost the consumer in 
 this city, as I was informed last night at the Eagle Hotel, 
 from thirty to thirty-four cents a pound. That is because 
 the beef production of this country is run through a trust, a 
 combination that arbitrarily fixes and controls the price and 
 drives ninety per cent of the people of this country from red 
 meats to the coarser meats, and to fish. 
 
 How long, let me ask you, will a government, founded upon 
 the will of a great people, rest securely under such conditions 
 as these? 
 
 Think of the Standard Oil Company. The last annual 
 dividends on a capital of one hundred millions were forty-five 
 million dollars almost one-half as much as the capital stock. 
 The total dividends on a capital of one hundred millions in 
 six years are two hundred and thirty-seven million dollars. 
 Now there is oil enough, and there is nothing in the condi- 
 tions of today that interferes with the production of oil, or 
 that increases the cost, but something has happened in the 
 anthracite coal fields which makes it necessary to burn oil in 
 the steamships driven across the ocean, and for people to burn 
 oil in their little oil stoves which they are obliged to use in 
 the place of coal stoves to keep themselves and their children 
 from freezing, and the same lack of coal has made it neces- 
 sary for the railroads, or some of them, to use oil in operating 
 and driving their steam locomotives across the country, and 
 in view of this necessity and through the might of absolute 
 domination, the Standard Oil Company puts an additional 
 twister on the nose of the American people and adds a cent 
 a gallon to the price of oil, giving themselves in return a 
 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 573 
 
 swoop of eight millions a year in addition to their forty-five 
 millions in other words, the forty-five million dollar divi- 
 dends are increased by eight million dollars by reason of the 
 necessity caused by the coal strike. Did the Maker of the 
 universe, who distributed oil through this earth to light and 
 warm the people, intend that one concern should monopolize 
 and control it, or so use it, as to extort unreasonable and un- 
 just profits from the people? Never! Was it ever intended 
 by any legislature that any one man, or any concern under 
 the domination of any one man, under a public franchise, 
 under a right that he gets from the government, should 
 get control of such a necessary of life, and so operate and 
 control it that it may divide forty-five million dollars a year, 
 extorted from the people? Never! 
 
 Must this condition go on eternally? If so, what will be 
 the end? Trusts dividing, on a capital of a hundred millions, 
 fifty million dollars or more a year profits, realized from an 
 arbitrary grasp upon a leading necessary of life which must 
 distribute itself among all the people! It need not neces- 
 sarily go on. The public right may be protected. Under the 
 power of legislative supervision and control railroads, as is 
 well known, are restricted in their freight tariff rates and are 
 compelled to sell mileage in many of the states at two cents a 
 mile and in others for less. Upon the same principle, corpor- 
 ations dealing in the necessaries of life, may be restricted in 
 their earnings and their dividends. The legislatures of the 
 states of their creation may unquestionably restrict them, and 
 Congress may doubtless restrict such as are engaged in inter- 
 state business. There is no reason why the Standard Oil Co., 
 operating under law, under a franchise, should be protected 
 in dividing fifty million dollars a year, arbitrarily extorted 
 from the public upon a leading necessary of life. 
 
 It is a harm to the public. It is a greater harm, yes, it is 
 indeed a danger to the title of the combination which is con- 
 trolling the product and reaping such vast and enriching 
 harvests. 
 
 Such a condition disturbs the equilibrium of affairs among 
 men. It becomes a disturbing element among people living 
 under the same government. In time, such conditions, unless 
 checked, will result in numberless, colossal aggregations of 
 billions upon billions and again billions and billions upon 
 
574 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 billions, which will surely disturb the equilibrium of the gov- 
 ernments themselves, state and federal as well. 
 
 Look at matches! Look at sugar! At one time the sugar 
 trust controlled ninety per cent of the sugar consumed in this 
 country: It now controls more than fifty per cent, sufficient 
 to dominate the situation, and its policy is, as everybody 
 knows, as soon as a concern starts up for the purpose of com- 
 peting with them, to buy them out, and pay them in stock, and 
 the consumers of sugar, in effect, pay for the additional stock 
 and pay the dividends. That this is their standing policy is 
 an unquestionable fact. 
 
 In the legislatures of some states, there has been passed 
 what is called a blanket corporation act, under which people 
 associate themselves together on paper, without much regard 
 to the public right, and under cover of that they endeavor to 
 get control of a given situation and of competition in respect 
 to it. Did any legislature ever intend that one concern 
 should control and dominate all the sugar? Never! Did 
 any legislature ever intend to incorporate a concern to de- 
 stroy all other enterprises in the same line? Never! It was 
 no more intended that one concern should control sugar, than 
 it was intended that one concern should own and control the 
 earth and turn all others off. 
 
 Now, it is clear enough that it is within the power of the 
 states, if they see fit, to limit and qualify the business of cor- 
 porations of their creation, and if they fail to do it, that under 
 the inter-state commerce provision of the constitution, they 
 may be regulated by the general government. 
 
 Now, who is the conservative man? Who is the man up- 
 holding vested rights? Is it the man who stands up and de- 
 mands that the people shall have a fair deal and that business 
 shall have a fair chance, or is it the man who proposes to wrest 
 business from the public and from its natural channels and 
 put it into the monopoly of a few? I say it is the former. 
 The men who assume to dominate all of the commodities in 
 one line, impair or at least hazard their own title. Those who 
 propose to dominate arbitrarily business which concerns the 
 public generally, make their own title defective by offending 
 the just sensibilities of a tolerant people, a people which 
 may not always remain tolerant. 
 
 As I have said, this is not a party question. No one party 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 575 
 
 can regulate it, but when the people make up their minds in 
 earnest to deal with trusts through the government, state or 
 federal, it will be a fair deal but a drastic one. 
 
 The right to trade and do business is a natural right and 
 history shows that people have always been sensitive to 
 encroachments upon their natural and inherent rights. Why 
 should a man want to control all the sugar or all the coal or 
 all the oil? 
 
 I am reminded here of a story told by my friend, Judge 
 Weldon, of the Court of Claims in Washington. He was an 
 intimate friend of the sturdy Oglesby, who was Governor of 
 Illinois. Soon after Oglesby became Governor, a rural mem- 
 ber of the legislature came to him and said, "Here is a meas- 
 ure you must veto/' The Governor replied, "I do not want to 
 set myself up as a veto Governor in the first week of my offi- 
 cial life." "The bill must be vetoed/' said the representative, 
 "here is something that was passed through the Senate and 
 the House and I never heard of it until it had passed both 
 branches." "This measure," said he, "gives to John Smith 
 and John Jones and John Brown, who claim that they have 
 an improved process for making cheese, the right to make all 
 the cheese in Bureau County." The member said, "That is 
 my county and is a great agricultural county where they make 
 two hundred tons of cheese annually, and it will ruin me 
 politically and in every other way if this bill becomes a law." 
 The Governor said, "You should have attended to your busi- 
 ness and seen that it did not pass." The representative in- 
 sisted that it must be stopped and the Governor insisted that 
 he did not want to set himself up as a veto Governor the first 
 week, and finally the legislator went away distracted. After 
 he had left, the sturdy old Governor said, "It will not do to 
 let that go. I will write the veto message now." He took his 
 pencil and a sheet of paper and wrote, "House Bill, Number 
 9, is vetoed: They make two hundred tons of cheese annually 
 in Bureau County and John Smith and his two associates 
 have no more right to make all the cheese in Bureau County 
 annually than they have to eat all the cheese in Bureau 
 County annually." The laconic reasoning of Governor 
 Oglesby in respect to the right of John Smith and his two 
 associates embodies all the philosophy and all the logic of the 
 argument against monopolistic control. 
 
576 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 There is a Shoe Machinery monopoly in this country whose 
 boasted idea is to absorb all competing shoe machines. As 
 you are doubtless aware, there is what is called a patent 
 monopoly. A man who makes an invention and gets a patent 
 on a thing used in the shoe industry, or any other industry, 
 is allowed through his patent, upon a device thus invented, 
 to control it for a specified length of time. The idea of that 
 is to encourage invention, and it is supposed to be better for 
 the people that such an invention should be controlled by the 
 inventor for a limited term and then given to the public, 
 than not to have had the invention at all. But some- 
 body else invents a machine substantially as good. The peo- 
 ple then have a right to the influence of the competing ma- 
 chine, but it is claimed that the Shoe Machinery monopoly to 
 which I have referred proposes to have and has, in fact, a 
 monopoly of all the shoe machinery in the country. It pos- 
 sesses substantially all the shoe machinery in the country and 
 no man and I think there are gentlemen here who can sus- 
 tain this position if they care to no man or association of 
 men, however much capital they may have behind them, can 
 start in the shoe business today, without dealing with that 
 trust. They control absolutely the modern machinery neces- 
 sary to a successful shoe business. They not only compel the 
 manufacturer to buy one machine, but all shoe machinery of 
 them. Not only that, but they compel the manufacturer to 
 give up good machines, to surrender property they have, by 
 withholding necessary machines which they control until they 
 do it. They have a general department, a lasting machinery 
 department, a metallic department, a heeling department, and 
 in each of these departments is controlled the competing 
 machinery pertaining to that particular part of the shoe busi- 
 ness, and a manufacturer has to deal with them in order to 
 get machinery to make shoes. They not only compel all this, 
 but they compel the shoe manufacturers to buy their nails at 
 double the market value and to buy their wire, which they 
 control; and the machines are so made that they must use 
 their wire, and their nails, which they force upon manufac- 
 turers at double their market value. But the most offensive 
 part of the whole thing is the idea that they compel the 
 manufacturer to displace hand work and to use their ma- 
 chines. Think of that! Is any gentleman going to stand 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBEK 16, 1902. 577 
 
 here and say trusts are right when one concern has absorbed, 
 and boasts of the fact that it has absorbed, all competing shoe 
 machinery which it forces upon the manufacturers for seven- 
 teen years at extravagant prices, and by means of the monop- 
 oly, drives hand labor out of the shoe manufacturing industry 
 and its machinery in? 
 
 Now, I will refer only to the general phases of the coal 
 situation, and only briefly to the coal strike, the coal combine 
 and the coal operators. The coal operators were exercising a 
 quasi-public franchise I speak, of course, without any refer- 
 ence to the underlying merits of the strike, and refer to the 
 situation merely to show the terrible power and the terrible 
 danger of such arbitrary and colossal concentration in respect 
 to a product which has become a necessary of life among the 
 people. So far as warming this country is concerned, they 
 might as well have owned the continent. They were in con- 
 trol of the anthracite coal fields, operating a quasi-public fran- 
 chise, and in control of a business which was to provide 
 fuel necessary to warm the homes of the country towns and 
 the homes of the great cities, and coal necessary to drive the 
 machinery of the great manufacturing industries, and of the 
 great railway and steamship systems of the country. They 
 got into trouble with their help. A strike was on. A frigid 
 winter was approaching. Alarm was widespread throughout 
 the country; consternation was in every home and in every in- 
 dustry. It was not only a question whether the great indus- 
 trial pursuits and the railroads and the steamships should 
 stop, but whether the people should freeze. And when asked 
 by the President of the United States to waive, for the time 
 being, the question of abstract right, and to submit their con- 
 troversies with a great body of men to arbitration, they, in 
 utter disregard of the great question of necessity, in utter 
 disregard of the moral and humane phase of the crying situa- 
 tion, stubbornly refused, and coldly held their franchise 
 against a distracted and freezing people, and, even at the mo- 
 ment the President of the United States was urging arbitra- 
 tion upon grounds of humanity, they demanded of the state 
 of Pennsylvania ten thousand soldiers to shoot down Ameri- 
 cans with whom they were disputing a question of right. 
 
 This conduct of the coal operators involved a terrible exer- 
 37 
 
578 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 else of a corporate franchise, a drastic and flagrant exercise 
 of a quasi-public function. 
 
 Now, suppose, for instance, it were a question of water, and 
 it were the great city of Manchester, or Nashua, or the town 
 of Littleton, where the water is gathered in from the moun- 
 tain-sides, and run through the pipes of a corporation sup- 
 pose there were a difference between the management in 
 either of these places and its help. Think of the idea of a 
 New Hampshire corporation standing out and asking the 
 people who are dependent upon it for water to wait and thirst 
 and choke until the corporation puts the powers of govern- 
 ment in motion, until the militia is in the field to shoot 
 down the people with whom they are disputing. This is not 
 an extreme comparison. This might happen in New Hamp- 
 shire, but I trust it never will. 
 
 Now what suspended the coal strike and gave suffering 
 humanity a meagre stipend of coal? . It was not the soldiers. 
 It was not the fear of an approaching army. It was not the 
 fear of bloodshed. It was the moral force of a calm and dig- 
 nified expression of a tremendous public sentiment that influ- 
 enced the situation. The coal operators awakened for the 
 time being to a realization of the truth, that, after all, the 
 people make the government, that they held their right to 
 do business under the government, and that it would not be 
 safe to freeze the American people in a body. 
 
 The abstract and arbitrary attitude wavered and went down 
 under the weight of the sentiment and moral force of a united 
 people. Insistence upon the exercise of a quasi-public func- 
 tion as an abstract and absolute right, for the time being, 
 reluctantly yielded to the mighty will of an indignant and 
 outraged people. 
 
 That is the moral of the coal situation, and it shows the 
 importance of a declaration like the one under discussion. 
 Let us show the world in unmistakable words where the senti- 
 ment of New Hampshire is as to such a monopoly of a neces- 
 sary of life. 
 
 Look at the copper trust. That great trust is ruining all 
 competing corporate enterprises and is putting the screws to 
 prices and to the industries which require copper in their 
 works. Competition is being destroyed and copper stocks in 
 corporations outside the trust have dropped to a mere frac- 
 tion of their former prices. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 579 
 
 Now there is no purpose in the hearts of the American 
 people to deal harshly with the legitimate exercise of cor- 
 porate rights, however large the corporations, or however ex- 
 tensive such rights may be. It is of the abuse through the 
 improper exercise of corporate rights that the people com- 
 plain, and it is the violation of the rights of the public that is 
 objected to. 
 
 Look at the schemes for putting shipping into trusts! 
 Look at the schemes for putting the railroads of the country 
 into trusts! Look at the thousand and one schemes for get- 
 ting a dominating control of all business and all commodities 
 in a certain line! I have no time to refer to them in detail. 
 There is absolutely no regard in these schemes for the govern- 
 ment under which they hold the corporate right, and under 
 which they claim protection, nor is there any thought of the 
 consequences to the welfare of other men. The only thought 
 is to devour, absorb and control. They do not seem to real- 
 ize when they have enough. There is no greed so gross 
 except that shown under the brutal law of the fishes of the 
 sea, where the larger ones devour the smaller of their own 
 kind under the absolute rule of might. 
 
 The dominating idea in this country, as I have said, is to 
 find a remedy against the evils of monopoly and one which 
 will restore healthy competition in the trades and industries. 
 
 Now, what is the remedy, and how is it to come? The 
 remedy is through the governments, and the governments 
 should interpose and take the burden of providing the 
 remedy, because the oppression rests upon all the people 
 alike. But the people must do their part. 
 
 Regulation, as I have observed, does not involve destruc- 
 tion. I am aware of the fact that there is danger to any 
 political party which assails these great interests. There is 
 the liability of a great many influences being thrown against 
 such party. So I say, as I said in the outset, that it should 
 not be a party question. Both the great political parties of 
 this country should be in accord on this question. This is a 
 business proposition. It is a question whether the business 
 rights of the people shall be restored. Both parties being in 
 accord, they should be in earnest, and should not make this a 
 question of party politics, for it is not a party question. The 
 party that is not in earnest upon this great question, involv- 
 
580 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ing the business rights of the people, will surely be over- 
 thrown. 
 
 In my judgment, Congress will surely regulate trusts doing 
 interstate business, but if Congress fails to regulate such 
 trusts, the people in the end will surely regulate Congress. 
 
 The business and the industries are going out of the hands 
 of the people first into corporations, and then into trustp. 
 Commercial despotism is at hand! 
 
 The pending resolutions enunciate no new principle of 
 law; they simply assert in concrete form a great and essential 
 truth. They are in a form which the people will understand, 
 and which the trusts will understand. Congress and the state 
 legislatures will pass such laws as the sentiment of the coun- 
 try demands, and will go no farther. The people are the 
 government, and the governments of the states and the na- 
 tion are simply the agents of the people. 
 
 Money and property are so alarmingly aggregated in trusts 
 that a dozen men, under the leadership of such a man as 
 Pierpont Morgan, can at any moment create a financial panic, 
 which would ruin hundreds of thousands of business men and 
 women and make hundreds of millions of dollars for them- 
 selves. 
 
 I repeat that we are being swiftly drawn towards commer- 
 cial despotism, but the people will surely make a stand before 
 the sway of such an empire is fully and firmly established. 
 
 Under a government founded upon the will of the people, 
 capital had better be conservative rather than push advantage 
 too far, lest it reap the whirlwind. Promoters can more 
 safely deal justly with a people tempered with tolerance, than 
 unjustly with an outraged people filled with wrath. 
 
 The law is in the hands of the people, and the government 
 is whatever the people, under constitutional limitations, 
 choose to make it, and, as I have already said, a government 
 of the people goes no farther than the people demand. The 
 state governments are strong, and the general government is 
 strong, and whenever the people choose to assert their rights, 
 so far as they are involved in corporate existence created by 
 law, the reserved power of the governments to alter and 
 amend in respect to public rights entering therein, is suffi- 
 cient to regulate the business and industries as they should 
 be regulated, and protect the people as they should be pro- 
 tected. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 581 
 
 The people have been sleeping upon their lawful rights; 
 they have been disposed to be tolerant. They have freely ac- 
 corded to corporations full opportunity to prosecute their 
 enterprises and declare generous dividends. They are, how- 
 ever, awakening to the idea that their tolerance and indul- 
 gence is being abused, and that they are being robbed of their 
 most precious rights. Whenever the people of our country 
 become fully apprised of the fact that their rights are being 
 prostituted by a criminal commercial greed, and through a 
 conspiracy to destroy legitimate competition in the trades and 
 industries, they will arise in their might and assert their law- 
 ful rights through a constitutional government created for 
 their protection. 
 
 Whenever this day comes and it may come quickly the 
 corporate combinations and the immense trusts, with their 
 stupendous aggregations of wealth, can no more stay the will 
 of the people of this great country through the money influ- 
 ence of unwholesome aggregations than they could turn back 
 the onrushing waters of the mighty Niagara with a riding 
 whip. 
 
 The rights of the public, Mr. President, will not be ascer- 
 tained and re-established through a bloody revolution, as 
 some think. Bloodshed will not be necessary and an intel- 
 ligent civilization would not permit it; but, when the time 
 comes, the result will be reached with terrible swiftness and 
 complete effectiveness through the determined and intelligent 
 will of a great people, asserted under the beneficent and 
 wholesome spirit and ample forms of constitutional law. 
 
 One word more, and I am done. 
 
 I wish that every intentional wrecker of the public rights 
 and the rights of the people might be made to know, that a 
 New Hampshire Constitutional Convention has unanimously 
 declared against the slavery of criminal monopoly, and that 
 individual enterprise and free and fair competition in the 
 trades and industries is an essential truth which the people 
 will maintain. 
 
 Mr. Casey of Concord Mr. President and gentlemen: In 
 regard to the regulation by the legislature of trusts, I am 
 heartily in accord with such a movement, and I believe it 
 
582 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 would be wise that small concerns should live as well as large 
 ones, as it would create a competition and would be a benefit 
 to the people at large, by keeping the prices of the necessities 
 of life where laboring men and others could live with some 
 degree of comfort. I believe it should be made a criminal 
 offense for any combination of men with large capital to try 
 and crush every one so they can extort from the people every 
 cent they possess, and more too. There was a law passed in 
 congress some years ago entitled the "Sherman Anti-Trust 
 Law," which gave the people some hope that it would deter 
 the formation of trusts, but what has it performed? Nothing. 
 In fact, ever since that time the trusts have been getting more 
 numerous and the Sherman law is a dead letter, but it appears 
 that they are enacting a law at the present time in congress 
 to remedy this defect. 
 
 Gentlemen, let us look back a few years and see what trusts 
 have been formed. Some of the greatest combinations that 
 the world ever saw. Look at the coal trust, the beef trust, 
 and the great shipping trust, which Mr. Morgan engineered in 
 Europe; why, in fact, he had an idea that he could get Ger- 
 many and England in his grasp, so he would be able to dic- 
 tate to those countries as well as the United States. Last 
 summer when the price of beef was advanced the people were 
 dumbfounded at the steps taken by the beef trust. Denun- 
 ciations were hurled at the combination from all parts of the 
 country until it was so well agitated as to cause some of the 
 authorities of a few of the states to take up the matter and 
 signify their desire to do something to curb the insatiable 
 greed of the beef trust magnates. From what I could see 
 there was no unusual condition in this country or in foreign 
 countries to warrant such steps on the part of the trust. 
 They imagined that the people had a few dollars that they 
 could not take care of, so they came to the. conclusion that 
 they would extort it from them and add it to their immense 
 wealth so they could endow some university with a million or 
 two, in order that their names will be handed down to pos- 
 terity for their philanthropy, by the money extracted from 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 583 
 
 the people. I hope the resolution presented by the gentle- 
 man from Concord, Mr. Chandler, will be adopted by the 
 Convention. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster There is little that can be said, in 
 the presentation of this matter, in the drawing of legal con- 
 clusions or in the analysis of the practical operation or forma- 
 tion of these trusts that has not already been said. 
 
 I have no desire to take time and I shall certainly do so but 
 a very few minutes. It does seem to me fitting, however, that, 
 feeling as I do, I should speak with reference to the enormity 
 of trusts and the evils they have forced upon the people of the 
 United States. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, it cannot be otherwise than under- 
 stood in a free republic like ours that individual independence 
 with competition and the exercise of individual rights are the 
 basis of our prosperity and independent character. Every 
 man has the right inherently to buy where he can buy cheap- 
 est and sell where he can sell best. Every man has a right to 
 produce, and it does not, in my judgment, follow by any 
 means that because a large corporation can produce things 
 cheaper than the individual it is better to give up producing 
 by the individual and produce wholly by means of the large 
 corporation. I believe in the New England of olden times, 
 when the farmers, instead of raising one or two different 
 products upon their farms, raised all things necessary for the 
 support of their families and did all the things that went to 
 make business success in life I believe in those times that 
 that farmer and that man was more independent, not only in 
 the matter of making money, but in all that goes to make up 
 a successful life, than the farmer of to-day, who produces 
 only one or two things and buys most of the necessities of life. 
 
 It seems to me that the formation of character is an im- 
 portant part of the development of the county, region, or 
 state. New Hampshire, when she was more self-reliant than 
 to-day, may not perhaps have made so much money, but when 
 she was thus more self-reliant in all the essentials of life and 
 
584 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 in all the essentials that go to build up and develop character, 
 was better off than to-day in that regard. 
 
 I believe these combinations have taken out from the life 
 of the people the independence and the self-reliance so char- 
 acteristic of old. The formation of trusts in the control of 
 business by the trusts and the influence of trusts in the com- 
 munity go far to change the character of a people. 
 
 As has been already said, there is no proper antagonism be- 
 tween capital and labor. Each is the complement of the 
 other. Each is essential to the proper development and pros- 
 perity of the other. Both should work together for the com- 
 mon good. There is no antagonism on the part of the people 
 of New Hampshire toward the accumulation of wealth. The 
 poor man of to-day may be the rich man of to-morrow. 
 
 I suppose every delegate in this hall will agree with me at 
 heart when I say that when the people are self-reliant, when 
 they spend that which they accumulate themselves, and when 
 they know the value of money before they spend it, that that 
 is a better state of affairs than such a state as we now very 
 often see where there is recklessness and carelessness in the 
 spending and greed in the acquiring of property. 
 
 I do not believe that a community is ever really benefited 
 by the formation of a class of extremely rich and another class 
 of extremely poor. I believe that property more equitably 
 distributed and a community where few are exceedingly rich, 
 and none are distressingly poor, is the ideal condition of so- 
 ciety. 
 
 We are not here in any degree to denounce wealth properly 
 accumulated. I recall in the legislature of 1868 that a great 
 question of railroad extension and change came up for discus- 
 sion, the proposition being to unite certain roads that were 
 weak and almost helpless, and it was understood that the re- 
 sult would be the formation of a strong combination able to 
 extend railroad facilities to other parts of the state then 
 poorly supplied. I had something to do with that contest, 
 advocating the consolidation. As a result of the action of 
 that legislature railroads were extended to the northern part 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 585 
 
 of New Hampshire, to my own town of Lancaster, and up to 
 connect with the Grand Trunk railway. Immediately a great 
 development began and the people of the northern part of the 
 state were benefited by that combination. There was a union 
 of capital which was thoroughly beneficial to the people. 
 Later, in 1883, another railroad contest arose in the legisla- 
 ture, and again action was taken which unified existing roads 
 and gave greater facilities to the people. It gave the people 
 local development all through New Hampshire, when instead 
 of having conditions where in order to move freight or passen- 
 gers one would have to pay two or more local rates for local 
 business, and instead of having such conditions, that business 
 men were obliged to pay a local freight in addition to through 
 freights on produce from the West, the consolidation brought 
 about a condition where New Hampshire was accorded the 
 same privileges of through business as the large cities of New 
 England, and where local business was done by one corpora- 
 tion at one local rate. And again the north country has taken 
 a start and the railroads have again extended into the woods, 
 to the lakes and mountains, and again was illustrated the 
 effects of a proper union of capital and facilities. Again was 
 illustrated the fact that such union was a benefit to the state. 
 We have in the north country numerous hotels and board- 
 ing-houses. The last hotel built is the most magnificent of 
 them all, a house capable of accommodating 500 people, and 
 the most superb hotel in the Union given up to summer busi- 
 ness. All these accumulations of wealth are proper, and a 
 benefit to the community and state, and the people of the 
 state are not antagonistic to those combinations in the least. 
 They help to develop business, they furnish markets and aid 
 prosperity. All that, I believe to be a proper way of using 
 money and capital. I believe, too, that the associations that 
 come from our greater development from travel into the state, 
 the associations of people from one section of the state with 
 those of another section, and of other states, are a great ben- 
 efit to our people. All things that aid in this direction are a 
 legitimate use of capital. 
 
586 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 But the combinations that have been so vividly illustrated 
 by the gentleman from Littleton all operate in another direc- 
 tion. They take away the real life of the people; they take 
 away the independence of the people; they stop that competi- 
 tion without which there is no hope for the business man or 
 for him who has to buy or sell. Without competition there is 
 no hope to the young man as there can be no career before him. 
 If he must come up only as his father came up, if he must fol- 
 low only the same ruts that his father walked in, without in- 
 crease of opportunity, if he cannot hope to have other and 
 further prosperity than his father had, by reason of closing of 
 avenues of advancement, his ambition is crushed and he falls 
 back and the state fails to get the benefit that conies from 
 greater exertion and progressive development. 
 
 And that is what these trusts, or combinations, that have 
 been talked about do. They take away competition, they take 
 away opportunity, and they take away ambition. Not only 
 that, but they take away the best characteristics from the peo- 
 ple. They rob them of individuality, and build up a class of 
 rich who live without work and are of little benefit to the 
 land. Their influence is against that frugality, industry, and 
 economy which should exist in the state. 
 
 I believe the state is for its people. We are interested in 
 maintaining the old characteristics of the state; we believe in 
 maintaining that character of New Hampshire exalted and 
 exemplified since the days of the Puritans. It is true that 
 New Hampshire has changed in many ways as well as other 
 states of the Union, but I believe that the greatest blow 
 at New Hampshire character, to break the independence of 
 New Hampshire men, is the blow which may be struck by the 
 trusts in trying to get her property and the control of her 
 trade into their hands. Those things emasculate a people. 
 They take away their power for development, and the end will 
 be if we allow them to grow they will have the people of the 
 state and the people of the federal Union in the grasp of a 
 tyranny and chained in class slavery, so that the state and the 
 federal Union will never be what they were intended to be by 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 587 
 
 the founders. Instead of being governments of a free people 
 going on into higher conditions of development they will fall 
 back into the conditions of the Old World where there is class 
 against class, and where the pomp of aristocracy is set against 
 the virtue and intelligence of the individual. 
 
 It seems to me of the greatest importance at this time when 
 the trusts are reaching out still further, and when we see 
 every day around us, as has been so clearly illustrated, an in- 
 crease in the prices of the necessities of life, and when we see 
 the control by these trusts of industries and greater suffering 
 is in store, and the way the trusts rob and take from the 
 people, it seems to me that now is the time to proclaim 
 throughout New Hampshire by its representatives assembled 
 here in convention, "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther." 
 
 It has been properly said that we are not protesting against 
 existing trusts in New Hampshire. We have no such trust in 
 New Hampshire as these that we are proclaiming against, but 
 it is essential to proclaim from the mountains to the sea to all 
 who may care to know her position and who see the trend of 
 affairs; not only to all of those, in this state, but in the Union, 
 that New Hampshire is decided in this matter and that she 
 reserves to herself those powers that belong to her and that 
 she is utterly and absolutely opposed to the existence and con- 
 tinuance of trusts that affect the welfare of the people or dom- 
 inate and destroy the individuality of the citizens. It is well 
 to say this to the federal government; it is well to say this to 
 combinations that are forming all over the country, and if no 
 other thing is accomplished in this Convention it will be 
 enough if we put ourselves -upon record that the New Hamp- 
 shire of 1902 is the New Hampshire of 1775, and that we 
 stand where we have stood and that New Hampshire bows to 
 none but God in the direction of her own affairs. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I move that the Committee of 
 the Whole do now arise and recommend to the Convention 
 that all the propositions concerning trusts be referred to the 
 Committee on Bill of Eights and Executive Department, with 
 
588 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 instructions to report to the Convention a declaration upon 
 that subject. 
 
 The Chairman The question is upon the adoption of the 
 motion of the gentleman from Concord, that the Committee 
 of the Whole do now arise and recommend to the Convention 
 that all the propositions concerning trusts, combinations, and 
 monopolies be taken from the Committee of the Whole and 
 referred to the Committee on Bill of Eights and the Execu- 
 tive Department, with instructions to report to the Conven- 
 tion a declaration upon that subject. 
 
 (The motion was unanimously adopted.) 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Norris of Portsmouth Mr. President, the Committee 
 of the Whole having had under consideration the resolution 
 of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, and the reso- 
 lution of the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Starr, and the 
 resolution of the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. Ledoux, all 
 relating to trusts, have voted to recommend to the Conven- 
 tion that all the propositions concerning trusts, combinations, 
 and monopolies, which tend to destroy competition in trade, 
 be referred to the Committee on Bill of Eights and the Ex- 
 ecutive Department, with instructions to report to the Con- 
 vention a declaration upon that subject. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord moved that the recommendation 
 of the committee be adopted, and on the question called for 
 the yeas and nays, nine other members concurring. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the affirmative: 
 
 EOCKINGHAM COUNTY. Sanborn of Auburn, Flanders of 
 Brentwood, Eaton, Knowles, Kimball of Danville, Gillispie, 
 Abbott of Deny, Fuller, Wetherell, Leddy, Hooke, Sanborn 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 589 
 
 of Hampstead, Towle, Weare, Shaw, Chase of Kingston, Pills- 
 bury, Pollard, De Eochemont, Battles, Evans, Gate, Peaslee, 
 Emery, Simon P., Howard, Norris, Ham, Cullen, Sawyer of 
 Eye, Cole, Locke of Seabrook, Jewell of South Hampton, 
 Wingate, Clark of Windham. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Eoberts, Hanson of Dover, Nealley, 
 Hall of Dover, Morang, Folsom, Nute of Dover, Chesley, Nut- 
 ter of Farmington, Willson of Farmington, Moore, Nute of 
 Eochester, Header, Gelinas, Cochrane, Gunnison, Edgerly, 
 Hall of Stratford. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Demeritt, Colbath, Clark of Center 
 Harbor, Morrill of Gilford, Jewett, Thompson of Laconia, 
 Smith of Meredith, Smith of New Hampton, Knox, Eogers, 
 Fellows. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Nickerson, Eideout, Colman, Spencer, 
 Hobson, Gibson, Morrill of Conway, Dearborn of Eaton, Har- 
 mon, Merrow, Murch, Meserve, Gilman, Goodwin, Brown of 
 Ossipee, Dorr, Page of Tamworth, Morrison of Tuftonbor- 
 ough, Sanborn of Wakefield, Clow. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Stone of Andover, Buxton, Baker, 
 Frame, Sanborn of Chichester, Dudley of Concord, Foote, 
 Hollis, Lyford, Mitchell of Concord, Niles, Foster, Kimball of 
 Concord, Walker of Concord, Lamprey of Concord, Ingalls, 
 Chandler, Casey, Ford of Danbury, Caldwell, Dolbeer, Stone 
 of Franklin, Leach, Towne, Wilson of Hill, Putnam, Clough 
 of Loudon, Messer, Todd, Chickering, Green of Pittsfield, 
 Webster, Thompson of Warner, Lang. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Hubbard, Kimball of Benning- 
 ton, Fessenden, Whitaker of Deering, Downes, Colby, Paige 
 of Goffstown, Peavey, Bacon, Fogg, Smith of Hillsborough, 
 Clyde, Marsh, Tarbell, Lambert, Wilkinson, Abbott of Man- 
 chester, Briggs, Cross, Green of Manchester, Dodge of Man- 
 chester, Little, Eose, Jones, Eobinson, Tremblay, Farrington, 
 Harvey, Hill, Precourt, McDonough, Tonery, Starr, Horan, 
 Glancy, Sullivan, Griffin, Jennings, Hildreth of Manchester, 
 
590 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Irwin, McAllister, Clement of Manchester, Littlefield, Mc- 
 Questen, Powers of Manchester, McElroy, Greager, Richer, 
 Provost, Quirin Eugene, Guerin, Boivin, Hall of Manches- 
 ter, Trinity, Paige of Manchester, Whitaker of Mason, Gor- 
 don, Worcester, Raymond, Clough of Nashua, Harriman, 
 Flood, Ledoux, Wason, Woodbury of Nashua, Proctor, Run- 
 nells, McKay, Shedd, Flather, Earley, Slattery, Desmarais, 
 Dodge of New Boston, Blanchard, Seavey, Morrison of Peter- 
 borough, Scott, Richardson, Simons, Bales, Chapman. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Cooke, Learned, Blake, Farwell, 
 Buckley, Poole, Annett, Foskett, Hall of Keene, Newell, Craig 
 of Marlow, Osgood, Cass, Buckminster, McClure, Spaulding, 
 Goodnow. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Mitchell of Acworth, Brooks, Ten- 
 ney, Stockwell, Rossiter, Fairbanks, Ide, Hanson of Goshen, 
 Burpee, Holmes, Noyes, Barton, Richards, Penniman, Bart- 
 lett, Newton, Brockway. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Bucklin, Carbee, Parker of Benton, 
 Hildreth of Bethlehem, Morrill of Bridgewater, Chase of 
 Bristol, Pulsifer of Campton, Richardson of Canaan, Ashley, 
 Young of Easton, Avery, Cumings, Dresser, Parker of Fran- 
 conia, Walker of Grafton, Kidder, Ward, Colby of Hanover, 
 Sloane, Pike of Haverhill, Jewell of Hebron, Flanders, Drake, 
 Dewey, Hibbard, Morris, Aldrich of Littleton, Greene of Lit- 
 tleton, Morse, Melvin, Warden, French of Orange, Lamprey of 
 Orford, Ford of Piermont, Russell, Wentworth, Craig of Rum- 
 ney, Green of Waterville, Shute, Woodbury of Woodstock. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Moffett, Rich, Daley, Boudreau, Murray, 
 Miles, Johnson, Titus, Wight of Dummer, Evans, Crawford, 
 Kent, Hartley, Phipps, Perkins, McKellips, Blanchard, Phil- 
 brook, Pike of Stark, Hinman, Aldrich of Whitefield, Dodge 
 of Whitefield. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the negative: 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Howe. 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Madden. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 591 
 
 And 294 gentlemen having voted in the affirmative, and 
 two in the negative, the affirmative prevailed and the recom- 
 mendation of the committee was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord There was laid on the table the 
 other day my motion to reconsider the vote on the woman's 
 suffrage amendment. After conference with a gentleman who 
 opposed that amendment and who desired a full vote, and in 
 accordance with the agreement I made with the gentleman on 
 the floor when I moved to lay the motion on the table, I now 
 move that it be taken from the table for the purpose of mak- 
 ing it a special order for Thursday at 11:30 o'clock in the 
 forenoon, a vote to be taken at that time without debate. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I stated to the gentleman 
 from Concord that so far as I was concerned I did not care to 
 further debate it. But I think there are some gentlemen here 
 who desire to talk upon the question. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I desire to be perfectly fair with 
 the gentlemen on the other side. If there is a desire to debate 
 the question I will make a motion that it be made a special 
 order for Thursday at 11 o'clock, and that the vote be taken 
 at 12. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I intend to give notice before we 
 adjourn this afternoon that I shall move for an evening ses- 
 sion to-morrow evening. I do not suggest that the gentleman 
 from Concord change his time for voting, but I desire to say 
 now that I hope we will be able to have a session to-morrow 
 evening, and this may affect somewhat the vote upon the mo- 
 tion of the gentleman from Concord. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I am perfectly willing debate 
 should be had at any time. I have no desire, and do not know 
 that any of the friends of this measure have any desire, to de- 
 bate it further. If the opponents of the measure desire to 
 debate it I am perfectly willing that they should have the time 
 
592 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 to do it, and whether they desire to take that time in the 
 evening or in the day time is immaterial to me. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I think the gentleman from 
 Concord understands that we have not debated this question 
 in a full house, that at the time of the former debate there 
 was barely a quorum present, and the object of having this 
 measure reconsidered is to have a full vote on the question. 
 There are at least a hundred or more who go home every 
 night and we will not have them here to-morrow night. I 
 hope, therefore, we will have this debate in the day time when 
 all are here. I see no objection to Thursday from 11 to 12. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I make no objection to the 
 time. I wish, however, to take up your time for a moment or 
 two. I do not see how this Convention can properly do its 
 business and adjourn Friday or Saturday, for good or for evil, 
 unless we hold evening sessions. I have taken myself away 
 from other business and have given my time to the business 
 of this Convention, for I felt it was a great honor to be 
 elected in my old age to a body of this character, and I will 
 come here next week and the week after, and will stay here 
 as long as necessary for reasonable debate upon any subject. 
 But unless there is a better attendance than we have had so 
 that we can do business in the evening and make longer days 
 of our day sessions, I do not see how we can get through 
 this week. When gentlemen go away from Concord at half- 
 past three in the afternoon and get back at half -past ten the 
 next day, and do not come here any days of the week except 
 Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, it does n't seem to me 
 remarkable that we do not get along faster with our business. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester I think it will be more satis- 
 factory to all the members who are interested in having this 
 matter of Woman Suffrage reconsidered fairly and by a con- 
 vention that has the seats nearly all occupied, if the motion of 
 the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, as originally made 
 should prevail. That is, that the matter should be taken up 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 190:1 593 
 
 as the special order for Thursday at 11 o'clock and voted on 
 at 12, or before if the debate ceases before, but with the 
 understanding that the debate shall not exceed an hour in 
 length. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord The gentleman from Manchester 
 has anticipated a modification that I was about to make of 
 my motion. That is, that the vote should be taken sooner 
 if there was no more to be said upon the subject, or when it 
 is evident that the Convention has reached a point where 
 any other speeches made would have no effect. I would 
 therefore move that this matter be made a special order for 
 Thursday at 11 o'clock, and that the vote be taken as much 
 earlier than 12 o'clock as possible, and that it be taken 
 positively by 12. 
 
 Mr. Clough of Nashua I would like to ask what the state 
 of the vote was when the roll-call was made on this question 
 the other day, and would like to be informed how I am 
 recorded as having voted. I received a letter to-day 
 which said upon its cover, "Thank you for remembering 
 the Golden Rule." It was from the members of the Associa- 
 tion for Woman's Suffrage. I hope I remember the Golden 
 Rule always, but I did not quite understand what was meant 
 by that remark coming from the source it did. I am not 
 willing to wear laurels that are not properly mine, and I wish 
 to say that I did not vote for the proposition offered by the 
 gentleman from Warner, Mr. Thompson. I favored the 
 amendment of Judge Aldrich, and voted "No" when the yeas 
 and nays were called! the other day. 
 
 The President The chair will answer the gentleman from 
 Manchester by saying that the ayes were 143 and the nays 94, 
 and that he was recorded as having voted in the negative. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Lyford was stated and upon a viva voce 
 vote prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Shaw of Kensington offered the following resolution: 
 
594 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 "Resolved, That this Convention be brought to a close on 
 Friday, the 19th inst., at 12 o'clock, noon." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the resolution was 
 laid upon the table. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord, from the Committee on the Leg- 
 islative Department, to whom was referred the amendment of 
 Mr. Foster of Concord to article thirty-six of the Bill of 
 Eights relative to pensions, reported the same with the fol- 
 lowing resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the amendment ought to be adopted." 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted, and 
 the proposed amendment was referred to the Committee on 
 Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amend- 
 ments Agreed to by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord, from the Committee on the Leg- 
 islative Department, to whom was referred the amendment 
 proposed by Mr. Ham of Portsmouth for the amendment of 
 article five, part two, of the Constitution, relating to empow- 
 ering the general court to levy assessments, rates, and taxes 
 upon inheritances, reported the same with the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to adopt the proposed 
 amendment." 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord Before that resolution is put to 
 the Convention it should be stated that the subject matter 
 embraced in that amendment is all included in another 
 amendment which the committee has reported favorably, and 
 this is reported "inexpedient to recommend" simply because 
 the matter is considered favorably in a report to another pro- 
 posed amendment. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 595 
 
 The question being stated, shall the resolution of the com- 
 mittee be adopted, the affirmative prevailed on a viva voce 
 vote. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord, from the Committee on the Leg- 
 islative Department, to whom was referred the amendment 
 proposed by Mr. ISTorris of Portsmouth for the amendment of 
 article six, part two, of the Constitution, with reference to 
 providing the means to defray the public charges of govern- 
 ment, reported the same in the following new draft and 
 recommended its adoption: 
 
 "Resolved, That article six, part two, of the Constitution be 
 amended so that it shall read: 
 
 "AKT. 6. The public charges of government or any part 
 thereof may be raised by taxation upon polls, estates, and 
 other classes of property; and there shall be a valuation of 
 the estates within the state taken anew once in every five 
 years, at least, and as much oftener as the general court shall 
 order." 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord It was the design of the commit- 
 tee to so frame this amendment that it would certainly cover 
 inheritances and franchises. Now I desire to be certain that 
 it does. Professor Colby expresses some doubt as to whether 
 it does in fact cover inheritances, and for the purpose of ex- 
 amining it thoroughly and reaching as well as we can a cer- 
 tain conclusion about it, I move it now lie upon the table to 
 "be taken up at some future time when this question may be 
 fairly considered. What we desire is, to frame the amend- 
 ment in such a way that it will authorize the legislature to 
 nact a law providing for the taxation of franchises and in- 
 heritances. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Whatever doubt the gentleman 
 from Hanover, Mr. Colby, has upon that subject I would like 
 to have him state. I would also ask the gentleman from Con- 
 
596 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 cord, Mr. Mitchell, whether there can be any doubt that fran- 
 chises and inheritances are property. The amendment says 
 that the expenses of government shall be raised from a man's 
 estate and other classes of property. Are not franchises of 
 corporations and inheritances which descend classes of prop- 
 erty? If not, why not? 
 
 Mr. Colby of Hanover The chairman of the Committee 
 on Legislative Department having done me the honor to ask 
 me to examine certain adjudicated cases bearing upon this 
 subject, I have reread hastily the case of Curry vs. Spencer, 
 in the 61st N. H., and the Express company cases in the 60th 
 1ST. H., with the result that when the report of the committee 
 was made known to me a few moments ago I had a lingering 
 doubt whether the language of the proposed amendment was 
 certain to effect the object sought taxation of inheritances. 
 That doubt, whether well based or not, arises from the fact 
 that our supreme court, as may be inferred from the case of 
 Curry vs. Spencer, may regard a, tax on legacies and suc- 
 cessions not as a tax on property, but as a tax on a civil right 
 or privilege. Perhaps the language of the proposed amend- 
 ment will prove to need no change whatever view may be 
 taken of such a tax, but I am not prepared to express an opin- 
 ion until I have had opportunity to examine more thoroughly 
 the decision in that case. The importance of the subject, as 
 the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, has said, suggests 
 the wisdom of deliberate action. 
 
 Mr. Cullen of Portsmouth It looks to me as though this 
 house has been deceived and misled. A member of the house 
 told us at the time that the proposed amendment offered by 
 Mr. Ham of Portsmouth was before the Convention on a re- 
 port of the committee that it was "inexpedient to recom- 
 mend," that the amendment was embraced in this other. Now 
 a learned gentleman gets up and says there is some doubt 
 about it. Considering the statement made by the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Lyford, with reference to the effect of this 
 bill and the doubt which is now raised, I feel as if the Conven- 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 597 
 
 tioii has been deceived. I am in favor of an inheritance tax. 
 It is in the line of progress. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I will say to the gentleman from 
 Portsmouth that the committee is unanimously in favor of 
 reaching the result desired by the gentleman from Ports- 
 mouth. There is no difference in the committee with refer- 
 ence to the object sought. The only difference is as to what is 
 the best phraseology in view of the language of the decisions 
 of our courts. 
 
 Mr. Cullen of Portsmouth The language of the resolution 
 offered by the gentleman from Portsmouth, Mr. Ham, was not 
 a bit ambiguous. It said "inheritance tax," and under that 
 there is no doubt that an inheritance tax could be laid. It 
 seems very strange if the gentlemen, with all their legal learn- 
 ing, could not frame an amendment about which there could 
 be no doubt. I do not desire to see this Convention buncoed. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I made my inquiry with all due 
 respect to the distinguished jurist from Hanover, Mr. Colby. 
 I wish to be informed whether there was any doubt in the 
 minds of the committee whether franchises are a class of prop- 
 erty. 
 
 I beg leave also to> say to the gentleman from Portsmouth, 
 Mr. Cullen, that I believe that franchises of corporations are 
 property, and that when property descends from one person to 
 another there is in that transfer what all reasonable persons 
 should call a class of property. Of course, if the Convention 
 deems it important to enumerate certain classes of taxable 
 property, it is open to any gentleman to move to insert "fran- 
 chises and inheritances/' but I do not think it is necessary. I 
 am very clear in my own mind on that subject. My attention 
 was called to it by some delegate who asked what should be 
 the language to be used so that the legislature instead of being 
 limited as it has been held to be theoretically in imposing 
 taxes, could have the power to impose in its discretion any 
 kind of tax under heaven or known among civilized men, and 
 
598 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 I expressed the opinion that if, in addition to polls and estates, 
 the legislature was authorized to tax all classes of property it 
 would meet the situation. It never has been held that prop- 
 erty could not be classed for taxation; and the use of the 
 words, "All classes of property," in my judgment, covers the 
 whole ground. The legislature can classify franchises as one 
 class of property and inheritances as another class of prop- 
 erty, and can impose just what taxes they see fit to impose on 
 the different classes. I believe the language of the committee 
 is entirely sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord It is to be regretted that any 
 gentleman should feel that the committee has attempted to 
 "bunco" this Convention. With respect to the subject matter 
 they are in accord and agree with the gentleman from Ports- 
 mouth. They are endeavoring to secure the same end. I 
 have no doubt but that the words used include "inheritances 
 and franchises," and I did not think until my attention was 
 called to it that the case of Curry vs. Spencer went so far as 
 to create the doubt suggested by the gentleman from Hanover, 
 Mr. Colby. But to remove all doubt and make it certain that 
 the object we are seeking to accomplish is attained, I think it 
 best to suspend action upon it until it is made certain, and to 
 add, if necessary, additional words to more clearly express the 
 intention that "franchises and inheritances" may be taxed. 
 One objection to using those particular words is that, by spe- 
 cially naming "franchises and inheritances," other classes 
 that should be included and would be included under the gen- 
 eral term, "all classes of property," might be held to be ex- 
 cluded. Therefore, the committee thought the words sug- 
 gested "all classes of property" much better, as they included 
 those classes and might, if necessary, include others which 
 should be subject to taxation. The language used was satis- 
 factory to the committee, and I supposed it met the approval 
 of Judge Blodgett and Professor Colby, and accomplished the 
 object we were trying to secure. I am perfectly willing to 
 have the resolution go to Senator Chandler's committee to be 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 599 
 
 reported back in the form it is to be sent to the people; and if 
 additional words are necessary, the committee can recommend 
 them. 
 
 Therefore, I suggest that the report of the Committee on 
 Legislative Department be adopted, and if, later, it is thought 
 those words are essential they can be added. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover Inasmuch as by the addition of 
 three words this amendment can be made certain, I should 
 think that they had better be added now. All that would be 
 necessary would be to add the words franchises and inher- 
 itances" so that it would read, "franchises and inheritances 
 and all other classes of property/ 7 That removes all doubt. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord Instead of those words I suggest 
 that the present language be retained, and then these words 
 added: "including franchises and inheritances." That will 
 not exclude other classes. 
 
 Mr. McAllister of Manchester I move the resolution be 
 amended by adding to it the words, "including franchises and 
 inheritances." 
 
 Mr. Rogers of Tilton I have been unable to hear all that 
 was said down in front in regard to this question. I had 
 something to do about the case of Curry vs. Spencer. That 
 was decided after the express cases which have been referred 
 to here. As I understand the reason why that law was held to 
 be unconstitutional was because it was double taxation in 
 both cases, in the express cases and in the case of Curry vs. 
 Spencer. An estate is liable to taxation in the hands of an 
 administrator or executor, and then you tax it again when it 
 is distributed to the heirs, and that would make double taxa- 
 tion. The question whether the amendment recommended by 
 the committee as amended by the motion of the gentleman 
 from Manchester, Mr. McAllister, is going to be broad enough 
 to cover that objection, when at the same time we have a pro- 
 vision remaining in the Constitution which prevents double 
 
600 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 taxation, should 1 be carefully considered. As I understand, 
 that was the ground on which the taxation of incomes and 
 the taxation of estates descending was held to be unconstitu- 
 tional. 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord In spite of the statement of my ven- 
 erable and learned friend, the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Chandler, that there is no reasonable doubt that "all classes 
 of property" includes inheritances, I must confess to a doubt. 
 I admit that perhaps it is an unreasonable doubt, but it seems 
 that the courts- have entertained such doubt, and they have 
 entertained other doubts which members of the bar deemed 
 unreasonable. It seems to me that this thing should be made 
 clear. At the same time, it seems to me also that the amend- 
 ment of the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. McAllister, does 
 not make it clear. It would not include devises or bequests, 
 but simply the property which descends from an intestate 
 estate, property to which one succeeds as heir, and not prop- 
 erty which is obtained by bequest or devise. 
 
 I suppose there is a desire to give the legislature permission 
 to impose an income tax if they wish to do so, and there would 
 be some doubt in my mind as to whether the language of this 
 proposed amendment would cover that. In view of all these 
 doubts I do not think we are in a position at this time to settle 
 the matter, but it seems to me much better if Mr. McAllister's 
 amendment be drawn up in writing and the whole thing 
 referred to the committee, so that they could consider this 
 matter again, and that we may know exactly what we wish, 
 and exactly what we are saying or meaning, when we make 
 this amendment or reject it. 
 
 Mr. Eogers of Tilton I do not rise to make a motion, but 
 to suggest that this matter be recommitted to the Committee 
 on Legislative Department, and see if they cannot report 
 something about which there can be no doubt. I will, how- 
 ever, make the motion that the resolution be recommitted to 
 the same committee from which it came for further considera- 
 tion by them. 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 601 
 
 The motion prevailed and the resolution was recommitted 
 to the Committee on Legislative Department. 
 
 Mr. Blodgett of Franklin and Mr. Little of Manchester,, 
 from the Committee on the Judicial Department, to whom 
 was referred the resolution of Mr. Mies of Concord, relative 
 to the permanency of the supreme and superior courts, recom- 
 mended its adoption. 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Question, upon the adoption of the recommendation of the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I do not yield to any man in my ad- 
 miration and veneration for the courts of law, but I do not 
 think that any court which has been devised, or which in the 
 future may be devised, should be made permanent and that 
 the acts organizing them should be absolutely irrevocable or 
 revocable only by an amendment of the Constitution. 
 
 Our courts, have the support of the people, and they have 
 the admiration of the people, but in the history of this state 
 there have been several courts of different capacity and of 
 different orders. This very system which we have now has 
 been tried once in the history of this state and has been re- 
 pealed. We went from a court constituted almost exactly as 
 our present courts are to one supreme court of the state of 
 New Hampshire. Having tried that for a series of years, we 
 are back again upon a dual court system, but I do not believe 
 that any court should be put beyond the control of the people. 
 
 For one, I am opposed to this amendment upon the ground, 
 and solely upon the ground, that the court should never be 
 greater than its masters. I don't know as I need to say any- 
 thing more. We have had a change back and forth in this 
 state, and now simply because we have dual courts I do not 
 think we ought to make them permanent, especially as we 
 have not yet had the existing system running long enough to 
 know that it is satisfactory. I think we ought to leave this 
 
602 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 matter where it can be managed by the chosen representatives 
 of the people when they think it wise to change the courts. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth At the last session of our 
 legislature, when the bill providing for a dual court was intro- 
 duced, I was in favor of it. I believed in it then, and I believe 
 in it now, but I do not believe in putting it beyond the control 
 of the people, to change that court, should exigencies arise to 
 induce the people to believe it to be for their interest to do so. 
 In the history of our state, the courts have been changed fre- 
 quently, and no injurious effects have arisen from such 
 
 There was a great opposition to the dual court system at 
 the last session of the legislature, when more than thirty 
 prominent members of the bar from different parts of the 
 state appeared before the judiciary committee to object to it, 
 but a very large majority of the members of that legislature, 
 without regard to political affiliations, were in favor of such a 
 system. This system has been in force but a little over a year. 
 It has not yet been tried long enough to enable our people to 
 tell whether it is the system they always want, or not. 
 
 The people who came to the last legislature opposing this 
 system, are now, perhaps, better satisfied with it, and, perhaps, 
 they now think that there will never be occasion to change it, 
 but, if dissatisfaction should arise, and the people of this 
 state want another court, or want to change this, I do not 
 think it should be put beyond the power of the legislature to 
 do it. I think we are perfectly safe as we now are, and I be- 
 lieve in letting well enough alone. 
 
 Mr. Little of Manchester This proposition is in line with 
 a resolution unanimously adopted by the bar association of the 
 state. It is also in line with planks in the platforms of the 
 two leading political parties of the state. I had not supposed 
 that this subject would lead to as much of a discussion here. 
 When it was brought before the Committee on Legislative De- 
 partment, our distinguished chairman, who is not present this 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 60S 
 
 afternoon, expressed himself with some earnestness in regard 
 to it. I have no doubt that if he were present, he would wish 
 to be heard, and I would move, sir, that the matter be laid 
 upon the table and made a special order for to-morrow after- 
 noon at 2 o'clock. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Have you any objection to go- 
 ing on with the debate this afternoon? 
 
 Mr. Little No, I have no objection to that, but it seems to 
 me, in fairness to the gentleman from Franklin, that the mat- 
 ter ought not to be determined until he can have an oppor- 
 tunity to be heard. I will withdraw my motion for the time 
 being. 
 
 Mr. Xiles of Concord I trust the gentleman from Man- 
 chester will not withdraw his motion, as I had risen to make 
 the same motion. It is obvious there is no quorum here, and 
 if a division were taken it would be disclosed. As I regard 
 this as one of at least two of the most important questions 
 before the Convention I should not want it debated before 
 half a house. I think it would be well to postpone the discus- 
 sion of this question until a determinate time. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Before the subject passes, for 
 this afternoon, from the attention of the Convention, I would 
 like to ask the members of the committee whether there wa& 
 any difference of opinion on the question whether both courts 
 should be made permanent and placed beyond the reach of 
 the legislature, or only one. I am willing to place the one su- 
 preme court of this state beyond the legislature's reach so far 
 as the justices are concerned who may at any time occupy the 
 bench, but my doubt is whether an inferior court should be so 
 protected whether not only the superior court which is the 
 trial court and the other inferior courts should be so pro- 
 tected. 
 
 I am conservative with reference to our judicial system, and 
 I would not be willing to adopt the radical views expressed 
 
604 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, or the gentleman 
 from Somersworth, Mr. Edgerly. I think it would have been 
 a misfortune if, in the early dJays of this republic, Chief Jus- 
 tice Marshall and his federal associates had been turned out 
 of office by an act of congress. They remained on the bench 
 after the Democratic party came into power. Although they 
 were hated by that party, they stayed in office and laid down 
 the most important principles that have been asserted in con- 
 nection with the government and constitution of the United 
 States, and they established as a part of the American funda- 
 mental law those great principles which nobody now is op- 
 posed to and! which are a credit and honor to the American 
 people and have gone very far towards perpetuating our pres- 
 ent form of government. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I shall be glad to help place beyond 
 the reach of the legislature, and of such public sentiment as 
 may at any time make itself felt in the legislature of Xew 
 Hampshire, the one supreme court of the state and the jus- 
 tices thereof. 
 
 My friend from Somersworth, Mr. Edgerly, and my friend 
 from Bow, Mr. Baker, have undoubtedly at times felt filled 
 with wrath against the courts and have been in a mood to tear 
 them down. I have myself fulminated against the courts, but 
 I never have really felt that therefore the legislature of the 
 state ought to be allowed to come here and reorganize the 
 courts, to tear them down and make new courts. 
 
 I have witnessed two or three revolutions of that kind, Mr. 
 President, and I am free to say that I think it would have 
 been better for the people of this state if the court had not 
 been overturned in 1855, when the Whigs and Pree-Soilers 
 overcame the Democratic party and took possession of the 
 state government. I do not believe this was for the welfare of 
 the state. I cannot even say that it was for the welfare of the 
 Eepublican party which did it. Therefore I say to the com- 
 mittee and to the Convention that I am willing to vote for 
 this proposition embodying in the Constitution one supreme 
 court of this state and making it permanent. My doubt is 
 
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 605 
 
 whether we ought to do the same thing with reference to the 
 lower tribunal called the superior court. I again ask the ques- 
 tion which I started with, whether in the committee there was 
 any difference of opinion on the subject of placing both courts 
 beyond legislative control? 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I rise to correct a misapprehension 
 which the gentleman from Concord may have given you. I 
 have no indignation, righteous or otherwise, against either of 
 the courts or any of the justices of this state. I honor both 
 courts, and so far as I know them, their judicial conduct. My 
 position is simply this. They are the creatures of the state 
 and the people of the state, and the people of the state should 
 keep in their hands the control of the courts and not put it 
 out of their hands. That is all there is to it. 
 
 Xow the gentleman is unquestionably right in regard to the 
 value of Chief Justice Marshall as head of the supreme court 
 of the United States, and it is to the credit of the different 
 parties that he was maintained there. 
 
 I know of no reason why the courts existing in the state of 
 New Hampshire should not be maintained in their organiza- 
 tions until the end of time perhaps. My only claim is that 
 the people should retain for themselves the power, if it be- 
 comes necessary on account of the conduct of the judges, 
 which may not come under the classification of immorality, or 
 other reasons of disposing of the judges given in the resolu- 
 tion; if they become entirely hostile to the will of the people, 
 to change them and put in their places men who will dis- 
 charge the duties of the courts in accordance with the highest 
 ideals of the people and for the good of the state. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Has it ever been thought that 
 the congress of the United States could pass a law about the 
 supreme court of the United States which would turn out the 
 existing justices? 
 
 Mr. Baker I do not know as that idea has been put for- 
 
606 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ward, but I do not know anything in the Constitution which 
 would prevent. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord My impression is, it is univer- 
 sally conceded that an act of congress of that kind would be 
 unconstitutional, whereas in this state we know it is not, be- 
 cause on two occasions during my lifetime we have had the 
 supreme court of the state turned out from their offices. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Whether the construction of the Con- 
 stitution of the United States given by the gentleman from 
 Concord be correct or not, it never has been determined, and 
 the language of the Constitution is that there shall be one 
 supreme court and such inferior courts as congress may di- 
 rect. Now it is impossible for congress to destroy the su- 
 preme court. Whether it can destroy the inferior courts is a 
 question which, of course, has never been determined. 
 
 The President The question is upon the adoption of the 
 resolution of the committee, the gentleman from Manches- 
 ter having withdrawn his motion. 
 
 Mr. Mies of Concord If the gentleman from Manchester 
 will not, I will renew that motion that the resolution re- 
 ported by the committee lay upon the table and be made the 
 special order for to-morrow at 2 o'clock. 
 
 The motion being stated by the chair, prevailed on a viva 
 voce vote. 
 
 Mr. Colbath of Barnstead, from the Committee on the Leg- 
 islative Department, to whom was referred the amendment of 
 Mr. Ledoux of Nashua to amend article five, part two, of the 
 Constitution by adding thereto a section relative to the refer- 
 ence of laws passed by the general court to the people for con- 
 sideration and to make effective the initiative and referendum, 
 reported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to adopt this particular 
 amendment." 
 
TUESDAV, DECEMBER 16, 1902. 607 
 
 The report was accepted. The question being stated, shall 
 the resolution of the committee be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Clyde of Hudson I move the resolution be referred to 
 the Committee of the Whole, to be taken up with the special 
 order relating to initiative and referendum, which has been 
 referred to that committee. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Clyde of Hudson being stated by the 
 chair, was declared lost on a viva voce vote. 
 
 Mr. Cullen of Portsmouth There is a great deal to be said 
 on this question. I do not doubt but there are a number here 
 who would like to be heard upon it. It is a question that is in 
 line with progressive legislation at the present time, and a 
 large number of bodies of working men, both state and na- 
 tional, have declared themselves in favor of such legislation. 
 As the attendance appears to be small, I would ask and move 
 that the matter be laid over until some other time. I myself 
 have an amendment to this measure, but I do not think it 
 should come up now. I move that it be laid over as unfin- 
 ished business. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Will the President kindly state 
 to the Convention what the order is with reference to resolu- 
 tions of a like character with this. If there are other resolu- 
 tions I think the Convention will be willing to consider them 
 together. 
 
 Mr. Clyde of Hudson I introduced a resolution before 
 this body and moved to make it a special order to follow the 
 resolution on trusts introduced by the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Chandler, and my motion was carried and made 
 such special order. This is a similar resolution to the one I 
 introduced. I feel that it is an important matter and some- 
 thing demanded by the organized labor of this country. We 
 have considered woman's suffrage and other questions here, 
 and I think we should do organized labor the courtesy of con- 
 
608 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 sidering this matter thoroughly in the Convention or in 
 Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I find that I get along better in 
 legislative bodies by asking unanimous consent. I ask the 
 unanimous consent of this Convention that this resolution 
 may be considered when Mr. Clyde's resolution is considered. 
 
 The President If there is no objection to the suggestion 
 of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, by unanimous 
 consent the resolution offered by the gentleman from Nashua, 
 Mr. Ledoux, will be considered in connection with the resolu- 
 tions which are numbered 31 and 37, namely, the two resolu- 
 tions introduced by Mr. Clyde of Hudson. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Clement of Manchester, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered by the chaplain. 
 
 On motion of Mr. McAllister of Manchester, the rules were 
 so far suspended that the reading of the journal was dispensed 
 with. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster offered the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That, hereafter, debate, both in Convention and 
 Committee of the Whole, be limited to five minutes, and that 
 no member shall speak a second time on any question, until 
 every member who desires to speak has spoken once; pro- 
 vided, that the author of the measure under consideration 
 shall have ten minutes, instead' of five minutes assigned him/' 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 609 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Clyde of Hudson, the resolutions of that 
 gentleman, and the resolution of Mr. Ledoux of Nashua, re- 
 lating to the initiative and referendum, were recalled from 
 Committee of the Whole and referred to the Committee on 
 the Legislative Department. 
 
 Mr. Rogers of Tilton, from the Committee on the Bill of 
 Rights and Executive Department, to whom was referred the 
 resolution offered by Mr. Baker of Bow to amend part second 
 of the Constitution, title "Executive Power, Governor," re- 
 ported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient at this time to amend the 
 Constitution as proposed in the resolution." 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Buxton of Boscawen, from Committee on Bill of Rights 
 and Executive Department, to whom was referred the resolu- 
 tion introduced by Mr. Madden of Keene relating to gover- 
 nor's council, reported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved^ That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu- 
 tion as proposed." 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Russell of Plymonth, from the Committee on Future 
 Mode of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed 
 Amendments, to whom was referred the resolution entitled 
 "Amendments to the State Constitution, part second, articles 
 forty-seven, fifty-three, fifty-six and sixty-six," reported the 
 resolution in the following new draft and recommended its 
 adoption: 
 
 "Resolved, That article forty-seven, part second, be amended 
 by adding to it the words 'Provided that no person shall be 
 so nominated and recommended until he shall have been ex- 
 amined and found duly qualified by an examining board ap- 
 39 
 
610 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 pointed by the governor/ so that the said article forty-seven 
 will read as follows: 
 
 "ARTICLE 47. The captains and subalterns in the respec- 
 tive regiments shall be nominated and recommended by the 
 field officers to the governor, who is to issue their commissions 
 immediately on receipt of such recommendation; provided, 
 that no person shall be so nominated and recommended until 
 he shall have been examined and found duly qualified by an 
 examining board appointed by the governor. 
 
 "That article sixty-six, part second, be amended by striking 
 out the words 'commissary-general/ so that the said article 
 sixty-six will read as follows: 
 
 "ARTICLE 66. The secretary and treasurer shall be chosen 
 by joint ballot of senators and representatives assembled in 
 one room." 
 
 Mr. Russell of Plymouth Mr. President, I move that this 
 resolution be adopted and, if in order, I would like to say a 
 word in explanation of it. I have an acute realization of the 
 fact that the time of this Convention is not only valuable but 
 limited, and that the questions yet to come before it for con- 
 sideration are many and weighty. In comparison with them 
 the matter involved in the report of this committee is of 
 minor consequence. Hence I shall ask your indulgence only 
 for a very few moments. As has been truly said, "If the fram- 
 ers of this Constitution did not build better than they knew, 
 they certainly did build wisely and well." It is apparent they 
 believed a certain place in any scheme of government should 
 be conceded to the militia. This is clearly shown by their in- 
 sertion in the Bill of Rights of article twenty-four, declaring 
 "A well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and sure de- 
 fense of a state;" and the three articles following it expressive 
 of their dread of standing armies, their determination that 
 the military should always be subordinate to the civil power, 
 and their resolve that soldiers should never be quartered in a 
 manner burdensome to the people. In part second, article 
 forty-five, is a proviso for the appointment of general and field 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 611 
 
 officers. Then comes article forty-seven, which it is proposed 
 to amend by providing that captains and lieutenants shall 
 stand the test of an examination by a board appointed by the 
 governor before he is required to issue their commissions. As 
 the article reads at present the commander-in-chief is de- 
 prived of the power of choice. He is compelled to commis- 
 sion whoever is nominated by the field officers. Now the 
 purpose of this amendment is to oblige every candidate for a 
 captaincy, or a lieutenancy, to establish, to some extent at 
 least, his fitness for the position sought before he can be 
 recommended for appointment. I assume that it is the desire 
 of every gentleman present that any military force raised and 
 supported by the state of New Hampshire shall be as efficient 
 and reliable as it is possible to make it with the present mod- 
 erate appropriation and the infrequent opportunities for in- 
 struction and practice. Nothing will contribute so much to 
 this result as well-qualified company officers. I am sure that 
 every veteran of the Civil war in this Convention (types of 
 those patriots whose little bronze button is a prouder decora- 
 tion than can be conferred by any king, prince, or potentate) 
 will agree with me in this assertion. In all armies in the 
 world the company has invariably been considered as the first, 
 or smallest, independent command; the captain being the ex- 
 ecutive, and commanding, drilling, paying, and looking after 
 the men composing his company. Not a few military com- 
 manders of renown have recorded their conviction of the im- 
 portance of the company and its commander. The late Gen- 
 eral William Tecumseh Sherman (who, all must admit, had a 
 tolerably wide experience in commanding small bodies of 
 troops in time of peace and large ones in time of war) on more 
 than one occasion stated that good captains make good com- 
 panies and good companies, grouped together in the higher 
 units of organization, make a good army. The amendment 
 proposed will do something to secure these good captains, 
 with good lieutenants to assist them in making good com- 
 panies. 
 
 The amendment desired to article sixty-six, part second, 
 
612 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 simply strikes out the words "commissary-general/' It does 
 not interfere in any way with the other two officials named in 
 the article or the present method of selecting them. Why the 
 commissary-general was detailed, so to speak, for election by 
 the general court, rather than any other of his associates in 
 the military family of the commander-in-chief, I have not 
 been able to discover. As is well known the only two work- 
 ing positions on the governor's staff are those of the adjutant- 
 general and the inspector-general; the former performing not 
 only the duties indicated by his title, but also those of the 
 heads of the quartermaster, subsistence, pay, and ordnance 
 departments; while the latter makes an annual inspection of 
 each organization in the National Guard, and of all armories, 
 books, reports, and military property in their possession, re- 
 porting their condition with his recommendations and sug- 
 gestions. The remaining members of the governor's staff 
 have usually been selected from gentlemen of ability and 
 high standing, whose services have been rendered in lines not 
 necessarily military, and whose presence in this near relation 
 was agreeable to the chief magistrate. Not many years ago a 
 commissary-general was elected whom the governor did not 
 desire, and he made his feelings known in language so plain 
 and forcible that it appealed to the legislature sufficiently to 
 induce them to make a second choice which was more satis- 
 factory, and the incident was closed. I am not aware that 
 this friction between the legislative and executive departments 
 was accompanied by any great shock to the body politic, nor 
 did it "bode some strange eruption to our state." It seems, 
 however, only just and equitable that the commissary-general 
 should be appointed in the same manner as his comrades, the 
 quartermaster-general, the judge-advocate-general, the sur- 
 geon-general, and the not more than eight or less than four 
 aides with the rank of colonel are appointed; and thus avoid 
 an "inequality," to the evils of which allusion has repeatedly 
 been made during this session. 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution submitted b} r 
 the committee was adopted. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 613 
 
 Mr. Briggs of Manchester, from the Committee on Bill of 
 Rights and Executive Department, to whom was referred the 
 amendment proposed by Mr. Wingate of Stratham to strike 
 the word "subject" from article five of the Bill of Rights and 
 insert the word "one" in place thereof, reported it inexpedient 
 to submit such an amendment. The committee was of the 
 opinion that the framers of the Bill of Rights did not use the 
 word "subject" in any other sense than as a reference to per- 
 sons who are subject to the law. Whale a more apt word 
 might be found to express the idea, since the word appears 
 several times in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to be 
 consistent several distinct and different amendments would 
 have to be proposed, and the committee did not think it wise 
 to cumber the important questions to be submitted to the 
 people by numerous amendments of this character. The com- 
 mittee, therefore, reported the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the proposed amendment be not adopted." 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton, from the Committee on Bill of 
 Rights and Executive Department, submitted the following 
 report: 
 
 The Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Depart- 
 ment, having had under consideration the resolutions intro- 
 duced by Mr. Baker of Bow, Mr. Niles of Concord, and Mr. 
 Colby of Hanover proposing amendments to article six of the 
 Bill of Rights, reports that article six should be amended by 
 striking therefrom the word "evangelical," and inserting 
 the word "Christian" in place thereof, and that the word 
 "towns" be stricken from said section wherever it appears, 
 and that the word "Protestant" be stricken out. 
 
 The committee also recommends that the words "and every 
 denomination of Christians" be stricken from the so-called 
 Free Toleration clause of said article six, and the words, "All 
 religious sects and denominations" inserted in place thereof, 
 so that the same as amended shall read: 
 
614 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 "As morality and piety, rightly grounded on Christian prin- 
 ciples, will give the best and greatest security to government, 
 and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to 
 due subjection, and as the knowledge of these is most likely to 
 be propagated through a society by the institution of the 
 public worship of the Deity and of public instruction in 
 morality and religion, therefore to promote those important 
 purposes, the people of this state have a right to empower, 
 and do hereby fully empower, the legislature to authorize, 
 from time to time, the several parishes, bodies corporate, or 
 religious societies within this state to make adequate pro- 
 vision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance 
 of public teachers of piety, religion, and morality. 
 
 "Provided, notwithstanding, that the several parishes, 
 bodies corporate, or religious societies, shall at all times have 
 the exclusive right of electing their own public teachers and 
 of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. 
 And no person of any one particular religious sect or denom- 
 ination shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of 
 the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or denomi- 
 nation. 
 
 "All religious sects and denominations, demeaning them- 
 selves quietly and as good subjects of the state, shall be 
 equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination 
 of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be es- 
 tablished by law. 
 
 "And nothing herein shall be understood to affect any for- 
 mer contracts made for the support of the ministry; but all 
 such contracts shall remain and be in the same state as if this 
 Constitution had not been made." 
 
 The report was accepted. The question being stated, "Shall 
 the resolution of the committee that the amendments recom- 
 mended by the committee be adopted?" 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I move that the report of the committee 
 lie upon the table, be printed, and made a special order for 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 615 
 
 to-morrow at 2:30 o'clock. I do this especially for this reason, 
 because the report is a long one, and it is not in such shape 
 that the members of the Convention can properly read and 
 compare it with the present Constitution. It is one of the 
 most important subjects in a general way which will come be- 
 fore the Convention, and we all ought to have a good, fair 
 chance to read its provisions and consider it. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I dislike very much to oppose the 
 motion of the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, but we must 
 all be admonished that the end of this session is approaching. 
 There is a vast number of matters to be considered yet. All 
 of these resolutions have been printed and distributed through 
 the Convention. I think there is some danger in postponing 
 this until to-morrow. I wish the gentleman would withdraw 
 his motion, and I for one would agree to take it up this after- 
 noon at some appointed hour agreeable to the gentleman from 
 Bow. I will say, however, I recognize the great principle in- 
 volved and if he, upon reflection, insists upon the motion, I 
 will not opose it. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow There is an additional reason why this 
 should go over, because the gentleman from Hanover, Mr. 
 Colby, is not able to be here to-day. I think it is due to him, 
 as a fellow-member of the committee, that we .should grant 
 this favor for his sake if for no other. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Xashua We have before us now the re- 
 port of the committee and it is unanimous. It seems to me 
 it is perfectly clear, and I believe every member of this Con- 
 vention understands it. I regret exceedingly that the gentle- 
 man from Hanover, who offered the resolution with reference 
 to this matter, is unable to be here, but it seems to me the 
 business of this Convention must be considered and disposed 
 of as promptly as possible. I believe this Convention is ready 
 now to meet and decide this question and to act upon the 
 unanimous report of one of its leading committees as it ever 
 will be. I sincerely hope we will take it up now and dispose 
 of it. 
 
616 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Morris of Lisbon I saw the gentleman from Hanover, 
 Mr. Colby, this morning relative to this matter. He had 
 made an examination of the report of the committee, and he 
 desired me to state to the Convention that he could not be 
 here to-day, but that through an inadvertence the resolution 
 which he proposed was handed to the secretary in an imper- 
 fect form and he did not care to press it, and that he exam- 
 ined the report of the committee and concurred in the same. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Baker of Bow was stated by the chair, 
 and on viva voce vote was declared lost. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I think it would be wise to make 
 this a special order for the afternoon, and I move that it be 
 made a special order for this afternoon, following the other 
 special order. 
 
 I am quite ready, so far as I am concerned, to take the mat- 
 ter up now; but I supposed the question was to be debated by 
 the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, and in fairness to him, 
 if he desires, I thought that it would be well to postpone the 
 matter until this afternoon. But if there is no demand for 
 that I will withdraw my motion. 
 
 The President The motion of the gentleman from Little- 
 ton, Mr. Aldrich, is withdrawn, and the question is, "Shall the 
 resolution of the Committee on the Bill of Eights and Execu- 
 tive Department be adopted?" 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the 
 Convention: I am under the necessity of asking for the re- 
 port itself, as it has been concluded not to print it. 
 
 I yield, gentlemen of the Convention, to no man here in 
 my admiration for the Christian religion or my admiration 
 for the principles which are known as Christian. But I be- 
 lieve absolutely, with the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. 
 Aldrich, in his remarks the other day, that Christianity means 
 equal rights for everybody and all. I believe that every citi- 
 zen of this state should have equal rights without any sug- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 617 
 
 gestion of opposition to his thought upon religious subjects, 
 and I believe that all objectionable words which have been 
 in this article of the Bill of Rights for a hundred years ought 
 to be stricken out as the committee has stricken them out in 
 its reported amendment. If no new words had been inserted 
 I should not have raised my voice at this time in opposition to 
 the report of the committee. 
 
 There are those, as you know, in this state who are not 
 known as "evangelical" in religion, and there are those who 
 are not Protestants. The two words the committee propose to 
 strike out, and^hat their report recommends is equally favor- 
 able to every kind of Christians known under the sun. Thus 
 far it is undoubtedly worthy our support and our admiration. 
 But they have recommended the insertion in place of the 
 word "evangelical," the word "Christian." Now I do not be- 
 lieve that any gentleman within the sound of my voice has so 
 little faith in Christianity that he thinks that insertion in 
 the Bill of Eights of our Constitution is necessary to maintain 
 Christianity in the state of New Hampshire. If there is such 
 he has less faith in Christianity and in the people of this state 
 than I have. 
 
 There are in this state worthy men and worthy women who 
 do not adopt Christianity. In other words, there are Jews; 
 Hebrews, both foreign and native born, and we should not 
 attempt to insert a word here and the committee has in- 
 serted it which would be hostile and distasteful to that peo- 
 ple. I remember that He from whom the religion we profess 
 is called Christian, was himself a Jew, and nowhere in the 
 New Testament is there any word or suggestion that he re- 
 pudiated the principles of the Jewish religion, but simply the 
 excrescences which had grown upon that religion. My belief 
 is that if we adopt the recommendation of the committee we 
 ehall be slapping in the face Him from whom our religion is 
 named. 
 
 Why should we do it? Is there any call for it? Are not 
 Christians Christian, even if we leave this word out of the 
 organic law of the state? I hope we are, and if those words 
 
618 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 could be omitted I should heartily support the report of the 
 committee. 
 
 Now there is one way in which this can be done and not in 
 the slightest degree injure the substance of the report made 
 by the committee. Their report contains the following: 
 "Morality and piety rightly grounded on Christian princi- 
 ples." Now, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, 
 if we would strike out that word "Christian" and insert the 
 word "right/' and strike out the word "rightly/' we should 
 have this read, "morality and piety grounded on right princi- 
 ples." Of course every Christian would believe that right 
 principles are the principles of Christianity, and every 
 Hebrew would believe that right principles are those founded 
 upon the morality and piety of the Hebrews. There would 
 be no disagreement on the p'art of any one. Why, then, may 
 not this be done. This is all I ask at your hands, and it will 
 put the matter in such shape that there will be no disagree- 
 ment on the part of any one, and you and I, if we do this, will 
 feel, I believe, that we are better Christians for having 
 dfone it. 
 
 I make this motion to strike out the word "rightly," and 
 strike out also the word "Christian," and in place of the word 
 "Christian" insert the word "right," so that it will read: "As 
 morality and piety, grounded on right principles." 
 
 The President In the report of the committee the clause 
 in question reads, "As morality and piety, rightly grounded on 
 Christian principles, will give the best and greatest security 
 to government." The gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, 
 moves the following amendment: "Strike out the word 
 'rightly' and also the word 'Christian,' and insert in lieu 
 thereof the word 'right/ so the clause will read, 'As morality 
 and piety, grounded on right principles, will give the best and 
 greatest security to government.' ' J The question is upon the 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. Osgood of Nelson I will inquire if there is any stan- 
 dard of piety in such an amendment as that? Is there any 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 619 
 
 standard! of piety at all? If there is, it is the question of 
 Christian religion. 
 
 I claim a good deal of the work of this Convention so far 
 never will be ratified by the people, and of this much I am 
 confident, that they will never ratify this amendment if the 
 word "Christian" is stricken out. I may be mistaken, but I 
 claim there is no other standard of piety except the Christian 
 religion. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Mr. President, it is to' be re- 
 gretted that this delicate and sensitive question is to be de- 
 bated further. The members of the Committee on the Bill of 
 Rights, of which I have the honor to be chairman, have fully 
 considered the situation, and feel that the amendment pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, radically 
 attacks the entire theory of the report, which the committee 
 has submitted to the Convention here. 
 
 There are three essential phases of the amendment proposed 
 through the report and the resolution submitted which relate 
 to article six of the Bill of Rights. One idea is to declare in 
 apt words that no expenses relating to religious institutions 
 shall ever become a public expense. The desired result in this 
 respect is accomplished by striking out the word "towns. " 
 Another idea relates to the question whether all religious be- 
 liefs shall be tolerated alike. I go as far in that direction, 
 and the committee is disposed to go as far in that direction, as 
 the gentleman from Bow. The other question, and the im- 
 portant one is, whether this Convention shall take a backward 
 step and allow the Jews, or the pagans, or the Mohammedans 
 who come into this country, and who enjoy all the privileges 
 of our institutions, to force us to renounce the great principle 
 which has always been recognized in this country the prin- 
 ciple that this nation and state is rightly grounded on Chris- 
 tian principles, a principle which contra-distinguishes our in- 
 stitutions from nations, for instance, founded on Moham- 
 medan or pagan principles. 
 
 The fact that we are a Christian community, a Christian 
 
620 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 civilization, is the glory of this nation and the glory of this 
 state. That we are a Christian nation, rightly grounded, is 
 something that the pagan, or the Mohammedan, or the Jew, 
 has no right to complain of. If I go to Turkey, and that gov- 
 ernment shall accord to me free toleration in respect to my 
 religious beliefs something that she has never done to any 
 Christian people I have no right to assert or to flaunt in the 
 face of that government my sensitiveness upon the question of 
 religion, and ask them, to strike from their fundamental laws 
 words which convey the idea that that government is founded 
 upon Mohammedan principles. 
 
 The point that I want to make distinct is that this commit- 
 tee goes as far as the gentleman from Bow suggests, and as far 
 as it is possible for words to go in expressing the idea of free 
 and broad toleration to all religious sects and denominations. 
 When we have done that, they have no right the heathen 
 has no right to ask the state of New Hampshire to wipe out 
 of its Bill of Rights the idea that our scheme and system of 
 government is rightly grounded upon principles of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 I agree with the gentleman from Nelson, Mr. Osgood, that 
 it would shock the sense of the great mass of the people of 
 New Hampshire, and the sense of the people of the country, 
 were we to strike from the Bill of Rights the declaration, that 
 this state, that the civic structure of this state is rightly 
 grounded on evangelical principles, unless we should preserve 
 the substantial idea by substituting the word Christian in its 
 place. The fact that our government is so grounded, permits 
 us, with a generosity that does not exist in any other nation in 
 the world, to say to all, whatever your beliefs are, whether you 
 believe in the existence of the Almighty or do not, whether 
 you believe in the Confucian religion, the Mohammedan re- 
 ligion, or the Jewish religion, you shall all stand equal before 
 the law. That does not go to the structure. It means re- 
 ligious toleration in its broadest sense, yet it does not involve 
 a renunciation of the beneficent principle involved in the idea 
 that our system of government is rightly grounded upon 
 Christian principles. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 621 
 
 Mr. Cross of Manchester I did not expect to speak on this 
 question, but it comes so very near to me that I cannot re- 
 frain from saying a word. 
 
 This nation, in history, in poetry, and in romance, has been 
 recognized as a Christian nation. I do not refer to denomi- 
 nations, to Catholic, Unitarian, Universalist, Congregation- 
 alist, or any sect I do not say that this or that is not Chris- 
 tian.' We all claim to live under the Christian name. 
 
 Mr. President, it stirs my memory as I am asked to vote for 
 or against the word "Christian" in our Constitution. From 
 almost the hour when the lullaby sounded in my ears, from 
 the time of boyhood and early manhood long ago to eighty- 
 five years, this word Christian has had a meaning very helpful 
 and very precious. 
 
 In the homes of some of us if there is anything that we 
 have endeavored to be and endeavored to live before our chil- 
 dren and before those with whom we have associated, it has 
 been to respect the Christian religion. 
 
 I cannot forbear to ask you as New Hampshire men, re- 
 membering the fathers and mothers who have lived in these 
 hills, mountains, and valleys, to entreat you, not to strike out 
 this word. 
 
 I believe I voice the almost unanimous wish and demand 
 of the people of New Hampshire in their protest against strik- 
 ing out the word "Christian" from the Constitution, and in 
 their earnest appeal to retain and honor it as the one word 
 above all others held dear to the hearts of the men who placed 
 it there. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Whiteneld I have been somewhat im- 
 pressed to hear my friends, and especially my namesake, who 
 has spoken quite often. I did not think that I would rise in 
 this Convention to speak, but I desire to make one suggestion, 
 or to ask one question. 
 
 When our Pilgrim Fathers left their own country and came 
 to this land, they came for the purpose of freedom in religious 
 thought, and yet they drove honest men from Massachusetts 
 
622 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 into Pennsylvania and Rhode Island because they did not dip 
 their faces in the water just to suit them. I know, gentlemen, 
 that men generally talk on subjects they are least posted r-n 
 and I do not profess to be posted on Christianity. I do not 
 know what it means. I have been living in the northern part 
 of the state, where a late governor a few years ago told us we 
 did n't have Christian burial, that we buried people without a 
 funeral. I come from that benighted part of the state, out of 
 that awful darkness. Therefore you cannot expect me to 
 throw much light upon this subject. I only wish to ask and 
 would like to have some one tell me why we should not allow 
 every person to worship God according to the dictates of his 
 own conscience, which is what our fathers left home for. 
 
 I do not go quite so far as the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. 
 Everett, and desire to have "God" taken out of the Constitu- 
 tion, but I do not think there should be any religion in it in 
 any shape, form, or manner, and I shall vote for the amend- 
 ment of the gentleman from Bow. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover Mr. President: It seems to me 
 that the amendment of the gentleman from Bow is in the line 
 of progress. We are not striking Christianity out of our Con- 
 stitution. We are simply striking the word Christian from 
 this section. We have been amending the Constitution in 
 other places and it seems to me that if we are to amend this 
 section at all it should be in the way proposed by the gentle- 
 man from Bow, upon broad lines, so that when we are 
 through with it we shall leave it right. 
 
 There has been a change in the past hundred years in the 
 religious sentiments of the people. There has been such a 
 change in this country even in the past few years. "Step by 
 step since time began, we see the steady gain of man," and 
 although great progress has been made in material things, 
 nowhere has it been greater than in the realm of religious 
 thought. No longer, as in ancient and mediaeval times do 
 devils walk hand in hand with men or angels sit in sweet com- 
 munion on every corner. The age of miracles has passed 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 623 
 
 and immaculate conceptions are of rare occurrence. Yet the 
 cause of true religion has been advanced and mankind bene- 
 fited, and to-day with promise of final conquest firmer than 
 the rockribbed hillsides the cause of religious freedom makes 
 her onward strides. 
 
 I would suggest that this section is now obsolete and if we 
 cannot amend it upon broad and liberal lines no harm would 
 probably be done if we left it as it is. But if we cannot amend 
 it in a way that will commend itself to men of all religious 
 beliefs, then let us leave it as it is, as a reminder of what our 
 fathers thought, let it remain in obscurity until other men in 
 other times shall amend it in accordance with the spirit of 
 the age. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow The gentleman who is chairman of this 
 committee has made some suggestions to you which to me 
 seem to need reply. He has suggested that if he were in 
 Turkey, or in China, and if he were permitted to worship 
 God according to the dictates of his own conscience he would 
 be satisfied. He ought to be if he were in a despotic country. 
 But the parallel does not exist. We are not talking about a 
 government here which is a government of despotism, but a 
 government of the people. The voters are the government, 
 and they ought to see to it that everything in their funda- 
 mental law gives to each and every individual every right, 
 and no one ought to claim for himself a right which he is not 
 willing to accord all others. 
 
 The very words which were used by the gentleman in try- 
 ing to tell you how liberal the amendment proposed by the 
 committee is, show the evil of it. He used the word "tolera- 
 tion." Have I the right to tolerate him? Has he the right 
 to tolerate me in matters of religion? Of course not. I have 
 equal rights with h : m and he with me, and every Jew in the 
 state of Xew Hampshire has just as good rights as either of us. 
 That is the question on which you are called to vote. 
 
 Gentleman, I had a mother, and early teaching, perhaps not 
 as good as that of the venerable gentleman who was born in 
 
624 JOUIINAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Weare, X. II. ; perhaps liis mother was a better Christian than 
 mine, but gentlemen, with all due respect. to his mother and 
 to his home, I do not believe it. I do, however, believe that 
 my mother, if she is looking on this scene to-day, thanks God 
 that she has a son broad enough in Christian principles to- ad- 
 vocate that no man in this state should be tolerated, but that 
 each should have equal rights with himself. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter I yield to no man from Bow, or else- 
 where, in desiring to accord the fullest religious equality to 
 Jew, gentile, and atheist alike, not because I am a Jew or an 
 atheist myself, but because I do not have any right to oppose 
 them. The amendment proposed by this committee grants to 
 the Jew the right to employ public teachers. In granting 
 that right, the committee has stricken out the word "Protest- 
 ant" in the Constitution immediately before "teachers of 
 piety and morality," and they grant to all religious societies 
 within this state the right to make adequate provision for the 
 teaching of their religion. By that amendment, therefore, 
 we grant to the Jew the right to teach publicly the principles 
 of Jewism, and we grant to the Christian sect and to the 
 pagan, and 1 to the Christian teacher or the pagan teacher ab- 
 solute religious equality before the law. Civil equality is 
 granted every man by other clauses of the Constitution, and 
 the only thing to which Jew or pagan can take exception is 
 that we say the Christian religion is a trifle the best. That is 
 all. And it seems to me you cannot ask a Christian nation to 
 say, "Whereas, all religions are equally of no account, we 
 will tolerate them all." That would be the effect of the 
 amendment offered by the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker. 
 He would wish us to say that one religion is as good as an- 
 other. But in the amendment which he himself has proposed 
 he has included the words "public worship of the Deity." We 
 may find many within the state who do not believe in that, 
 and although they don't believe in it they have just as good a 
 right to their beliefs as we, but they have not the right to say 
 that we shall strike those words from the Constitution. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 625 
 
 It seems to me that the gentleman from Bow is intensely 
 bigoted in his liberality. He wishes to prevent the rest of us 
 saying that we believe Christianity is a good foundation for a 
 Christian government, while all they can properly ask is that 
 we declare that all religions shall be equally under the pro- 
 tection of the law. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the amendment of Mr. 
 Baker of Bow be adopted?" the negative prevailed, and the 
 amendment was lost. The resolution reported by the Com- 
 mittee on the Bill of Eights and Executive Department was 
 then adopted. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord, from the Committee on the Legis- 
 lative Department, submitted the following report: 
 
 The Committee on Legislative Department, to whom was 
 recommitted the amendment proposed by Mr. Norris of Ports- 
 mouth relating to the methods of raising the public charges of 
 government, having further considered the same, report it in 
 the following new draft, and recommend its adoption: 
 
 "Resolved, that article six, part two, of the Constitution be 
 amended so that it shall read: 
 
 6. The public charges of government, or any part 
 thereof, may be raised by taxation upon polls, estates, and 
 other classes of property, including franchises and the trans- 
 fer or succession of property by will or inheritance; and there 
 shall be a valuation of the estates within the state taken anew 
 once in every five years, at least, and as much oftener as the 
 general court shall order." 
 
 The report was accepted. The question being stated upon 
 the adoption of the recommendation of the committee that 
 the resolution as reported in a new draft ought to be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I think a verbal change ought 
 to be made, and I move to strike out the words "transfer and 
 succession of property" and insert in lieu thereof the words 
 40 
 
626 JOURNAL' OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 "property when passing." The transfer or succession of prop- 
 erty cannot be properly said to be property. Franchises may 
 be called property,, but transfer is not property. Succession is 
 not property, and the resolution may be made more consistent 
 if it includes in other kinds of property, property when pass- 
 ing by will or inheritance. If I had had an opportunity of 
 seeing a member of the committee I would have suggested 
 that, but I think the gentleman from Concord who made this 
 report will consider my criticism a correct one. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord I hope the amendment to the re- 
 port of the committee will be adopted. I think the words are 
 more expressive of the intent. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Chandler of Concord was stated by 
 the chair and adopted by a viva voce vote. 
 
 Mr. Cullen of Portsmouth That seems to be satisfactory, 
 and I am glad to see that the committee has had a change of 
 heart. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the resolution as reported 
 by the committee in new draft, and as amended, be adopted?" 
 the affirmative prevailed and the resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Howe of Concord, from the Committee on Future Mode 
 of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amend- 
 ments, submitted the following report: 
 
 i 
 
 The Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Consti- 
 tution and Other Proposed Amendments, to whom was re- 
 ferred the resolutions offered by Mr. Lamprey of Concord, Mr. 
 Baker of Bow, and Mr. Colby of Hanover, relative to striking 
 out articles ninety-eight, ninety-nine, and one hundred of part 
 second of the Constitution, and providing that in lieu of the 
 present system of amending the Constitution, by conventions 
 called for that purpose, such amendments shall originate in 
 and be proposed by the legislature, having considered said sev- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 627 
 
 eral resolutions, recommend the adoption of the following 
 resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to adopt said resolutions, 
 or either of them." 
 
 The report was accepted,, and the question being stated, 
 "Shall the report of the committee that it is 'inexpedient to 
 adopt said resolutions or either of them/ be adopted ?" 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I move you that this matter lie on the 
 table and be made a special order for to-morrow at 2:30 
 o'clock. I do this not for my own purposes, but the gentle- 
 man from Hanover, Mr. Colby, who is the author of one of 
 these resolutions, has communicated to me this morning his 
 wish in that regard, and I think it due to a fellow-member 
 who is absent that this should be done. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter I wish to say in regard to the gen- 
 tleman from Hanover, Mr. Colby, that he has been informed 
 of the meetings of the committee, and this matter was re- 
 ferred to a sub-committee of the committee to take into con- 
 sideration, and the gentleman was notified of the fact and re- 
 quested to confer with that sub-committee and has had notice 
 of all their meetings. I do not stand here for the purpose of 
 preventing him giving his views to this convention if he so 
 wishes, but it does seem to me if we expect to conclude our 
 labors in season for the incoming legislature we ought to 
 make progress. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I never felt a more imperative 
 sense of duty than I do to make an appeal to this Convention 
 not to separate without sending to the people a new method 
 of making further amendments to the Constitution. I am 
 aware that five minutes would be a short time for me to make 
 my views known. I am willing, however, to go on now or later 
 as the Convention may prefer. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow I made no objection to the committee 
 
628 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 proceeding this morning because the gentleman from Hanover 
 had not been heard before the committee, but he wishes to be 
 heard before this Convention, of which he is one of the most 
 prominent and best educated members, and I think it is due 
 to him and due to us all that we hear him. I hope the motion 
 which I have made, which does not in any manner prevent the 
 Convention from transacting any business in lieu of this, and 
 which will not delay the Convention in point of time in any 
 respect, may be adopted for his sake if for nothing else. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Baker of Bow was stated by the chair 
 and on a viva voce vote prevailed. A division was called for 
 and the chair declared that 138 having voted in the affirma- 
 tive and 167 having voted in the negative, the motion was 
 lost. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Mr. President, I call for the special 
 order. 
 
 The President The chair will be obliged to rule that under 
 the rules of the Convention a general order takes precedence 
 over a special order until the general order is completed. 
 
 The question now recurs to the resolution of the committee, 
 that "it is inexpedient to adopt the said resolutions, or either 
 of them." 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Is it not true that there is a special 
 order pending at this moment? 
 
 The President The chair will state that there is a special 
 order pending. But under the rules of the Convention, pre- 
 pared by a committee of which the gentleman from Bow was 
 chairman, the order of business adopted by the Convention 
 as stated in rule 12 is as follows: 
 
 After the journal has been read and corrected, the order of 
 business shall be as follows: First, the presentation of reso- 
 lutions and petitions; second, the reports of committees; third, 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 629 
 
 any special order for the hour; fourth, the unfinished business 
 of the preceding day. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Will the President permit me to make 
 a suggestion? Unquestionably the rule is as it has been read, 
 but that rule does not, I apprehend, include what the gentle- 
 man presiding has suggested. It says reports of the commit- 
 tees shall be presented, but it does not say they shall be acted 
 upon in preference to a special order of the day, and a special 
 order of the day comes in for action before any general order. 
 
 Mr. Little of Manchester I have the honor of being a 
 member of the Committee on Rules, and it was the distinct 
 understanding of that committee in making up our report that 
 the general order should take precedence over any special 
 order, and in rule 12 it provides that after the journal has 
 been read and corrected, the order is (2) the reports of the 
 committees, and (3) any special order of the hour. I do not 
 understand how you can get reports of committees before 
 the Convention until they are presented to the Convention in 
 order to be acted upon. Of course, if they are laid upon the 
 table as they are successively presented, they are disposed of, 
 but if they are not voted down, laid upon the table, or dis- 
 posed of in some other way, it is conclusive to my mind that 
 they are in order until disposed of in some manner. 
 
 The President This matter stands upon the report of the 
 committee, and the question is whether the report of the com- 
 mittee that it is "inexpedient to adopt said resolutions or 
 either of them," shall be adopted. 
 
 Mr. Wason of Nashua I am informed that Senator Chand- 
 ler desires to discuss this subject, and in view of the fact that 
 the gentleman from Hanover, Mr. Colby, the author of one of 
 the resolutions, is not here to discuss the matter and take the 
 ten minutes allotted to him, I move you that the Convention 
 grant the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, ten minutes 
 instead of five. 
 
630 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua was stated by the 
 chair, and on a viva voce vote prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord For the gratification of the gen- 
 tlemen who gave the negative vote I will endeavor to take less 
 than the ten minutes. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I consider this a very serious question. 
 I think if there is any one amendment which we ought to give 
 the people of this state the opportunity of voting upon it is 
 the question whether they will have a new method of making 
 amendments to their Constitution like that which every other 
 state in the Union now has. 
 
 I do not think that New Hampshire, unique as she is, grand 
 as she is, noble as she is, enlightened as all concede her to be, 
 ought to deprive her people of the privilege of changing even 
 one single word in the Constitution unless through an ex- 
 penditure of twenty-five thousand dollars or more for a con- 
 vention to come to Concord, with the possibility that the 
 efforts of that convention may be wholly abortive, as was the 
 Convention of 1850 in its first session. 
 
 Fifty years ago a proposition to amend the Constitution by 
 putting into it a method for making future amendments like 
 that adopted by all the other states in the Union was voted 
 upon by the people, and it came within a few hundred votes of 
 adoption. I spoke the other day of the Convention of 1850, and 
 the humiliation which its members felt when they found that 
 all fifteen of their propositions to the people had been over- 
 whelmingly rejected. They reassembled and again submitted 
 three of the amendments to the people. One was adopted 
 the amendment striking out the property qualification. The 
 removal of the religious test, which was submitted by the Con- 
 vention, was voted down by 9,566 ayes and 12,082 nays. But 
 in 1876, the convention which then assembled in this room 
 submitted the abolishing of the religious test once more to the 
 people, and it was carried. Yet the Convention of 1876 failed 
 to submit the third proposition which had been voted upon in 
 1850 a new method of making future amendments, which 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 631 
 
 proposed amendment had received, when submitted to the 
 people fifty-two years ago, a vote of 12,500 in the affirmative 
 and 6,906 in the negative an overwhelming popular majority 
 falling but a little short of the necessary two-thirds vote. 
 Worse yet, not only did the Convention of 1876, which again* 
 submitted the abolishing of the religious test, fail to submit 
 a new method of making future amendments such as every 
 other state in the Union enjoys; but so also failed the Con- 
 vention of 1889. 
 
 Mr. President, if the Convention of 1876 had shown the 
 wisdom which I think it ought to have possessed, and had 
 submitted this proposition which had received nearly two 
 thirds of the votes of the people in 1850, I believe it would 
 have been adopted and this state would have been saved the 
 expense of two conventions the Convention of 1889, and 
 this Convention of 1902. 
 
 I appeal to the Convention to give the people of New 
 Hampshire a chance to say whether after all of these ex- 
 periences they will not try the effect of a new method of mak- 
 ing future amendments. 
 
 We are here representing the people upon their call for a 
 Constitutional Convention. If the people in voting for this 
 Convention had any strong idea in their minds when they 
 voted 10,000 for and 4,000 against only 14,000 voting on the 
 subject, as to what the Convention should do, it certainly was 
 that they should reduce the house of representatives. I think 
 that they believed the Convention would find some method of 
 reducing the house. We have been here nearly three weeks 
 and what progress have we made? The Convention, on that 
 subject, is divided 1 right in two, and nothing seems more cer- 
 tain than that the Convention will prove an abortion so far 
 as reducing the house of representatives is concerned. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, what sort of a record are we going to 
 present to the people of this state if we fail to do the thing 
 they sent us here to do, and if we leave them at the same time 
 under the necessity of spending twenty-five or thirty thousand 
 dollars by and by to get men to come together here and do 
 
632 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 that which we have failed to do ? How shall we stand on that 
 record? We shall he discredited, in my judgment, if we do 
 not give to the people of this state a chance to vote on the 
 proposition which fifty years ago they voted upon, and which 
 came near heing adopted; a method of making constitutional 
 amendments like the method adopted hy every other state in 
 the Union. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord As the mover of one of these 
 resolutions I ask your attention for a few moments. I shall 
 he "brief. My object in presenting the amendment I did was 
 that this state in this direction as well as in the cutting down 
 of the legislature, might be saved an expense of twenty-five, 
 thirty, or forty thousand dollars every few years in amending 
 the Constitution. I stated with reference to a proposed 
 amendment of another kind, and I restate it here, that it was 
 my single purpose in advocating these different measures that . 
 the state might afford to have better roads and better schools. 
 I stand in that attitude to-day, and I believe as firmly as I did 
 on the former occasion, that the best way we can save money 
 for the building of good] roads and good schools is to cut down 
 the expense of constitutional conventions and of the legisla- 
 tures. 
 
 Take for instance, as an illustration, this very body and I 
 think you will be convinced that a better method of amend- 
 ing the Constitution can be devised. We have spent nearly 
 half of the appropriation of $25,000 in discussing the basis of 
 representation, and what position are we in to-day? Gentle- 
 men, I undertake to say that after spending ten or twelve 
 thousand dollars of the state's money in discussing this basis 
 of representation we are in a more absurd position than a 
 body of four hundred men ever put themselves in before. We 
 voted deliberately to retain the 600 as the basis for the first 
 representative, we also voted to make the number of the 
 house 300, and then proceeded in this Convention to vote 
 down the number for the second representative that would en- 
 able us to retain 600 for the first representative and still have 
 a house of only 300. We sent to the special committee a prop- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 633 
 
 osition so absurd, and I stand here without fear of contradic- 
 tion on that point, that it does not deserve the respectful con- 
 sideration of that committee or any other. 
 
 There is no possible likelihood that considering the posi- 
 tion taken by this Convention an amendment submitted to 
 the people will be ratified by them. If this is not an absurd 
 position that we find ourselves in, I do not know to what ab- 
 surdity we can proceed. There is ten thousand dollars gone 
 and nothing has been accomplished which will secure the 
 approval of the people of the state. 
 
 And I wish not only to bring to bear upon this discussion 
 the experience of this Convention, but the experience of for- 
 mer conventions that have been held in this state. The gen- 
 tleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, has already told us about 
 the Convention of 1850, and we have only to look at the 
 record of the other conventions also to determine for our- 
 selves whether the money spent in holding them has been well 
 spent or otherwise. 
 
 In case further amendment to the Constitution becomes 
 necessary, the sensible way to proceed, to my mind, would be 
 that the legislature should elect a commission of such men as 
 the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Cross, and the gentle- 
 man from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, I need not specify the 
 entire membership of the commission because that would be 
 for the legislature to do; but I should certainly include a 
 number of men in this Convention I say it would be the 
 duty of that legislature to appoint men experienced in law 
 and in legislation, who shall proceed to draw up a body of 
 amendments that would be logical and that would hang to- 
 gether and that would not need amending before the com- 
 mission adjourned. 
 
 The point that I want to make is this, that a body of this 
 size of men unacquainted with this business and unaccus- 
 tomed to it is not the proper body of men to draw up these 
 amendments. We have seen something of this with reference 
 to the amendment in regard to inheritance, and you see how 
 carefully it is necessary to word these measures. I say that 
 
634 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 matters of that kind should come before men who are com- 
 petent to weigh well the words that are to be put into the 
 organic law of the state. 
 
 I need not take up your time much longer, but I wish to 
 refer to the Constitutional Convention of 1791, generally 
 called the Convention of 1792. That convention remained in 
 session for months, and submitted seventy-two amendments 
 to the people. The people accepted a part of them and re- 
 jected a part of them, but the propositions submitted were so 
 inconsistent and so conflicting that those that were accepted 
 were useless because depending upon those that were rejected, 
 and the whole business of that convention had to be done 
 over again. 
 
 - I believe a commission, chosen as I suggest, should draw up 
 a body of amendments such as in their judgment was neces- 
 sary and desirable, carefully worded, and should submit them 
 to the legislature, which would then have something definite 
 to talk about. They would not waste their time as we have 
 here at cross purposes, and I believe it would save the state of 
 New Hampshire thousands of dollars in the course of a few 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester Being a member of the commit- 
 tee who reported that it is inexpedient to adopt these resolu- 
 tions, it is perhaps proper for me to say a few words. 
 
 First, let us see what the propositions are. There are three 
 of them; that of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lamprey, 
 who has just taken his seat, that of the gentleman from Bow, 
 Mr. Baker, and that of the gentleman from Hanover, Mr. 
 Colby. They all come to the same thing, that the legislature 
 may consider an amendment and adopt it in their sessions, 
 by a majority vote of each branch one says, and by a majority 
 of the house and senate together another says, and by a two- 
 thirds vote of each branch the third says. Then it shall be 
 referred to the next legislature, and if they adopt it by a 
 majority or two-thirds vote as the case may be, it shall go to 
 the people for them to. vote upon it, and if they adopt it, it 
 shall become a part of the Constitution. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 635 
 
 I know of no "lamp to guide my feet" but the lamp of ex- 
 perience. I have been taught to believe and do believe that 
 the Constitution of this state is the foundation upon which 
 rests all of our institutions and all of our rights. I believe 
 that that foundation should be as firm and as secure as possi- 
 ble, that it should be protected against frequent changes, 
 and, what is equally as important, that it should be protected 
 against continuous assaults. 
 
 I believe if we should recommend, and the people should 
 adopt, the methods proposed by these resolutions or any of 
 them, that the sessions of our legislature would be taken up 
 largely with attempts to change the Constitution in various 
 respects, and I further believe that in the stress and storm of 
 political excitement the representatives of the people might 
 come here and make radical and dangerous changes in the 
 Constitution merely for partisan advantage and send them to 
 the people, and the people might adopt them, and they might 
 become part of our Constitution, and thus bring about great 
 evils. 
 
 You all know that there are many men in this state who be- 
 lieve that the Constitution ought to be changed, and they 
 would be constantly coming into the legislature and asking to 
 have it amended. Almost every man that comes here to this 
 Convention has one or more propositions for changes which 
 he believes would improve the Constitution; and the same 
 thing would take place in the legislature. Nearly every rep- 
 resentative would have a proposition to present, and the time 
 of the legislature would be absorbed in discussing propositions 
 which the good sense of the people in most instances would 
 reject. I believe that our Constitution should be firm; that it 
 should not be assailable by every wind that blows. But if we 
 give this power of amendment to the legislature, it will not be 
 as firm as it is to-day. Respect for the Constitution would, I 
 fear, grow smaller if these proposed amendments should pass. 
 
 Our legislature to-day has all the power that any legislature 
 could have to pass laws, and the final article of the Bill of 
 Eights reads as follows: 
 
636 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 "A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of 
 the Constitution and a constant adherence to justice, modera- 
 tion, temperance,, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, 
 are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty 
 and good government. The people ought, therefore, to have a 
 particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their 
 officers and representatives; and they have a right to require 
 of their lawgivers and magistrates an exact and constant ob- 
 servance of them in the formation and execution of the laws 
 necessary for the good administration of government." 
 
 There is your Constitution to-day. The principles of "jus- 
 tice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the 
 social virtues," are now the constitutional bases of legislative 
 action. Outside of those principles, what is there that calls 
 for this change? And what is there in them that calls for 
 legislation which the legislature has not now power to enact? 
 
 I trust, Mr. President and gentlemen, that you will not 
 vote to make this change. 
 
 Mr. Wentworth of Plymouth Mr. President and gentle- 
 men of the Convention: The gentleman from Manchester, 
 Mr. Jones, has said all I was going to say except in one re- 
 spect. Quite a good deal has been said in this Convention 
 about the expense of legislation, and it has been said that the 
 Convention itself costs a good deal of money. Is it not just 
 as expensive to keep a legislature here as it is a Constitutional 
 Convention? 
 
 One thing more. If you have a convention once in ten or 
 fifteen years you confine the expense to that, but if you adopt 
 one of these resolutions you will have a convention every two 
 years instead of once in ten or fifteen years, and it would cer- 
 tainly cost more to have a convention every two years than to 
 have one in ten or fifteen years. It seems to me, therefore, as 
 far as the expense goes it is better to retain the Constitutional 
 Convention. 
 
 As the gentleman from Manchester has already expressed 
 my views on the other features of this matter, I will take no 
 more of your time. 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 637 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter As chairman of the committee 
 which reported in opposition to this resolution, it may be well 
 for me to say a single word in explanation of the action of the 
 committee. 
 
 As has been stated by the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. 
 Jones, the committee took the view that the Constitution was 
 the fundamental organic law of the state, and the less disturb- 
 ance there was to titat law the better it would be for the state. 
 We did not think it would be for the advantage of the state to 
 have it in the power of the legislature to tinker with the Con- 
 stitution at every session, and such would be the result, as all 
 of you must know who have been in the legislature, if these 
 amendments are adopted. 
 
 Now what harm has been done under the present method 
 of amending the Constitution? The only suggestion I have 
 heard made against the present method is that it costs some- 
 thing, and that every time a proposition is made to amend the 
 Constitution it costs the state twenty-five or thirty thousand 
 dollars to do it. As has been suggested', do you suppose if this 
 power to make amendments, or to suggest amendments, was 
 put into the hand's of the legislature you would save any 
 money by that? Every man who had a grievance would come 
 to the legislature with the idea that his sovereign remedy was 
 to amend the Constitution, and the legislature would be 
 flooded with propositions of that nature. For one, I hold the 
 Constitution of New Hampshire in too much veneration to 
 subject it to any such process as that. 
 
 I say another thing and I do not mean to speak dispar- 
 agingly of the legislature of New Hampshire but I submit 
 to you that the men as a rule who constitute a constitutional 
 convention are an abler set of men than those who come to 
 the legislature, and in a convention we get the benefit of their 
 wisdom. And so I say for that reason, if for no other, it is 
 better to leave the matter as it is. 
 
 It has been said that in previous conventions very many 
 recommendations were made which were not adopted by the 
 people. Is there any guarantee that a recommendation made 
 
638 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 by the legislature would be received with any greater favor? 
 Is it to be said that these recommendations would be more 
 liable to be adopted by the people if they came from a political 
 body like the legislature, the members of which represent 
 largely the political parties of the state, and that measures 
 would be rejected that came from a convention like this where 
 a great many of the members come representing both the Re- 
 publican and Democratic party, and there is no political bias. 
 I believe that every member of this Convention, and of any 
 other convention, thoroughly believes that we are here to 
 make recommendations, not in the interest of any part}', but 
 in the interest of the whole people. That will not always be 
 so in the legislature. 
 
 For these reasons and many others which might be sug- 
 gested, I hope the recommendation of the committee will be 
 adopted. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the resolution reported 
 by the committee be adopted ?" Mr. Chandler of Concord 
 called for the yeas and nays, nine other gentlemen concurring. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the affirmative: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Sanborn of Auburn, Flanders of 
 Brentwood, Eaton, Knowles, Kimball of Danville, Kelsey of 
 Deerfield, Abbott of Derry, Eastman, Follansby, Wetherell, 
 Leddy, Hooke, Frink, Sanborn of Hampstead, Towle, Weare, 
 Chase of Kingston, Pollard, deRochemont, Buiiey, Walker 'of 
 Newmarket, Gate, Kelsey of Nottingham, Peaslee, Emery, S. 
 W., Howard, Norris, Paul, Ham, Cullen, Heale}^, Locke of 
 Seabrook, Wingate, Clark of Windham. 
 
 STRAFFOKD COUNTY. Morrison of Dover, Roberts, Hanson 
 of Dover, Neally, Morang, Folsom, Nute of Dover, Nutter of 
 Farmington, Webb, Gerrish, Moore, Chamberlain, Nute of 
 Rochester, Furbush, Meader, Gelinas, Cochrane, Gunnison, 
 Nutter of Rollinsford, Libby, Locke of Somersworth, Leary, 
 Roy, Morin, Hall of Strafford. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBEK 17, 1902. 639 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Clark of Center Harbor, Morrill of 
 Gilford, Cogswell, Jewett, Lewis, Smith of Meredith, Smith of 
 New Hampton. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Hideout, Colman, Spencer, Hobson, 
 Gibson, Morrill of Conway, Dearborn of Eaton, Harmon, Mer- 
 row, Murch, Meserve, Gilman, Brown of Ossipee, Page of 
 Tamworth, Morrison of Tuftonborough, Sanborn of Wake- 
 field, Clow, Hersey. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Stone of Andover, Buxton, French 
 of Bradford, Sanborn of Chichester, Dudley of Concord, 
 Foote, Virgin, Hollis, Mitchell of Concord, Foster, Kimball of 
 Concord, Howe, Casey, Jordan, Ford 1 of Danbury, Caldwell, 
 Dolbeer, Blodgett of Franklin, Sanborn of Franklin, Stone of 
 Franklin, Leach, Towne, Wilkins, Wilson of Hill, Putnam, 
 Messer, Wyatt, Truesdell, Green of Pittsfield, Sawyer of Salis- 
 bury, Lang. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Hubbard, Kimball of Benning- 
 ton, Fessenden, Whitaker of Deering, Downs, Colby, Paige of 
 Goffstown, Peavy, Bacon, Fogg, Smith of Hillsborough, Hoi- 
 man, Powers of Hollis, Marsh, Tarbell, Wilkinson, Green of 
 Manchester, Dodge of Manchester, Boutwell, Jones, Robin- 
 son, Tremblay, Lord, Gilmore, Farrington, Harvey, Hill, Pre- 
 court, Starr, Horan, Glancjv Sullivan, Griffin, Jennings, 
 Irwin, McAllister, Quirin Joseph, Allen, Clement of Man- 
 chester, Littlefield, Powers of Manchester, McElroy, Greager, 
 Richer, Provost, Quirin Eugene, Hall of Manchester, Trinity, 
 Gordon, Knight, Rotch, Worcester, Raymond, Hamblett, 
 Spring, Clough of Nashua, Harriman, Flood, Parker of 
 Nashua, Wason, Woodbury of Nashua, Proctor, Runnells, 
 Shedd, Flather, Earley, Slattery, Dodge of New Boston, 
 Blanchard:, Seavey, Morrison of Peterborough, Scott, Rich- 
 ardson, Simons, Bales. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Cooke, Learned, Blake, Collins of 
 Gilsum, Poole, Hall of Keene, Newell, Woodward, Madden, 
 Craig of Marlow, Osgood, Cass, Emory, Buckminster, Mc- 
 Clure, Rugg, Day, Spaulding, Kiniry, Goodnow, Davis. 
 
640 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Brooks, Stockwell, Kossiter, Colby, 
 Fairbanks, Ide, Hanson of Goshen, Burpee, Holmes, Bradley, 
 Bartlett, Newton. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Dearborn of Ashland, Carbee, Parker 
 of Benton, Chase of Bristol, Ashley, Young of Easton, A very, 
 Cumings, Dresser, Parker of Franconia, Walker of Grafton, 
 Kidder, Ward, Pike of Haverhill, Jewell of Hebron, Flanders, 
 Glazier, Drake, Dewey, Hibbard, Woolson, Green of Littleton, 
 Morse, Melvin, Warden, French of Orange, Lamprey of Or- 
 ford, Ford of Piermont, Craig of Eumney, Green of Water- 
 ville, Shute, Woodbury of Woodstock. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Moffett, Rich, Daley, Boudreau, Murray y 
 Miles, Johnson, Titus, Wright of Dummer, Evans, Crawford, 
 Kent, Phipps, Perkins, McKellips, Blanchard, Philbrook, 
 Pike of Stark, Hinman, Aldrich of Whitefield, Dodge of 
 Whitefield. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the negative. 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Fuller, Evans, Cole, Wheeler, 
 Jewell of South Hampton. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Edgerly. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Demeritt, Pulsifer of Laconia, Gorrell, 
 Busiel, Knox, Rogers, Fellows. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Mckerson. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Blodgett of Allenstown, Baker, 
 Frame, Lyford, Mies, Walker of Concord, Whittier, Lamprey 
 of Concord, Ingalls, Chandler, Wyatt, Thompson of Warner. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Clyde, Briggs, Cross, Little, 
 Guerin, Boivin, Ledoux, Desmarais. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Buckley, Annett. 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Tenney, Penniman. 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Sloane, Morris, Russell. 
 
 And 276 gentlemen having voted in the affirmative and 41 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 641 
 
 gentlemen having voted in the negative, the resolution re- 
 ported by the committee, that it is inexpedient to adopt the 
 proposed amendments, prevailed. 
 
 The Committee on the Legislative Department submitted 
 the following reports: 
 
 The Committee on Legislative Department, to whom was 
 referred the several proposed amendments to articles nine 
 and ten, of part second of the Constitution, relating to rep- 
 resentation in the house of representatives, having consid- 
 ered the same, the undersigned members of the committee 
 recommend the amendment of said articles nine and ten of 
 part second of the Constitution, embodied in the resolution 
 herewith respectfully submitted. 
 
 Your committee, in the discharge of the difficult and re- 
 sponsible duties committed to them, in the effort to reach a 
 basis that would meet the approbation of the Convention, and 
 such as if adopted by the Convention would ultimately meet 
 the approval of the people when submitted to them, have care- 
 fully considered, (1) the merits, respectively, of the various 
 proposed amendments, (2) the recommendation of the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, as indicated by their several votes, (3) 
 the imperative demand for some reasonable reduction in the 
 membership of the house, and (4) what proposed revision of 
 the Constitution, upon this subject would, probably, be ap- 
 proved by the qualified voters of the state, when the same 
 shall be laid before the towns and wards for action thereon. 
 And, considering those various elements, the undersigned 
 members of the committee have been brought to the conclu- 
 sion that the revision proposed and embodied in the resolu- 
 tion herewith submitted, is the most equitable and practicable 
 amendment attainable, under existing circumstances and con- 
 ditions. 
 
 The adoption and execution of this method of revision will 
 secure a substantial reduction in the membership of the house 
 of representatives. This basis applied to the population of 
 41 
 
642 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tke state, as shown by the last United States census, will, re- 
 duce the membership of the house of representatives to 313> 
 
 A revision, in accordance with the proposed amendment, 
 recognizes and adopts the ratio and proportion which was es- 
 tablished by the founders of the Constitution in 1784, and 
 since adhered to by the various conventions and the people. 
 Any proposed revision, involving a departure from this ratio 
 of the town system the basis recognized as equitable by the 
 framers of the Constitution would be, in our judgment, re- 
 jected by the voters of the state. A substitution of any other 
 proportion, or ratio, in determining representation would, it 
 is apparent, disturb the existing relations of the people of the 
 different towns and wards to the state government, through 
 their representation in the house of representatives. 
 
 To the action of the Committee of tjie Whole, indicating 
 600 as the basis for the first representative, we have given 
 special attention. If this basis is adhered to, its effect will be 
 to require, approximately, 3,000 as the mean increasing num- 
 ber, thus requiring about 3,600 population for two representa- 
 tives. Such a result would not only require the reduction in 
 the membership of the house of representatives to be made 
 wholly from the larger towns and cities, the towns of 600 pop- 
 ulation, and under, retaining their present number, but it 
 would, also, result in diminishing the voting power of the re- 
 maining members of the larger towns and cities, and corre- 
 spondingly increasing the voting power of the smaller towns, 
 whose representation would, in no degree, be diminished, or 
 disturbed, by such decreased representation in the house, 
 upon this basis. 
 
 While this vote of the Committee of the Whole is entitled 
 to consideration, and has received such, it will be recalled by 
 the members of the Convention that it was distinctly stated, 
 by the chairman of the committee, at the time this and other 
 votes of a like character were taken, that it was a mere recom- 
 mendation, having no binding force or authority upon your 
 special committee, to whom the matter was referred for spe- 
 cial consideration. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 643 
 
 We suggest, also, that in the consideration of the recom- 
 mendations of the Committee of the Whole, the fact devel- 
 oped that some, at least, of the members who had voted for 
 the reduction of the house, on the basis of 600 inhabitants for 
 the first representative, subsequently thereto, upon reflection, 
 discovered that such an amendment to the Constitution could 
 not possibly be ratified by the people, as it took the entire re- 
 duction from the cities and towns, from whence the larger 
 part of the votes must come to secure its adoption; and such 
 members suggested to members of this committee, the use- 
 lessness of a recommendation in which the basis of 600 would 
 be adhered to. Therefore, in our judgment, to secure the ob- 
 jecf for which the Convention was brought into existence a 
 material reduction in the membership of the house of repre- 
 sentatives the most reasonable and practicable method of 
 attaining that end, is the method proposed in the resolution 
 herewith submitted, unless there should be submitted some 
 new basis which would be a more or less radical departure 
 from the existing system. 
 
 As you will observe, we recommend, also, the adoption of a 
 provision, whereby towns or wards, having less than 800 pop- 
 ulation, may be authorized to unite, for the purpose of send- 
 ing a representative, providing such towns or wards so vote 
 at meetings held for that purpose. 
 
 This will accord towns and wards lacking the requisite pop- 
 ulation for one representative, the privilege of joining with 
 ethers, and thus secure representation all the time; or, if they 
 so decide, they may have their representation by themselves, 
 a proportionate part of the time. This recognizes and author- 
 izes the right of the people of such towns and wards volun- 
 tarily to unite; but it does not compel them to do so. 
 
 This plan of permitting towns to unite to secure contin- 
 uous representation, is a radical departure from the method 
 of classification of towns adopted by the Convention of 1876, 
 and abolished by the Convention of 1889. The old plan of 
 classification was obligatory, and compelled voters to cast 
 their ballots in alternate years outside of their customary 
 
644 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL, CONVENTION. 
 
 polling places. The method proposed is optional with the 
 towns and allows the voter to cast his ballot in his own town. 
 The plan of revision, proposed in the resolution herewith 
 submitted, being, as before suggested, the most reasonable, 
 and, probably, the only one attainable, under existing condi- 
 tions and circumstances, we respectfully and earnestly recom- 
 mend its adoption by the Convention. 
 
 DAVID CROSS, 
 JOHN W. SANBORN, 
 JAMES 0. LYFORD, 
 JOHN M. MITCHELL, 
 1 ALFRED F. HOWARD, 
 STEPHEN S. JEWETT, 
 EDMUND E. TRUESDELL, 
 JOSEPH QUIRIN, 
 W. B. RICHARDSON, 
 WILBUR F. PARKER, 
 CHARLES E. PHILBROOK, 
 LOUIS M. LAPLANTE. 
 
 The undersigned believe that the only equitable method of 
 representation is that secured by the district system, but as 
 the Convention in Committee of the Whole has voted to 
 adhere to the town system they subscribe to the foregoing 
 report as containing the only ratio upon which the town sys- 
 tem should be preserved. 
 
 JAMES 0. LYFORD, 
 STEPHEN S. JEWETT, 
 ALFRED F. HOWARD, 
 DAVID CROSS, 
 JOSEPH QUIRIN, 
 EDMUND E. TRUESDELL, 
 CHARLES E. PHILBROOK, 
 LOUIS M. LAPLANTE. 
 
 Amendment proposed 
 
 "Resolved, That articles nine and ten, of part second of the 
 Constitution, be amended, by striking out the word 'six/ and 
 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 645 
 
 inserting instead thereof the word 'eight;' and by striking out 
 the word 'eighteen/ and inserting thereof the word 'twenty- 
 four/ and by striking out the word 'twelve/ and inserting in- 
 stead thereof the word 'sixteen/ and by adding to section ten, 
 the following: Provided) that the legislature may authorize 
 contiguous towns, or contiguous towns and wards, having, re- 
 spectively, less than 800 inhabitants, but whose inhabitants 
 in the aggregate equal or exceed 800, to unite for the purpose 
 of electing a representative, if each town so decides by major 
 vote, at a meeting called for the purpose; and the votes of 
 towns, thus united, shall be cast, counted, returned, and de- 
 clared, as votes for senators are cast, counted, returned, and! 
 declared; and! the governor shall, fourteen days before the 
 first Wednesday of each biennial session of the legislature, 
 issue his summons to such persons as appear to be chosen rep- 
 resentatives, by a plurality of votes, to attend and take their 
 seats on that day; so that said sections, as amended, shall read 
 as follows: 
 
 "ARTICLE 9. There shall be, in the legislature of this 
 state, a representation of the people, biennially elected, and 
 founded upon principles of equality, and, in order that such 
 representation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, 
 every town, or place entitled to town privileges, and wards 
 of cities, having 800 inhabitants by the last general census of 
 the state, taken by authority of the United States or of this 
 state, may elect one representaive; if 2,400 such inhabitants, 
 may elect two representatives; and so proceeding in that pro- 
 portion, making 1,600 such inhabitants the mean increasing 
 number for any additional representative: provided, that no 
 town shall be divided or the boundaries of the wards of any 
 city so altered as to increase the number of representatives to 
 which such town or city may be entitled by the next preced- 
 ing census; and provided further, that, to those towns and 
 cities which since the last census have been divided or had 
 their boundaries or ward lines changed, the general court in 
 session next before these amendments shall take effect shall 
 equitably apportion representation in such manner that the 
 
646 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 number shall not be greater than it would have been had no 
 such division or alteration been made. 
 
 "ARTICLE 10. Whenever any town, place, or city ward 
 shall have less than 800 such inhabitants, the general court 
 shall authorize such town, place or ward, to elect and send to 
 the general court a representative such proportionate part of 
 the time, in each period of ten years, as the number of its in- 
 habitants shall bear to 800; but the general court shall not 
 authorize any such town, place, or ward to elect and send such 
 representative, except as herein provided; provided, that the 
 legislature may authorize contiguous towns, or contiguous 
 towns and wards, having, respectively, less than 800 inhabi- 
 tants, but whose inhabitants in the aggregate equal or exceed 
 800, to unite for the purpose of electing a representative, if 
 each town so decides by major vote, at a meeting called for 
 the purpose; and the votes of towns, thus united, shall be 
 cast, counted, returned, and declared), as the votes for sena- 
 tors are cast, counted, returned, and declared; and the gov- 
 ernor shall, fourteen days before the first Wednesday of each 
 biennial session of the legislature, issue his summons to such 
 persons as appear to be chosen representatives, by a plurality 
 of votes, to attend and take their seats on that day." 
 
 The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Legisla- 
 tive Department, who have had under consideration the ques- 
 tion of representation in the house of representatives, cannot 
 agree with the majority, and, therefore, submit the accom- 
 panying amendment and recommend its adoption. They are 
 not prepared now to submit a report in detail and ask leave to 
 file such report this afternoon. 
 
 ELMER E. WOODBURY, 
 GEORGE E. COCHRANE, 
 GEORGE S. PEAVEY, 
 HORACE K COLBATH, 
 ABRAHAM M. MITCHELL, 
 DANIEL W. RUGG. 
 HERBERT 0. HADLEY, 
 JAMES M. HEALEY. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 64T 
 
 A minority of the Committee on Legislative Department, 
 to whom was referred all resolutions concerning article nine, 
 part second of the Constitution, relating to the composition 
 of the general court, having considered the same, report the 
 same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That part second, article nine, of the Constitu- 
 tion, be amended by striking out the words 'eighteen hun- 
 dred/ in the eighth line of said article, and inserting in place 
 thereof the words 'twenty-four hundred/ and by striking out 
 the words 'twelve hundred,' in the tenth line of said section, 
 and inserting in place thereof the words 'eighteen hundred/ 
 so that said section as amended shall read: 
 
 "ARTICLE 9. There shall be, in the legislature of this 
 state, a representation of the people, biennially elected, and 
 founded upon principles of equality, and, in order that such 
 representation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, 
 every town, or place entitled to town privileges, and wards 
 of cities having 600 inhabitants by the last general census of 
 the state, taken by authority of the United States or of this 
 state, may elect one representative; if 2,400 such inhabitants, 
 may elect two representatives; and so proceeding in that 
 proportion, making 1,800 such inhabitants the mean increas- 
 ing number for any additional representative; provided, that 
 no town shall be divided or the boundaries of the wards of 
 any city so altered as to increase the number of representa- 
 tives to which such town or city may be entitled by the next 
 preceding census; and provided further, that, to those towns 
 and cities which since the last census have been divided or 
 had their boundaries or ward lines changed, the general court 
 in session next before these amendments shall take effect 
 shall equitably apportion representation in such a manner 
 that the number shall not be greater than it would have been 
 had no such division or alteration been made." 
 
 The Committee on Legislative Department, to whom was 
 Tef erred the several proposed amendments to articles nine and 
 
648 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ten of part second of the Constitution, relating to representa- 
 tion in the house of representatives, having considered the 
 same, the undersigned members of the committee, recom- 
 mend the amendments of said article nine, of part second of 
 the Constitution, embodied in the foregoing resolution here- 
 with respectfully submitted. Your committee, in the discharge 
 of the difficult and responsible duties committed to them, in 
 the effort to reach a basis that would meet the approbation of 
 the Convention^ and such as, if adopted by the Convention, 
 would ultimately meet the approval of the people when sub- 
 mitted to them, have carefully considered, (1) the merits re- 
 spectively of the various proposed amendments, (2) the recom- 
 mendations of the Committee of the Whole, as indicated by 
 their several votes, (3) the imperative demand for some rea- 
 sonable reduction in the membership of the house, (4) what 
 proposed revision of the Constitution, upon this subject, 
 would probably be approved by the qualified voters of the 
 state, when the same shall be laid before the towns and wards 
 for action thereon, and considering those various elements, 
 your committee have been brought to the conclusion that the 
 revision proposed and embodied in the resolution herewith 
 submitted is the most equitable and practicable attainable, 
 under existing circumstances and conditions. 
 
 The adoption and execution of this method of revision will 
 secure a substantial reduction in the membership of the 
 house of representatives. This basis applied to the popula- 
 tion of the state, as shown by the last United States census, 
 will reduce the membership of the house of representatives 
 to 325. 
 
 Your committee are decidedly of the opinion that the ratio 
 of three to one, established by the founders of the Constitu- 
 tion, and eulogized by the majority report on these measures, 
 has no charm, and that the circumstances of the conditions 
 we are attempting to relieve should, within reasonable 
 bounds, continue this ratio. They do not feel there is the 
 slightest occasion for any apprehension, that the changes re- 
 sulting from a different ratio in reperesentaticn, will so "dis- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 649 
 
 turb the existing relations of the people of the different 
 towns and wards to the state government/' as to warrant any 
 opposition to the proposed resolution. 
 
 In fixing on the 600 unit of population as the basis of '.he 
 first representative we have strictly adihered to the majority 
 vote of the Committee of the Whole. While we regard the 
 votes of said committee as merely declaratory, still we have 
 felt that so far as is practicable, the declarations of said com- 
 mittee should be closely regarded. If the vote of the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, limiting the size of the house to between 
 280 and 300 members, and also its vote for the 600 popula- 
 tion as a basis for first representative be strictly followed, it 
 would make 2,600 population the number required for the 
 mean increase for all successive representatives. This mean 
 appeared to us manifestly too large, and demanded a greater 
 sacrifice on the part of the larger towns than the exigency of 
 the occasion required. Therefore, your committee felt justi- 
 fied in departing so far from the recommendation of the 
 Committee of the Whole, as would reduce the sacrifice of the 
 larger towns to reasonable proportions. As the accompany- 
 ing report indicates your committee have fixed the increasing 
 mean at 1,800 population. It has impressed itself firmly 
 upon your committee that if any amendment to said article 
 nine would be adopted by this Convention and go to the peo- 
 ple with any hope of ratification by them, it must conform 
 as nearly as possible to the existing system of representation; 
 that the demand for a smaller house than the present is not 
 so strong as to warrant any great reduction; that the contri- 
 bution to any reduction should be made by those towns which 
 will feel least the loss of representatives, and that the state 
 should not take any further steps in the un-American policy 
 of disfranchising towns. 
 
 The Committee of the Whole has, by a large majority, de- 
 clared against the district system, and it does not seem fair 
 to your committee to present to 111 towns the option of hunt- 
 ing up an agreeable partner for a district system, or of being 
 disfranchised one third of the time. 
 
650 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 We respectfully and earnestly recommend the adoption of 
 the resolution herewith submitted. 
 
 ELMER E. WOODBURY, 
 GEORGE E. COCHRANE, ' 
 GEORGE S. PEAVEY, 
 HORACE N. COLBATH, 
 ABRAHAM M. MITCHELL,, 
 DANIEL W. RUGG, 
 HERBERT 0. HADLEY, 
 JAMES M. HEALEY. 
 
 The reports were accepted. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough moved that the minority report 
 be substituted for that of the majority, the motion to lie over 
 until after a resolution submitted by Mr. Lyford of Concord. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, that the reports of the Committee on Legislative 
 Department, relative to representation in the house of repre- 
 sentatives be made the special order for to-morrow at 2 
 o'clock and that the rules be so far suspended that this order 
 take precedence of all other business and that the vote on the 
 reports and accompanying resolutions be taken not later than 
 4 o'clock to-morrow afternoon." 
 
 Upon a viva voce vote the resolution presented by Mr. Ly- 
 ford of Concord was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Lyford, the majority and minority re- 
 ports were ordered printed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Jones of Manchester, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 AFTERNOON. 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER, 17, 1902. 651 
 
 Mr. Buxton of Boscawen offered the following resolution, 
 which was adopted: 
 
 "Resolved, That a committee of five he appointed to con- 
 sider the expediency of publishing a report of the proceedings 
 of the Convention verbatim, or in an abbreviated form, and, 
 if deemed expedient, to recommend a plan for the publication 
 and distribution of such reports." 
 
 The special order assigned for 2 o'clock, the resolution of 
 Mr. Niles of Concord, relative to the supreme and superior 
 courts, together with the recommendation of the committee 
 that the same ought to be adopted, was taken from the table. 
 
 Question, Upon the adoption of the recommendation of the 
 committee. 
 
 Mr. Little of Manchester I expected that the gentleman 
 from Franklin would be here at this time and have some- 
 thing to say in behalf of the report of the committee, but he 
 is somewhat ill to-day and unable to be present, and as a 
 member of the committee, I wish to say a few words in behalf 
 of the report. I assure you, gentlemen, that I will detain you 
 only a few minutes. 
 
 As a preface to my remarks, I will read two or three para- 
 graphs from an address prepared by the Hon. A. S. Batchel- 
 lor of Littleton, and read at the last annual meeting of the 
 New Hampshire Bar association. Mr. Batchellor says: 
 
 "It is to-day a proposition seldom, if ever, questioned that 
 the provisions of the Constitution relative to the removal of 
 judges from the supreme and superior courts by legislative 
 address, except for insanity, permanent physical disability, or 
 conviction of crime by due process of law, is unwise in theory 
 and mischievous in operation. 
 
 "It is also apparently a well-settled conviction with the 
 people of this state, that the assumption that changes in the 
 judiciary acts under which the powers and constituents of 
 the courts are defined, and 1 the methods of performing their 
 
652 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 duties prescribed, may be employed in any way or by any 
 contrivance, so as to deprive the judges of the supreme or 
 superior court of their offices without regular proceedings for 
 impeachment or by address strictly limited to cases of in- 
 sanity, permanent physical disability, or conviction of crime 
 by due process of law, is an unsound and unjustifiable theory 
 of constitutional construction/"' 
 
 He further adds 
 
 "The conviction has become practically settled among the 
 people, viewing this subject from every standpoint in the 
 light both of reason and experience, that the practice of 
 breaking in upon the tenure of office of the judges of the 
 higher courts within the constitutional period, continuing 
 during good behavior and up to the constitutional limit of 
 seventy years, and imposing upon them a tenure of judicial 
 office to continue only during the pleasure of the legislature, 
 should not only be discontinued in practice, but should be 
 prohibited by adequate amendments of the Constitution." 
 
 Mr. Batchellor, who is one of our able and scholarly men, 
 has given this subject much thought, and I wish that every 
 member 'of this Convention could have the privilege of read- 
 ing his address. It seems to me that his argument is sound 
 and unanswerable. 
 
 Our national supreme court is a permanent court. The 
 judges composing that court cannot be removed by legislative 
 action, except for malpractice and maladministration in office 
 or by address on the ground of mental or physical disability 
 to perform the duties of their office. Washington said, "The 
 main pillar of our system of government is our supreme 
 court," referring particularly to its permanency. It has 
 served to perpetuate our government, and has often delivered 
 us from impending crises. Every student of history knows 
 that the principal act of John Adams while president was the 
 appointment of John Marshall as chief justice of the supreme 
 court. It is also well known that after Jefferson became pres- 
 ident, the decisions of that court from a political point of 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 653 
 
 view did not please the party in power and the members of 
 that party were, anxious to remove Chief Justice Marshall and 
 his associates from their positions. It was not within the 
 power of Jefferson and his followers to remove those justices 
 and the people of this country ought to be thankful that such 
 was the case. The decisions rendered by that able court, in 
 those early days, did much to rescue our government from 
 impending disasters. 
 
 Every argument which applies to the permanency of our 
 national court, also applies to the permanency of our state 
 court. During the long period of 114 years under provincial 
 and state governments no attempt was made to remove one of 
 our judges by legislative address. In 1855, the American, or 
 Know-Nothing party came into power, and for political rea- 
 sons removed the judges of our supreme court. The same 
 thing was done by the Democrats in 1874, and again by the 
 Republicans in 1876. I do not believe there is a member of 
 this Convention, who has given the matter any consideration, 
 who does not now regret that such a course was taken. If 
 there is any one thing made prominent in our Constitution it 
 i> that the three departments of our government, the legisla- 
 tive, the executive, and the judicial, should be kept as separate 
 from, and independent of, each other as the nature of a free 
 government will admit. For this reason it does not seem to 
 me that we should allow our legislative department, for polit- 
 ical reasons, to remove the judges of our highest court. 
 
 It has been said by some of the speakers here that we are 
 seeking to abridge the rights of the people. It is our purpose 
 to place our supreme court in a position where its members 
 cannot be deposed whenever the legislature takes such a whim 
 or fancy. In our opinion the results will then be more satis- 
 factory to the people. We are planning to give them more t effi- 
 cient service. It is a well-known fact that there are occasion- 
 ally times when large numbers of the people, from political 
 excitement or other causes, lose their bearings, and at such 
 times it is highly important that we have one department of 
 our state government that remains intact, firm, and unswerv- 
 ing. 
 
654 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 At the last election the Democratic party incorporated the 
 following plank in its platform: 
 
 "We demand! the enactment of a constitutional amendment 
 which shall place our courts upon a permanent basis, secure 
 from attacks from any source, and independent of the legis- 
 lative branch of the state government/' 
 
 A similar article was made a part of the platform of the 
 Eepublican party, adopted September 17, 1902, as follows: 
 
 "We favor such amendment of the state Constitution as 
 will make the tenure of office of the judges of the present 
 supreme and superior courts as secure, with the exception of 
 the age limit, as that of the judges of the supreme court of 
 the United States." 
 
 I was somewhat surprised yesterday when prominent men 
 who had voted in favor of the platforms of their respective 
 parties at the state conventions arose here and said they 
 cllid not believe in that doctrine. I do not understand 3iow 
 men could go into those conventions and vote as they did, 
 and then come here and say that they do not believe our 
 supreme court should be made a permanent court. They 
 must have experienced a sudden conversion. 
 
 This subject was brought before the Bar association of our 
 state at one of its largest meetings and, I am informed, was 
 approved by a unanimous vote. I know there has been a 
 tendency on the part of some members of this Convention to 
 belittle the legal profession. During a discussion here a few 
 days since one member referred to the "Iaw3 r ers ? trust." He 
 is a lawyer himself, and I suppose he referred to this trust 
 because he is not in on the ground floor. I do not think any 
 one will deny that the bar of the state of New Hampshire has 
 among its members many able and representative men. It 
 certainly has men who have given this question much consid- 
 eration, and it seems to me that their opinions expressed in 
 resolutions adopted at their meeting should have some weight 
 with Ws Convention. 
 
 I trust, gentlemen, that the report of the committee will 
 be adopted, and that a start, a least, will be made here toward 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 655 
 
 placing the supreme court of our state upon a permanent 
 basis. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord The Convention will readily appre- 
 ciate that it is impossible in ten minutes to give this question 
 any such consideration as it deserves. I had not prepared an 
 argument at all, assuming that it would not be considered 
 here a debatable question, and I did not, until yesterday after- 
 noon, know that there would be the slightest opposition to it. 
 I was obliged in a short time, and not anticipating the adop- 
 tion of this rule limiting debate, to endeavor to get together 
 some slight material for an argument. I shall be obliged to 
 abandon such argument as I had and try to pick out the 
 essential points of this matter. 
 
 I want to read again, for the purpose of emphasis upon cer- 
 tain words, the platform of the two parties upon which we 
 were elected. The platform of the Democratic party was as 
 follows: 
 
 "We demand the enactment of a constitutional amendment 
 which shall place our courts upon a permanent basis, secure 
 from attacks from any source, and independent of the legis- 
 lative branch of the state government," 
 
 And the platform of the Eepublican party is as follows: 
 
 "We favor such amendment of the state Constitution as will 
 make the tenure of office of the judges of the present supreme 
 and superior courts as secure, with the exception of the age 
 limit, as that of the judges of the supreme court of the United 
 States." 
 
 Now the effect of these declarations upon our. standing 
 here, and upon our duties here, is undoubtedly an open ques- 
 tion, but I think the fact that they were incorporated in the 
 platforms of both parties, and that they were before the peo- 
 ple when we were elected to this Convention, and considering 
 that such a proposition regarding a constitutional convention 
 is an extraordinary thing in the platforms of a party, which 
 generally relate only to legislation I think that the attention 
 of the people was called to this matter in an unusual way, and 
 
656 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 they undoubtedly thought, as many of them at least as ga\ 7 e 
 attention to the platforms, that such an amendment would be 
 adopted by this Convention. I think they have a right to ex- 
 pect that we would recommend such an amendment. 
 
 Now, one of these platforms announced the proposition 
 that the judicial office should be "as secure, with the exception 
 of the age limit, as that of the judges of the supreme court of 
 the United States." The proposition has been announced 
 here that the position of the judges of the supreme court of 
 the United States is not secure. I believe it is an established 
 fact that the supreme court of the United States rests upon 
 the Constitution, and it is impossible to modify it and change 
 it in any way by legislation. Congress has the power under 
 the Constitution of the United States, which ought to be read 
 here, to found inferior courts, but when they are founded and 
 established a provision of the Constitution says that not only 
 the judges of the supreme court, but also those of the inferior 
 courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, subject 
 only to removal by impeachment for misconduct. The in- 
 violability of the supreme court of the United States has not 
 been adjudicated or decided, and the proposition that they 
 are inviolable has not been raised, because no one has doubted 
 it, and the principle of inviolability has been lived up to by 
 Washington himself, and by Jefferson, who had the strongest 
 motives for overturning the supreme court, and who would 
 have overturned it if he could; but the understanding not 
 only of the administrations, but of the people at large, has 
 been that the supreme court of the United States is inviolable, 
 as it must be to be absolutely independent. 
 
 I have to jump from one thing to another on account of the 
 limited time before me. Let me read what our Constitution 
 says in article thirty-five of the Bill of Rights: 
 
 "It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every 
 individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there 
 be an impartial interpretation of the laws and administration 
 of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges 
 as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit. It is, there- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 657 
 
 fore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the 
 rights of the people, that the judges of the supreme judicial 
 court should hold their offices so long as tKey behave well, 
 subject, however, to such limitations on account of age as 
 may be provided by the Constitution of the state, and that 
 they should have honorable salaries, ascertained and estab- 
 lished by standing laws." 
 
 It was for the security of the people, not for the security of 
 the courts, or in favor of any classes, but for the S2curity of 
 the people that the members of the supreme couit, being once 
 appointed, should know that they will hold their offices to 
 which they have been appointed, and that that office shall 
 continue to exist and they shall continue to occupy it until the 
 term for which they have been appointed shall have expired 
 by the age limitation. 
 
 Webster laid that down in an argument before a Constitu- 
 tional Convention in Massachusetts in 1820, where a resolu- 
 tion was introduced prohibiting the removal of the judges by 
 address, because it was feared that removal by address would 
 be used for political purposes. Webster says: 
 
 "As the Constitution now stands, all judges are liable to be 
 removed from office by the governor, with the consent of the 
 council, on the address of the two houses of the legislature. 
 It is not made necessary that the two houses should give any 
 reasons for their address, or that the judge should have an op- 
 portunity to be heard. I look upon this as against common 
 right, as well as repugnant to the general principles of the 
 government." 
 
 I need not go over the provisions of our Constitution in 
 regard to the appointment of our judges. All know that the 
 Constitution now provides that the judges shall be appointed 
 by the governor and council, and shall hold office during good 
 behavior, and until their removal by impeachment for miscon- 
 duct, or by address. It has been held in Massachusetts that 
 whenever the legislature asks the governor to remove any 
 judge from any court it can be done without giving any rea- 
 son therefor; and that is a feature in our own Constitution 
 42 
 
658 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 that we are attempting to remedy by this proposed amend- 
 ment. 
 
 During the history of the courts in this state, there have 
 been five overturnlngs. Five, times the legislature has taken 
 upon itself the duty if you call it a duty of enacting laws 
 changing the courts, simply for the purpose of disposing of 
 the judges of the courts, or certain of them. Thus, by indi- 
 rection, they accomplished what it is plain the Constitution 
 intended should not be accomplished, and their acts have ren- 
 dered the tenure of the office of our judges insecure, although 
 it is in direct violation of the Constitution. There is no power 
 that can prevent it, because the court that comes in under the 
 new act is, of course, so prejudiced that it cannot sit, and if it 
 did sit its decisions would be of no value, and the old court 
 cannot Bit, having been ousted by the act of the legislature, 
 and so by force the legislature has rendered null and void the 
 Constitution of this state. 
 
 You cannot read the address of Mr. A. S. Batchellor to the 
 Bar Association of New Hampshire, as president of that asso- 
 ciation, and who is our state historian, without coming to the 
 conclusion that it was the purpose of our Constitution that 
 the courts of New Hampshire should be beyond the reach of 
 the legislature, and that the legislature could n.ot depose them 
 by direction or indirection, except for misconduct, for which 
 they might be impeached; but the legislature has nullified 
 that, and, as I have already said, five times they have over- 
 turned our courtis, and every time for political reasons. This 
 should be remedied, and it is the purpose of this amendment 
 to remedy it. 
 
 Mr. Harriman of Nashua Mr. President and Gentlemen : I 
 care nothing for any platform, so far as this issue is con- 
 cerned, that has been laid down by the Eepublican party. I 
 care nothing, Mr. President, so far as this measure is con- 
 cerned, for any platform that has been laid down by the Dem- 
 ocratic party, or any other party. So far as I am concerned 
 upon this measure, I am confronted with the circumstances 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 659 
 
 that exist at the present time in this Constitutional Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 A distinguished delegate from the city of Manchester has 
 said that the judiciary system, the courts, is the bed rock of a 
 republican form of government. I say, Mr. President, that 
 the bed rock of a republican form of government is the will 
 of the people. 
 
 Only a few years ago a dual court system was established. 
 That dual court system was unsatisfactory to a large portion 
 of the people of this state, and unsatisfactory to a large num- 
 ber of the members of the bar. Then the power that still re- 
 mains with the people was evoked and the court was changed, 
 and that system of courts which was unsatisfactory was over- 
 turned. At the last session of the legislature of this state, a 
 dual court system was again established, and that dual court 
 system is still on trial. It may be satisfactory to the people, 
 and it may be unsatisfactory to the people; but if this meas- 
 ure is adopted here and ratified by the people of this state, 
 then there is no remedy, however unsatisfactory the present 
 dual system may be. 
 
 I am somewhat shocked, as great men say, in these times, 
 when great men die, that for the first time in the history of 
 New Hampshire, <as I understand it, a measure is brought 
 forth here and now to make the courts of this state perma- 
 nent. It seems to me, Mr. President, this is not just the time 
 to do it. An older man than myself, a distinguished mem- 
 ber of the bar of this state and of this Convention, appeared 
 before the legislature of New Hampshire two years ago and 
 strenuously opposed the measure that established the present 
 dual system. There was much opposition to the bill and it 
 created quite a disturbance. 
 
 Now, then, if the dual system should be satisfactory, it will 
 be retained, but if it should turn out to be unsatisfactory to 
 the people of the state of New Hampshire, then I want that 
 power left with the people which again can be made effective 
 to change an unsatisfactory condition of things. 
 
 Mr. Howe of Concord Mr. President and Gentlemen of 
 
660 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the Convention: It must be admitted that the principles in- 
 volved in the resolution offered by the committee are im- 
 portant. It involves the principle whether the people of the 
 state of New Hampshire shall commit themselves to the prin- 
 ciple of a permanent judiciary in the state. 
 
 Now, Mr. President and gentlemen, I, for one, do not be- 
 lieve in that scheme. I do not believe it is right to make one 
 branch of this government permanent and indestructible, and 
 beyond the reach of the common p3ople of this state who 
 have created the three branches, and to* leave the other two 
 branches as they are. I think it is a radical departure from 
 the principles of the Constitution and from right principles. 
 
 Every change in the court which has been referred to as an 
 argument for this change in the Constitution occurred before 
 the Constitutional Convention of 1S89, and if we assume that 
 those changes were all bad we must assume that the last 
 change was a. change for the good, and it is the theory now 
 that we should perpetuate the result of the last change. Sup- 
 pose the Constitutional Convention of 1889 had taken exactly 
 the step which we are now invited to take, then to-day, instead 
 of this good system, this ideal system composed of a supreme 
 court and a superior court., suppose in 1889 the system then 
 in existence had been perpetuated by a constitutional amend- 
 ment, we never could have had the court which we now have. 
 
 I say, Mr. President and gentlemen, that this thing should 
 be left where it is. If it turns out upon trial that the court 
 system which we now have is the best system which we can 
 procure we will certainly kesp it. If it turns out upon trial 
 that the system which we have lately adopted is not the best 
 system and we wish to change it, we ought not to be tied down 
 to a system which is worse than some other, but the people 
 should have the right to change it at any time. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster I regret exceedingly that my sense 
 of duty compels me to take sides opposite the gentleman who 
 introduced this resolution. I am fully aware that in five 
 minutes we can only glance at the different features of the 
 matter presented. I regard this resolution as perhaps the 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 661 
 
 most important thing that has ccme before this Convention; I 
 regard it as more far-reaching in its consequences than any- 
 thing that has come before us. It is overruling and overturn- 
 ing the policy of the state since the formation of its govern- 
 ment. I leave to ethers who may speak, declarations concern- 
 ing the courts in other states, their tenure of office, and their 
 method of procedure. I desire to refer very briefly to the 
 public aspects of this case. 
 
 I know of no general desire or request anywhere in the 
 state, nor of any public sentiment, that demands anything of 
 this kind. We are told that the Democratic party and the Re- 
 publican party in their conventions have asked for this action, 
 and that the bar association of the state has also asked for 
 it. At the bar meeting there may have been present 150 
 people certainly not more. I suppose there are four times 
 as many practising lawyers in the state, three fourths of whom 
 were not present and did not assent to such measure. As to 
 the platform of the Republican party, I have only to say that 
 I profess no ability to declare its meaning leaving to those 
 gentlemen accustomed to interpret that party's declarations 
 to decide its real intent. 
 
 As to the platform of the Democratic party, I think I have 
 demonstrated that I am a pretty good partisan Democrat 
 but I utterly and wholh 7 repudiate the idea that a dozen gen- 
 tlemen, in a parlor of the Eagle Hotel, the night before a con- 
 vention, can formulate a platform or rule of action on a non- 
 partisan question, binding upon the independent Democratic 
 voters of New Hampshire. We are not here as partisans, but 
 as representatives of the people of the state, and we arc here 
 to retain the well-tried policies of the state which have been 
 approved from its earliest days, as has been alluded to in 
 speeches upon this floor. 
 
 We have existed under the system of courts responsible to 
 the people. The Bill of Rights says that all power is orig- 
 inally derived from the people, and all magistrates and offi- 
 cers of the government are representatives and agents of the 
 people at all time?, and are responsible to them. How are 
 they quickly responsible if we place them beyond reach of the 
 legislature? 
 
662 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 This measure is revolutionary. The whole theory of our 
 government is contrary to it. It is taking power from the 
 hands of the people an.d putting the courts beyond their reach. 
 
 There are gentlemen in this hall who have seen some of 
 the five overturnings that have been mentioned. So far as I 
 know, the overturnings were for good and sufficient rea- 
 sons. The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, is well 
 acquainted with the reasons for the overturning of 1855, and 
 there are others that are as well acquainted with it. It was 
 for the purpose of getting rid of Jonathan Kittredge that a 
 later change, championed by A. H. Cragin and N. B. Bryant, 
 followed. When another party came into power in 1871 the 
 court was again overturned, and again in 1874, and then the 
 same operation was gone through last winter. I do not know 
 what harm any of these changes have done, but it would do- 
 harm to take this power of change out of the hands of the 
 people. 
 
 I do not think that there is anything either sacred or holy 
 in the personnel of a court, or in its official character. This 
 is a "government of the people, by the people, for the peo- 
 ple," and we are here to keep all the power in the hands of 
 the people that they have, not to give it up, not to make a 
 revolution in the policy of New Hampshire, not to depart 
 from the paths of our fathers, but to go on in the future as in 
 the past; to keep the power of establishing courts in the hands 
 of the people, and to keep the courts where they can be 
 answerable in the popular forum for any wrongs that may be 
 done. They should be amenable to change. The people are 
 the only power and I trust this Convention will put far away 
 from it the idea of constructing a court to be perpetual and 
 beyond the reach of the people through the people's repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord I see no occasion for this radical 
 departure from the principles enunciated by our Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 Our judicial system underwent changes in 1813, IS 16,. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 663 
 
 1855, 1874, 1876, and again two years ago. Have the rights 
 of the people of the state of New Hampshire been impaired 
 by those changes? In each instance, generally, have not men 
 of eminence, character, and ability been placed upon the 
 bench? 
 
 Have not the people of this state, by these changes in their 
 judicial system, given practical construction to the constitu- 
 tional provisions with respect to the judiciary? 
 
 Again, if the construction given to the Constitution in 
 making these changes was not justified by the Constitution, 
 why was there not a judicial construction adverse to the 
 action of the legislature? None has ever been given, or re- 
 quested. 
 
 The promoters of this proposition are undertaking to imbed 
 in the Constitution a system yet on trial and a system which 
 in practical operation has already shown some imperfections 
 and dissatisfaction. 
 
 I favor the present system. I desire, however, to see this 
 system fairly tried before it is permanently placed beyond the 
 reach of the people. 
 
 I believe our judicial system is perfectly safe in the hands 
 of the representatives of the people of this state. Our judicial 
 system, with these changes, has produced a jurisprudence 
 equal to that of any state in the Union. It has given us, 
 under these various systems, men of learning, character, and 
 eminence, who have served the people and protected their in- 
 terests. 
 
 I hope we have the best system in existence, but let us 
 fairly test it before constitutionally declaring it perfect. 
 
 Mr. Briggs of Manchester Mr. President and Gentlemen 
 of the Convention: I have not troubled this Convention with 
 much talk of mine, and I do not propose to do so at this time. 
 I simply wish to state that I do not believe in the amendment 
 that has been reported by the committee. I do not believe in 
 placing the judicial system of New Hampshire beyond the 
 reach of the legislature placing the creature beyond the 
 reach of its creator. 
 
664 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 I have nothing to say in condemnation or criticism of the 
 present members of either of our courts, the supreme or the 
 superior. I believe we have learned, honest, efficient, and al- 
 most; I wish to say, the very best judges that we can select, 
 and I have the fullest! confidence in them. I have no doubt 
 they will render absolute and impartial justice, so far as can 
 be obtained under any system in this nation. 
 
 But this proposed amendment attempts to put that tribunal 
 beyond the control of the house of representatives, and not 
 only that, but beyond the control of the people. I believe the 
 people of this state are sovereigns. I believe the power is with 
 them, and I do no>t propose, if I have the power to resist it, to 
 have the sovereign power of this state encroached upon, and 
 to have a tribunal entrenched in the Constitution of the state 
 and placed beyond the control of its sovereign people. I tell 
 you, gentlemen, it would be a mistake if that thing was 
 adopted. 
 
 There has been something said about removing judges by 
 address. I do not understand any judge has been removed in 
 this state by sending an address of the legislature to the gov- 
 ernor to remove such judge. It is a thing that has not been 
 done in the whole history of New Hampshire. The only way 
 changes have been made is by changing the systems of the 
 court. That is all. 
 
 The gentlemen tyave told you how many changes of this 
 kind have been made. I know something of the change iri 
 1855, and again of the change in 1874 and 1876, and of the 
 last one made. I did not favor some of the changes, but 
 whether I like or dislike them, I do not believe the power 
 should be taken away from the people to make the changes. 
 
 I am willing to trust the court that we have, and under the 
 laws that we have you cannot remove a judge until he arrives 
 at seventy years of age, unless you prefer charges against him, 
 and that has not been done in this state because there has 
 been no occasion for it. 
 
 Now I ask you, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Con- 
 vention, not to entrench this supreme court in the Constitu- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 665 
 
 tion so it cannot be reached. I hope the amendment will be 
 voted down. 
 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin I feel constrained to make a remark 
 or two upon the pending question, because I was a member of 
 the committee which reported the resolution that is now be- 
 fore this Convention. 
 
 I believe, Mr. President, that the committee reported this 
 resolution largely because they thought they were safe in rely- 
 ing to some extent upon the recommendation of the Bar Asso<- 
 ciation of the State of New Hampshire. For one member of 
 the committee I certainly concede that that affected my judg- 
 ment, and I have net yet changed it. I believe, Mr. President, 
 that above all the departments in the state government the 
 supreme court ought to be reasonably permanent. I should 
 not be so particular about the permanency of the trial court, 
 which is called the superior court, and which is coming daily 
 in contact with the people. It may be well to leave that court 
 as it is, but I do believe it is the spirit of our institutions and 
 of our Constitution that the supreme court, the court of last 
 resort, should le made permanent, to the extent of being a 
 constitutional instead of a legislative institution. A two- 
 thirds vote of the people would then be necessary to effect a 
 change. Every whim of the legislature and every whim of the 
 people which might arise in the stress of political conflicts 
 would not expose this court to unwarranted and unnecessary 
 changes. 
 
 I am somewhat surprised that the report of the committee 
 has raised so much antagonism. I did not anticipate it, I con- 
 fess; nevertheless, I believe the supreme court of the state 
 should be made permanent to the extent I have indicated. I 
 do not undertake to say that it should be beyond the reach of 
 the people, and this proposed measure does not place it beyond 
 the reach of the people, because every time the people desire a 
 Constitutional Convention the question can again arise. It 
 seems to me that the arguments of those who have placed 
 their reasoning upon the fact that there has been many 
 
666 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 changes within the last fifty years is an argument. in support 
 of the committee's report. I hope, with reference to the 
 supreme court, the proposition of the committee will prevail. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord It has been suggested that the peo- 
 ple the legislature being the people should have the power 
 of controlling the courts. I start out with the proposition, of 
 course, that the power and sovereignty of this state is the peo- 
 ple; but the legislature is not the people. They are the people 
 exercising legislative functions, and the courts are the people 
 exercising judicial functions. Our Constitution says as clearly 
 as can be, that the legislature shall not have any control over 
 the courts, and that "In the government of this state, the 
 three essential powers thereof to wit, the legislative, execu- 
 tive and judicial ought toi be kept as separate from, and in- 
 dependent of, each other as the nature of a free government 
 will admit or as is consistent with that chain of connection 
 that binds the whole fabric of the Constitution in one indis- 
 soluble bond of unity and amity." 
 
 The legislature, whose laws the supreme court may declare 
 unconstitutional, should not have the power of abolishing that 
 court and of putting in a new one that will declare the same 
 laws constitutional. The only power that there should be to 
 abolish the court and to make a new one is the people them- 
 selves, by a change of their Constitution, and there should be 
 a permanency of courts, and the judges should know that they 
 will retain their offices when they are once appointed unless 
 they are turned out under the rules of the Constitution. 
 
 Let me read to you what some of the men, authority upon 
 constitutional law, have said about this power of the legisla- 
 ture. I read from "Story on the Constitution": "Where 
 there is not judicial department to interpret, pronounce, or 
 execute the law, to decide controversies, and to enforce rights, 
 the government mu=t either perish by its own imbecility, or 
 the other departments of government must usurp powers, for 
 the purpose of commanding obedience, to the destruction of 
 liberty. The will of those who govern will become under such 
 
'WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 66T 
 
 circumstances absolute and despotic; and it is wholly imma- 
 terial whether power is vested in a single tyrant or in an 
 assembly of tyrants." 
 
 No remark is better founded in human experience than 
 that of Montesquieu that "there is no liberty, if the judiciary 
 power be not separate from the legislative and executive 
 power." 
 
 And again in Hare on American Constitutional Law: 
 
 "It has been said that a sovereign cannott by any act or 
 declaration part irrevocably with his powers or render them 
 less ineffectual as a means of government. If this were true 
 generally, it would not hold good in this country, where 
 power is distributed among the United States, the several 
 states, and the people. Government under our system is not 
 absolute, but a delegation or agency created for certain pur- 
 poses, and must keep within the limits of the grant. As Mr. 
 Webster observed, in arguing the case of Luther vs. Borden: 
 'The people may not limit their government, they may and 
 often do limit themselves; they secure themselves against sud- 
 den changes by mere majorities. That is why they put it 
 into the Constitution that the judges of the court should hold 
 office during good behavior. The fifth article of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States is a clear pit of of this/ '' 
 
 I will read again from Judge Story: "The judiciary must 
 be so organized as to carry into complete effect all the pur- 
 poses of its establishment. It must possess wisdom, learning, 
 integrity, independence, and firmness. It must at once possess 
 the power and the means to check usurpation, and enforce 
 execution of its judgments. Mr. Burke, with singular sagacity 
 and pregnant brevity, stated the doctrine which every repub- 
 lic should steadily sustain and comscientiously inculcate. 
 'Whatever/ says he, 'is supreme in a -state ought to have, as 
 much as possible, its judicial authority so constituted as not 
 only not to depend on it, but in some sort to balance it. It 
 ought to give security to its justice against its power. It 
 ought to make its judicature, as it were, something exterior to 
 the state/ The best manner in which this is to be accom- 
 
668 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 plished must mainly depend upon the mode of appointment; 
 the tenure of office, the compensation of the judges, and the 
 jurisdiction confided to the department in its various 
 branches." 
 
 This proposition is not a proposition to establish the pres- 
 ent system as being the best system. Two years ago I was one 
 of those who fought it, but when the fight was over those 
 most prominent in the fight got together and agreed that they 
 would dot everything in their power to keep the court as it is. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua I am glad to know that the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Niles, and his associates who 
 opposed the present system two years ago took it upon them- 
 selves to get together and pledge themselves to> maintain the 
 present system. But, Mr. Chairman, this present system hag 
 only been in vogue a little over a year and a half, and it seems 
 even though the people of New Hampshire favor perpetuat- 
 ing the courts and placing them beyond the reach of the 
 legislature, it is a step which we cannot afford to take at this 
 time, while we iare going through an experimental stage. 
 Let us wait. Let us see the result of the workings of the 
 present system. 
 
 The gentleman from Berlin, Mr. Daley, says he is not par- 
 ticular about: the superior court, but he wants the supreme 
 court perpetuated. Why the supreme court more than the 
 superior? 
 
 I believe we should continue just as we are. We have not 
 had enough experience under our present system. Two years 
 ago when the dual court bill was under consideration, w 
 were told that the system was wrong, that it was wrong in 
 theory, and that in practice it would prove a failure. I was 
 one of those who advocated the dual system. I may have 
 been wrong. I wanted to have the system tried. I want to 
 have it have a fair trial now, and then if it is found that a 
 change should be made to improve it we can change it, and 
 if it is not what we want we can wipe it out and institute in 
 place thereof a system that will best subserve the interests 
 of our state. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 669 
 
 When this last change was made, the executive of this 
 state, with the advice and consent of the council, appointed 
 the judges of the new court. Did he depart from the spirit 
 of this debate? Every member of the old court was recog- 
 nized and appointed on either one or the other of the two 
 new courts. We can trust the legislature of New Hampshire, 
 we can trust the executive of New Hampshire, and we can 
 trust his advisory council, and I sincerely hope, gentlemen, 
 that we will not vote the present judicial system beyond the 
 reach of the people's servants, the legislators. 
 
 , Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth I am opposed to this amend- 
 ment suggested by the committee. It is well known to every 
 one, who has investigated this subject, that our courts are 
 clothed with great power and authority. Our judges are ap- 
 pointed, under our Constitution as it exists to-day, practically 
 for life, or during good behavior, to act until they are seventy 
 years of age. The only way their office has ever been in 
 jeopardy in the past has been by a change of political parties. 
 After the change of the court in 1876, as I understand it, by 
 an unwritten law, or agreement, entered into by both political 
 parties, the most eminent attorneys were selected from each 
 of our great political parties for the judges of our highest 
 courts. That agreement has been strictly adhered to from 
 that time to the present. I do not believe that any change 
 in our state government on account of politics will in any 
 way affect the stability of our courts. Neither part)'', for po- 
 litical reasons, will attempt to abolish one court and establish 
 another, because there is now no occasion for it. 
 
 We are told that it is necessary to have the judges put 
 beyond the control of the people, because the courts want to 
 be independent. Has it been suggested that anything has 
 ever been done in this state to destroy that independence of 
 our courts? Has anything ever been done to cause the court, 
 or any one else, to fear for its independence? I submit 
 nothing of that kind has ever been thought of. The courts 
 of this state are independent. They declare the law fear- 
 
670 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 lessly, as they believe it to be, and the people, as. a rule, have 
 always been satisfied with their decisions, and there has been 
 no attempt on the part of anybody to hamper our courts, or 
 destroy the independence of our -judges. 
 
 In many of our states in fact, nearly all of them judges 
 are appointed for a term of five or seven years, and, at the ex- 
 piration of their terms of office, they are reappainted, if they 
 have given general satisfaction. In the state of Maine, where 
 I have practised considerably, and am familiar with their 
 courts, the judges are appointed for seven years, and judges of 
 Maine have nearly always been reappointed, whenever they 
 desire to continue upon the bench. In only two instances, to 
 my knowledge, has any judge of the supreme judicial court of 
 Maine failed to obtain a reappointment. In Vermont, I am 
 told, the appointment is biennial, and several of the Vermont 
 judges have served upon the bench more than a quarter of a 
 century. I believe our courts are placed by our Constitution 
 in as independent a position as it is possible to place them, 
 consistent with the rights of the people, and I do not believe 
 we can afford to make any change. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord moved that the report be recom- 
 mitted to the Committee on the Judicial Department, with 
 instructions to report the resolutions in a new draft which 
 shall secure the tenure of office of the judges of the highest 
 court of the state, without affecting the power of the legisla- 
 ture to modify from time to time the judicial system. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Woodbury of Bedford, the motion was 
 laid upon the table. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the recommendation of 
 the committ.ee that the resolution relative to the supreme 
 and superior courts ' ought to be adopted/ prevail?" the reso- 
 lution was rejected. 
 
 The special order assigned for 2:30 o'clock, the proposed 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 671 
 
 amendment of Mr. Gilmore of Manchester, to elect secretary 
 of state, state treasurer, commissary-general, and railroad 
 commissioners by the people, together with the report of the 
 committee that it is inexpedient to act upon the subject, was 
 taken, from the table. 
 
 Question: On the adoption of the resolution of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore orf Manchester Mr. President and Gentle- 
 men: I have no desire to make a speech. I simply call the 
 attention of the Convention to this matter for the reason 
 that I believe every officer, of whatever nature, who holds 
 office in the state of New Hampshire, should be elected by 
 the people, and not by the legislature, or appointed by the 
 governor and council. Then, if the people make a mistake 
 they have nobody to blame but themselves. 
 
 I do not complain that we have any unfaithful officers in 
 -our secretary of state, state treasurer, commissary-general, 
 but I do believe that there can be an improvement made in 
 the board of railroad commissioners. They should be elected 
 by the people, and responsible to them, and if they are tools 
 of the railroad,, cir of any party, or set of individuals, they can 
 be removed by the people. As I have said before, I believe I 
 have covered the ground and have nothing more to say. 
 
 missary-general," are in this amendment? 
 The President They are. 
 
 Mr. Chase of Bristol As I understood this morning, those 
 words were to be stricken out of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester I am willing that they should 
 be eliminated, and move to have them stricken out. 
 
 The President The gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Gil- 
 
672 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 more, moves to amend by striking out the words "commis- 
 sary-general." 
 
 The motion prevailed on a viva voce vote. 
 
 Mr. S. W. Emery of Portsmouth I hope that the report 
 of the committee that, "It is inexpedient to amend," will be 
 adopted. I am opposed to the policy of electing the boartf of 
 railroad commissioners by the people. It seems to me that 
 the members of the board of railroad commissioners occupy 
 judicial offices, and that the members thereof are as much 
 judges in many matters as are the judges of our supreme and 
 superior courts, and they ought not to be mads a subject of 
 pulling and hauling in a political convention or in a political 
 campaign. 
 
 I suppose, in behalf of the electric railway interests in this 
 state, I have had as much to do with the board of railroad 
 commissioners as perhaps any man in the state within the 
 last three years, and I can give my testimony unhesitatingly 
 that I never had to do business with a mo<re impartial, able, 
 and honest tribunal than that of the railroad commissioners 
 of this state, and I have been turned down a few times, too. 
 If there is anything gained in the appointment of the judges 
 as they are appointed, by the governor and council; if there 
 is anything gained in the securing of able men and incor- 
 ruptible men in that way, the same thing applies to the 
 board of railroad commissioners. That board has before it 
 questions as to what amounts of stocks and bonds shall be 
 issued by railroad corporations of this state, the questions of 
 increases of bonds and of stocks of railroads, and the deter- 
 mination of the public good as to the construction of more 
 railroads, and the last has always been considered an im- 
 portant matter in this state. The determination of damages 
 for taking lands, also, in many cases, comes before the board, 
 and, in short, it is a board of judges, and ought to be as inde- 
 pendent as you can make it, and the members of that board 
 ought, to have a tenure of office, as a matter of fact, equal to 
 that of the judges of this state, and they ought to be re- 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 673 
 
 moved as far from the manipulation of political conventions 
 and campaigns as may be. 
 
 I am glad to say I can testify to the absolute impartiality, 
 and great ability, and absolute honesty of that, board, and I 
 hiope, gentlemen, that its members, as able as they are, as 
 experienced as they are, and as extremely useful to the state 
 as they are, will be left to be chosen as they are now by the 
 governor and council. You can trust the governor and coun- 
 cil to appoint the judges; you can trust the governor and 
 council to appoint these men, and I hope that the report of 
 the committee will be sustained, and the board will be left 
 to be appointed as it is appointed at the present time. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Gilmore of Manchester, the resolution 
 was still further amended by striking out the words, "secre- 
 tary of state" and "state treasurer." 
 
 The question being stated, Mr. Gilmore of Manchester 
 called for the yeas and nays, nine other members concurring; 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the affirmative: 
 
 KOCKINGHAM COUNTY. Flanders of Brentwood, Kelsey of 
 Deerfield, Fuller, Wetherell, Hooke, Chase of Kingston, Bat- 
 tles, Gate, Kelsey of Nottingham, Emery S. W., Howard, Nor- 
 ris, Wingate, Clark of Windham. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Locke of Barrington, Nealley, Fol- 
 som, Nute of Dover, Nutter of Farmington, Moore, Chamber- 
 lain, Springfield, Edgerly, Leary. 
 
 ' BELKNAP COUNTY. Jewett, Thompson of Laconia, Smith 
 of Xew Hampton, Fellows. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Eideout, Colman, Spencer, Hobson, 
 Gibson, Harmon, Murch, Sanborn of Wakefield. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Foote, Virgin, Mitchell of Con- 
 cord, Foster, Kimball, Walker of Concord, Lamprey of Con- 
 cord, Whititier, Ingalls, Ford of Danbury, Caldwell, Dolbeer, 
 Leach, Towne, Head, Todd. 
 
 43 
 
674 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Kimball of Bennington, Bacon, 
 Lambert, Wilkinson, Abbott of Manchester, Cross, Little, 
 Rose, Jones, Eobinson, Tremblay, Farrington, Harvey, Pre- 
 court, McAllister, Quirin Joseph, Allen, Powers of Manches- 
 ter, Greager, Provost, Quirin Eugene, Hamblett, Spring, 
 Clough of Nashua, Harriman, Flood, Parker of Nashua, 
 Woodbury of Nashua, Proctor, Runnells, McKay, Shedd, 
 Flather, Scott, Richardson, Chapman. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Learned, Poole, Annett, Wright, 
 Foskett, Hall of Keene, Newell, Woodward, Osgood, Cass, 
 Emory, Buckminster, Spaulding, Kiniry, Goodnow. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Brooks, Tenney, Rossiter, Colby, 
 Burpee, Barton, Bartlett. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Bucklin, Parker of Benton, Morrill of 
 Bridgewater, Chase of Bristol, Pulsifer of Campton, Richard- 
 son of Canaan, Cumings, Parker of Franconia, Ward, West- 
 gate, Sloane, Jewell of Hebron, Flanders, Glazier, Dewey, 
 Hibbard, Woolson, Morris, Aldrich of Littleton, Green of Lit- 
 tleton, Morse, Melvin, Warden, Lamprey of Orford, Green of 
 Waterville-, Shute. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Wight of Berlin, Moffett, Rich, Daley, 
 Boudreau, Murray, Titus, Wight of Dummer, Evans, Kent, 
 Blanchard, Philbrook, Aldrich of Whitefield, Dodge of White- 
 field. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the negative : 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Conley, Sanborn of Auburn, 
 Eaton, Kimball of Danville, Abbott of Derry, Sanborn of 
 Hampstead, Shaw, de Rochemont, Ham, Sawyer of Rye, Cole, 
 Jewell of South Hampton. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Roberts, Webb, Nute of Rochester, 
 Cochrane. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Codbath, Clark of Center Harbor, 
 Merrill of Gilford, Smith of Meredith, Rogers. 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 675 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Nickerson, Merrill of Conway, Dear- 
 born of Eaton, Merrow, Meserve, Gilman, Goodwin, Dorr. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Blodgett of Allenstown, Buxton, 
 Baker, Frame, Dudley of Concord, Hollis, Niles, Howe, 
 Chandler, Casey, Jordan, Wilson of Hill, Putnam, Messer. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Hubbard, Woodbury of Bed- 
 ford, Fessenden, Whitaker of Deering, Colby, Paige of Goffs- 
 liown, Marsh, Tarbell, Briggs, Green of Manchester, Dodge of 
 Manchester, Lord, Gilmore, Hill, Starr, Horan, Glancy, Sulli- 
 van, Griffin, Jennings, Irwin, Clement of Manchester, Little- 
 field, McElroy, Boivin, Hall of Manchester, Trinity, Gordon, 
 Knight, Kotch, Raymond, Ledoux, Wason, Earley, Desmarais, 
 Blanchard, Seavey, Simons. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Cooke, Amidon, Blake, Farwell, 
 Buckley, Madden, Craig of Marlow, McClure, Clement of 
 Surry, Day, Davis. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Holmes, Penniman, Brown of 
 
 Springfield. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Carbee, Ashley, Young of Easton, 
 Avery, Dresser, Kidder, Drake, French of Orange, Ford of 
 Piermont, Russell, Wentworth, Craig of Rumney. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Paine, Perkins, McKellips, Pike of Stark, 
 Hinman. 
 
 And 151 gentlemen having voted in the affirmative and 112 
 gentlemen having voted in the negative, the resolution of the 
 committee, "inexpedient to act upon the subject," prevailed. 
 
 The President There is certain unfinished business, first, 
 the proposed amendment extending the jurisdiction of police 
 courts. 
 
 Mr. Morris of Lisbon When the Convention adjourned 
 Friday I had nearly finished my explanation of the purposes 
 of the bill. 
 
676 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 There seems to be some misunderstanding about the scope 
 of the bill. In the first place, I desire to say that this bill 
 simply authorizes the legislature to make some change. It 
 does not, of itself, make these changes. 
 
 Again, I wish to say to the members of the Convention that 
 this bill does not dimmish or increase the jurisdiction in civil 
 cases of the police courts, and it does not increase or give the 
 legislature any power to increase that jurisdiction. It simply 
 gives power to the legislature to do what it has already tried 
 to do on two different occasions, that is, to extend the juris- 
 diction of the police court with reference to criminal matters. 
 We have acted under such a law for nearly thirty years. That 
 law was found to be unconstitutional. I believe in amending 
 the Constitution so we can at least: reenaet that law, and I 
 think it is safe to leave it to the jurisdiction of the legislature 
 as to how far the police court will be given jurisdiction. 
 
 It may be said that this is taking away some of the rights of 
 the respondent in a criminal case. I do not see how that can 
 be said. I have had some experience in criminal matters in 
 the last four years, being solicitor of one of the counties of 
 this state, and I know great expense has been incurred by rea- 
 son of the limited jurisdiction of the police courts. I will 
 draw one illustration. We will suppose in the county of Graf- 
 ton, in the town of Bethlehem, a man is charged with larceny 
 of $15. That is beyond the power of the police court to de- 
 termine, and all the police court can do is to bind the party 
 over, if probable cause exists, to the grand jury of tlaat 
 county. If this crime happens to_ have been committed in 
 October, the respondent must be bound over to the November 
 term of the superior court holden at Lebanon. That is about 
 seventy-three miles from Bethlehem, and so the county is put 
 to the expense of transporting the respondent, if he has not 
 furnished the required bonds, and the witnesses, from Bethle- 
 hem to Lebanon, when in many cases if the jurisdiction of the 
 police court were extended it could be avoided. It may be 
 the respondent pleaded guilty before a justice of the police 
 court in the town of Bethlehem. But notwithstanding that 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 677 
 
 fact, the county, to make out a case before the grand jury, 
 must take witnesses to- Lebanon in order to find an indict- 
 ment, and is put to an expense of $75. The respondent may 
 be fined $25, and ordered to pay costs taxed at $75, which 
 under amended legislation would be saved to him or the 
 county. 
 
 Now as to the rights of the respondent, as I have said, I 
 eannot see that he loses any of his rights. Yoai all know that 
 in the proceedings before a grand jury the respondent cannot 
 be represented either by himself or by counsel, and therefore 
 he cannot gain anything by having tiie matter brought before 
 that body. All of his rights may be protected by appeal under 
 this proposed amendment toi the petit jury in the superior 
 court. I do not believe it takes from the rights of the re- 
 spondent at all, but it will tend to decrease to a material ex- 
 tent the expense to the counties. 
 
 What is true in Grafton county must be true in every one 
 of the counties to a greater or less extent. Perhaps you do 
 not have as long distances to travel as we do up there, yet 
 there will be a saving in expense to the counties if the juris- 
 diction of police courts is extended. 
 
 I hope the resolution of the committee will be adopted. 
 
 The resolution offered by Mr. Morris of Lisbon, extending 
 the jurisdiction of police courts, reported Friday, December 
 12, from the Committee on the Legislative Department in 
 new draft, was then adopted by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That when the Convention adjourn this after- 
 noon, it adj'ourn to meet at 7:30 o'clock this evening/' 
 
 Adopted> 
 
 The resolution of Mr. Baker of Bow, in amendment of arti- 
 cles thirty-two, thirty-three, forty-one, and sixty, part second 
 of the Constitution, providing for the substitution of the. 
 
678 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 word "plurality" for "majority," in said articles, reported 
 from the committee Tuesday, December 16, in amended form, 
 with the recommendation that the same be adopted, was 
 taken up by the Convention. 
 
 Question, upon the adoption of the recommendation of the 
 committee that the resolution, as amended, ought to pass. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia moved that the whole matter be in- 
 definitely postponed. The affirmative prevailed on a viva, 
 voce vote. Mr. Baker of Bow called for a division, which re- 
 sulted in 141 gentlemen vesting in the affirmative, and 89 gen- 
 tlemen voting in the negative, and the motion to indefinitely 
 postpone prevailed. 
 
 The Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Depart- 
 ment, by unanimous consent, submitted the following report: 
 
 The Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Depart- 
 ment, having considered the resolutions presented by Mr. 
 Chandler of Concord, the resolution presented by Mr. Starr 
 of Manchester, and the resolution presented by Mr. Ledoux of 
 Nashua, proposing amendments to article eighty-two of the 
 Constitution, and all other matters relating to the subject 
 brought to the attention of the committee, report as follows: 
 
 That article eightj^-two of the Constitution be amended by 
 adding the following: 
 
 "Free and fair competition in the trades and, industries is 
 an inherent and essential right of the people and should be 
 protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend 
 to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corpora- 
 tions should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit ficti- 
 tious capitalization and provision should be made for the 
 supervision and government thereof. 
 
 "Therefore, All just power possessed by the state is hereby 
 granted to the general court to enact laws to prevent the 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 679 
 
 6perations within the state of all persons and associations, and 
 all trusts and corporations, foreign or domestic, and the offi- 
 cers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price of any article of 
 commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades 
 and industries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or 
 any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts of 
 all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and officials 
 thereof doing business within the state; to prevent fictitious 
 capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal proceedings 
 in respect to all the wrongs herein declared against." 
 
 And the committee reports the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the foregoing amendment reported by the 
 committee be adopted." 
 
 EDGAR ALDRICH, 
 
 J. F. BRIGGS, 
 
 EDWARD B. S. SANBORN, 
 
 For the Committee. 
 
 The President Unless otherwise ordered this report will 
 be accepted, and the question is upon the adoption of the 
 resolution by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua This is one of the most im- 
 portant matters that this Convention will have occasion to 
 pass upon. The last division shows that there are only 230 
 members present, and I move you that this matter lie on the 
 table and be made a special order for 11 o'clock to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster I ask the privilege of a question 
 before this motion is put. I desire to ask the gentleman from 
 Nashua and those opposed to this resolution to tell us if they 
 have any desire for any further debate upon the matter. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua I do not know that we want any 
 further debate, but it seems to me' that when there are so few 
 members present this matter ought to be postponed until a 
 time when they are all present and can have the opportunity 
 of voting upon the question. 
 
680 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia It seems to me this matter may as 
 well be disposed oif now as at any time. We yesterday had a 
 roll-call upon the question upon which every one in a house 
 with most of the seats occupied voted, which would indicate 
 that most of the members of the Convention knew practically 
 what was going to be reported in this resolution. That being 
 the case it hardly seems to me we ought to take the time when 
 the committee has prepared a resolution under the authority 
 given by the vote yesterday, which apparently meets the view 
 of everybody under the circumstances it seems to me that 
 we ought not to take the time necessary in postponing this 
 matter, but it should be disposed of now. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua I hope the members will under- 
 stand that this resolution was introduced by unanimous con- 
 sent. Nearly 200 members of this Convention are absent, and 
 have no notice that the resolution wag to be introduced this 
 afternoon, and it seems to me fair when unanimous consent 
 was given the introduction of the report that the matter be 
 postponed until a larger attendance can be present when it is 
 acted upon. 
 
 Mr. Madden of Keene I will state that I have talked with 
 a great many members of this Convention in regard to this 
 resolution, and the majority of those with whom I have talked 
 are of the opinion that this action is entirely futile and of no 
 use whatever. I am of that opinion myself. There is almost 
 less than a quorum here, and I think it is unfair at this time 
 to have the matter considered. I think if the Convention 
 should have time to consider it a little more in the absence of 
 the hypnotism produced by the speech of the gentleman from 
 Littleton, that the action of the Convention would be some- 
 what different. 
 
 I am against this proposition. I am looking forward with 
 pleasure to the time when these great corporations and the 
 trusts will be under public control, and even when the neces- 
 sities of life will be produced by the municipalities and not by 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 681 
 
 private enterprise, and I wish this whole matter to be delayed 
 until that time, and do not desire to have action taken now. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andcxver I do not know as this Convention 
 can settle anything, but it seems to me if there is any subject 
 that is ripe for final disposition, it is this one, and this is the 
 time when the vote should be taken. When the vote was 
 taken upon the roll-call the other day a full convention was 
 present, and only two members voted against the measure. I 
 W'Oruld like to know for what earthly reason this should be 
 postponed. It seems to me it can be disposed of now, as there 
 was practically no opposition whatever to the resolution in its 
 original form. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord My impression has been while 
 debate was going on that it would be no more than fair to let 
 this subject go over until 12 o'clock to-morrow. It is true 
 that what the committee has done has been substantially to 
 put in an improved form the declaration of the Convention. 
 But this is an! important subject, and if any gentleman here 
 wishes to look at the language of the resolution and see 
 whether they want to criticise it or even object, to the princi- 
 ples of it, I think it is no more than fair that they should have 
 the opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the disposi- 
 tion of this report may go over until 12 o'clock to-morrow. 
 
 The President No< objection being made, the secretary 
 will enter that by unanimous consent the matter is postponed 
 until to-morrow at 12 o'clock. 
 
 'Mr. Parker of Nashua, from the Committee on the Judicial 
 Department, submitted the following report: 
 
 The Committee on the Judicial Department, to whom was 
 referred the amendment offered by Mr. Starr of Manchester 
 for amending article five, part two of the Constitution, so that 
 article five as amended shall authorize and direct the general 
 court, "to enact statutes which shall prevent the giving or 
 
682 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 issuing of railroad passes, except to actual railroad officials or 
 employes, OT poor persons in misfortune," having considered 
 the same, report that it is inexpedient to act upon the same. 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I was not aware that this resolu- 
 tion had gone to the committee. That is one of the facts in 
 connection with the Convention that I had overlooked. If I 
 had known that the proposition was before the committee I 
 should have appeared before them and asked them not to 
 make any report on this subject other than to lay upon the 
 table, because there are other propositions on this subject 
 which it was my intention to move to take from the table and 
 have considered seasonably before the members of the Con- 
 vention should go to the various parts of the state, over the 
 railroads of the state, for the last time. 
 
 I move that this resolution may be laid upon the table, and 
 I shall move to take it up in connection with the other propo- 
 sitions on the same subject which now lie upon the table, 
 when more important business which is nearer the hearts erf 
 the members of this Convention has been disposed of. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Chandler was stated by the chair, and 
 declared carried on a viva voce vote. 
 
 Mr. Truesdell of Pembroke, for the Committee on the Leg- 
 islative Department, to whom was referred the resolution of 
 Mr. Baker of Bow to amend article five, part second of the 
 Constitution, by adding thereto as follows: 
 
 "Nor pass any local, private, or special law where a general 
 law can be made applicable, and whether a general law could 
 have been made applicable in any case is hereby declared a 
 judicial question, and as such shall be judicially determined 
 without regard to any legislative assertion on that subject. 
 Nor shall the general court indirectly enact such local, pri- 
 vate, or special law by the partial repeal of a general law; but 
 laws repealing local or special acts may be passed," reported 
 the same with the following resolution: 
 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1902. 683 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to recommend such an 
 amendment." 
 
 The report was accepted, and the question was upon the 
 adoption of the resolution reported by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow Mr. President and Gentlemen of the 
 Convention: I will detain you but a short time. I wish 
 simply to call your attention to the matter as it stands. Every 
 legislature spends a considerable portion of its time in consid- 
 ering private bills, private corporation bills, although the 
 state has a general incorporation law, and if this proposed 
 amendment of mine cooild be adopted by this Convention and 
 by the people I apprehend it would do no person and no cor- 
 poration any harm whatever, and would have a great effect to 
 shorten the length of the sessions of the legislature, and 
 wooild conduce generally to the welfare of the state. 
 
 I have introduced before this body no proposed amendment 
 which I did not at the time, and do not now, believe to be for 
 the welfare of the state. If the gentlemen of the committee 
 and the gentlemen of the Convention think otherwise, I am 
 just exactly as well satisfied, because I have arrived at that 
 stage of life where I shall not have to live under this condi- 
 tion of things as long as the majority of the members of this 
 Convention; but I think some time in the near future, when 
 the matter shall be placed squarely before the people of the 
 state, they will see to it that there is no longer class legisla- 
 tion in the state of New Hampshire, but that all by general 
 enactment shall be treated alike. 
 
 The question being stated, the resolution of the committee 
 was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the vote whereby 
 the Convention voted to adjourn at the end of the afternoon 
 session to 7:30 o'clock in the evening was reconsidered. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Hamblett of Nashua, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
684 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902: 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. Dearborn of Eaton. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Johnson of Colebrook, the rules were so 
 far suspended that the reading of the journal was dispensed 
 with. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Norris of Portsmouth, the resolution 
 offered by that gentleman to amend article five, part two of 
 the Constitution, in relation to taxation, was indefinitely 
 postponed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the resolution 
 offered by that gentleman in relation to taxation was indefi- 
 nitely postponed. 
 
 (Mr. Kent of Lancaster in the chair.) 
 
 On motion of Mr. Chandler of Concord, the Convention 
 voted to hold an evening session at 7:30 o'clock. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the various resolutions 
 on the table relating to free passes on railroads were taken 
 from the table and referred to Committee of the Whole. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the Convention resolved 
 itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the various 
 resolutions relating to free passes. 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Little of Manchester in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Even if I were not limited to 
 ten minutes, I should speak very briefly. The evil prevail- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 685 
 
 ing in this state, which I have felt anid now feel it to be my 
 duty in a humble way to combat, is well known to the dele- 
 gates to this Convention. There is not a delegate here who 
 does not know what the free pass system is, and does not 
 know that it is wrong as iti exists to-day. It is an evil, Mr. 
 Chairman and gentlemen, which the people of this country 
 have not been able to combat through the legislatures of 
 the states by ordinary legislation, and therefore nine states 
 of this Union have felt compelled to put in their Constitutions 
 the prohibition of free transportation on their railroads. They 
 have found it necessary to do this because of the violation of 
 the principle of equality of right in connection with the 
 railroads. 
 
 The railroads are great public highways which have been 
 created through granting to the railroad corporations the 
 use of the right of eminent domain the right to take land 
 without the consent of the owner upon making compensation 
 therefor. That great privilege of the state has been con- 
 ferred upon the railroads of the state, and when it was thus 
 conferred they became public corporations and have been 
 held to be such from the earliest history of railroads in New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 There goes along with that assertion, Mr. Chairman and 
 gentlemen, the proposition that all men stand equal before 
 the law in the enjoyment of the privileges which these rail- 
 roads offer, and they are bound to make uniform and equal 
 tariffs for the whole public, they are bound to collect for 
 fares and freights the same sums for the same service from 
 every patron of the road, and when they grant anybody, 
 except their employes, the right to travel free, or for less 
 sum than others pay, they violate this great principle. Nev- 
 ertheless, the wrong system has gone forward until it has 
 become so universal that nine states in the Union have had 
 to grapple with it by means of amendment to their Constitu- 
 tions; and now the proposition comes before this Convention, 
 and it is to be decided by this Convention whether the 
 evil in New Hampshire is one that shall be dealt with and 
 prohibited. 
 
686 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, this state once prohibited free transporta- 
 tion. The laws of 1878 thus declare: 
 
 "No person shall be allowed to -pass over any railroad with- 
 out paying the fare thus established, except stockholders 
 going or returning from the meetings of the proprietors; the 
 directors, superintendent, treasurer, and clerk of said pro- 
 prietors, and of roads having a business connection from 
 freight and passengers on said road; persons in charge of 
 mails and expresses; and persons poor an.d in misfortune, 
 who, are unable to pay said fare, and to whom passes have 
 been granted." 
 
 That law was not properly obeyed, and in the legislature 
 of 1881. I endeavored to secure a reenforcement and more 
 strict observance of the law, and when there was pending a 
 bill which not only made it a crime for the railroad officials 
 to give a free pass, but also made it a crime for any person to 
 receive a free pass, Mr. Beckford, then of Bristol, stood up 
 and said that the bill was to- take effect on its passage, and if 
 it did it would put him in a sort of dilemma, as he wanted 
 to go home and use his pass, and he said he heard others 
 around hlim say, "Me too," and he moved the indefinite post- 
 ponement of the bill. On the call of the yeas and nays, 
 176 voted for the indefinite postponement and 35 voted no. 
 A little later the same question was brought up again, and 
 the question being put the yeas were 145 and the nays 53. 
 You will see that we increased out little band of anti-free pass 
 members from thirty-five to fifty-three. 
 
 But the provision did not pass. Indeed, the evil made 
 progress in the other direction, and on March 25, 1897, the 
 most extraordinary legislation took place that I ever heard of 
 anywhere. A bill was introduced reciting the provisions 
 against passes just as I have read it, except that after the 
 words, "persons poor and in misfortune, whoi are unable to 
 pay said fare," the words, "and others," had been added, al- 
 lowing free passes to all "others to whom passes have been 
 granted." And when inquiry was made in this very hall, Mr. 
 Batchelder of Keene said that this bill was designed to make 
 
THUKSDAY, DECEMBEK 18, 1902. 687 
 
 legal the issuance of passes to the members of the legislature. 
 On his motion the bill was reid a third time and passed under 
 the suspension of the rules. Thereafter and ever since, New 
 Hampshire has been the only state in the Union which affirm- 
 atively legalizes free passes and expressly authorizes the rail- 
 roads of the state to give free transportation to anybody 
 whom they may want to influence by the giving of those 
 passes. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the people of the state did 
 take alarm at this action; they did take alarm when they saw 
 these free passes distributed throughout New Hampshire 
 without limit, according to the interests of the railroads of 
 the state, and so the two political parties ma.de utterance on 
 this subject in 1898, and the distinguished attorney-general 
 now upon the floor (Mr. E. G. Eastman) reported the follow- 
 ing platform to the Republican state convention: 
 
 "The Republican party favors, as it did in the legislatures 
 of 1893 and 1895, submitting to the people the question of 
 calling a Constitutional Convention that they may act upon 
 the question of abolishing free passes and upon any changes 
 in the organic law which experience has shown to be advisable 
 to make. In the meantime, we favor such legislation as may 
 properly anticipate the adoption of a constitutional amend- 
 ment prohibiting free passes." 
 
 That was the action and the platform of the Republican 
 party. In the Democratic state convention of August 31, 
 -1898, the platform was read by Henry H. Metcalf, Esq., con- 
 taining the following: 
 
 "We condemn the action of the last legislature in enacting 
 a law legalizing free passes and demand its repeal." 
 
 So the two parties gave their mandates to the then coining 
 legislature, which the honorable gentleman from Exeter said 
 ought to pass a law in anticipation of a constitutional con- 
 vention. We had the legislature, and now we have a conven- 
 tion. In the legislature, Mr. Batchelder said, "The subject of 
 free passes should be considered in a constitutional conven- 
 tion." Mr. Remich of Littleton said: "The matter should be 
 
JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 postponed to the constitutional convention. In spite of the 
 party declarations in favor of the passage by this legislature 
 of an anti-free pass law, within a week after the Democratic 
 state convention the chairman and secretary of the Demo- 
 cratic state committee called for free passes and got them." 
 
 Yet., in behalf of the Democrats who helped to elect me to 
 this Convention, as well as the Eepublicans of my ward in 
 Concord, I repel the charge that the Democratic party is any 
 more greedy for free passes than the Republican party. 
 
 Next, Mr. Clement, who led a little band of members op- 
 posed to free passes, said that, "When the Constitutional Con- 
 vention is called, every member of that Convention will get a 
 free pass just as the members of the legislature do." 
 
 The Convention has come, and the free passes are issued, 
 and now the Convention is brought face to face with this 
 question. 
 
 Except as a citizen of New Hampshire, interested in its 
 honor and in the honor of its representatives in public and 
 in private life, I have no more desire than yon, Mr. Chair- 
 man, ought to have that this Convention shall act concerning 
 the great public evil which this amendment is proposed to 
 remedy. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Franklin We have in the state of New 
 Hampshire but one magnificent railroad system, which is con- 
 ducting its business through all of the six New England 
 states, and, for one, I do not see any reason why the gentle- 
 men of this Convention should be asked to engraft into their 
 fundamental law a prohibition that will restrict that corpora- 
 tion in the discharge of its duties as it sees fit. There is not 
 another state in New England that has a constitutional pro- 
 hibition against free passes. Are we here to say that the peo- 
 ple of New Hampshire are more susceptible to bribery than 
 they are in the other five states where this corporation trans- 
 acts its business Only one state besides New Hampshire, 
 in all this system of the six New England states, has enacted 
 a statute against f^e passes, and that is the state of Maine. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 689 
 
 The other four states have not any law of any kind upon their 
 statute books or in their constitutions. They leave it to the 
 honor and to the integrity of their people and of the corpora- 
 tion to settle these things among themselves. 
 
 Now I hope that this proposed amendment will not become 
 a part of our fundamental law. As the honorable gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Chandler, has said, this railroad has a 
 franchise giving it the right of taking land by eminent do- 
 main. That corporation was granted its charter by the legis- 
 lature of this state, and is responsible to the legislature of 
 this state for the conduct of its affairs. The legislature of 
 this state compels this corporation to sell mileage tickets for 
 so much a mile tickets of 1,000 miles and 500 miles and 
 they otherwise control the conduct of the corporation, and I 
 want, gentlemen, to leave this matter in the hands of the leg- 
 islature who created the corporation, who have thus far gov- 
 erned these affairs between it and the people; but I do not 
 want to put it into the fundamental law of the state. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, has 
 prepared his circular, in which he says that nine states have 
 enacted constitutional amendments, but he dees not say that 
 there are twenty-five states in this Union that have not. He 
 says that there are five states that have enacted laws for the 
 prevention of the giving free passes, but he does not tell 
 you about the thirty-nine other states that have not. Are we 
 worse than all the rest off the Union that we have got to say 
 that our legislators are bribe-takers and we have to enact a 
 law to prevent their taking bribes? I think we have more 
 respect for our legislators than to make any such amendment 
 to the Constitution as that. The legislators come here and go 
 away, and they do their duty, and do it impartially and not, 
 as a class, would they accept a bribe. I desire to leave it to 
 the good sense and sound judgment and honor of our legis- 
 lators, and I hope that this resolution will not pass. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard of Amherst Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
 of the Committee: I, for one, am unalterably opposed to the 
 
 44 
 
690 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 issuance of free passes, and for one I have never disgraced 
 myself by the use of one, although I have received them for 
 the legislature and for this Convention. I believe the cor- 
 rupting influence, so far as the political influence of these free 
 passes is concerned, is more than all other political influences 
 combined. I believe if it were not) for them there would be 
 twice as many miles of electric railroad in the state as there 
 are. I have no doubt that if it had not been for the use of the 
 free passes the Fitchburg railroad would have been extended 
 into Manchester three years ago, and that railroad would not 
 have been leased to the Boston & Maine, and the city of Man- 
 chester would not be bottled up in the grip of one great cor- 
 poration, but there would be two competing lines and a trunk 
 line direct from the West into> the Queen City of our state. 
 In saying this I cast no reflection upon the Boston & Maine as 
 a corporation. It is a magnificent corporation, and has done 
 much good in its own legitimate lines of business. In those 
 lines it has been a godsend to New Hampshire. Need I say 
 any more in its favor? But as a political machine I believe it 
 has majiipulated our politics, corrupted onir legislature, and 
 defeated the ends of justice in many cases, and I believe it to 
 be an evil and worthy the righteous condemnation of a free 
 people. 
 
 I am not going to tlake up your time longer, but I hope this 
 amendment will be adopted, and I hope this state will be 
 freed from the disgrace resting upon it for all these years. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I have no desire to interrupt the 
 debate on this question., or to interfere with an immediate 
 vote if it can be taken.. But the hour for the special order, 
 which is the reconsideration of the vote on woman's suffrage, 
 has now arrived. I want to deal entirely fair with the gentle- 
 men who are interested in this measure, and for the purpose 
 of taking the sense of the committee I move that the com- 
 mittee do now arise, report progress, and ask leave to sit 
 again. 
 
 The motion being stated by the chairman, prevailed. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 691 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Little, chairman, from the Committee of the Whole r 
 reported that the committee had been in session, having had 
 under consideration the various resolutions relating to free 
 passes on railroads, and had voted to rise, report progress, and 
 ask leave to sit again. 
 
 Leave was granted. 
 
 The special order was called for, it being the motion of the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, to reconsider the vote- 
 whereby the resolution of Mr. Thompson of Warner to amend 
 article twenty-seven, part two of the Constitution, by striking 
 out the word "male" passed the Convention. 
 
 The following communication from the Hon. Henry W. 
 Blair was read: 
 
 MANCHESTER, K H., December 6, 1902. 
 
 To President Streeter of the Constitutional Convention, in 
 session, Concord, N. H. 
 
 Dear Sir: Understanding that there is a proposition be- 
 fore the Convention for submission to the people, so amend- 
 ing the Constitution as to confer the right of suffrage upon 
 women, and being in favor of the proposition, I respectfully 
 beg leave, through you, to express my approbation of the 
 same, and to request the Convention to submit such proposi- 
 tion to the people, that the sentiments of the legal voters of 
 the state may be duly expressed thereupon at the ballot box. 
 
 I shall not argue this question at any length, because, if 
 there be any gentleman of the Convention without convic- 
 tions upon this great subject, it is too late in his life, and in 
 mine, to enter upon the investigation. 
 
 I would respectfully call special attention to the fact that 
 the true mission of the Constitutional Convention, in my 
 
692 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 opinion, is to give to the voters the opportunity to express 
 their views upon subjects affecting the public welfare, and 
 that the submission of this or any other proposition to the 
 people by no means implies that the sentiments of the Con- 
 vention are necessarily favorable to the proposition; and I 
 should consider any member of the Convention who might 
 vote for the submission of this or any other proposition to the 
 people, for their action, entirely at liberty to oppose the same, 
 both in subsequent discussion and at the ballot box. 
 
 For more than half a century the proposition to allow 
 women to vote has been discussed in New Hampshire and 
 throughout the country. 
 
 During this time great changes have occurred in public 
 opinion upon many questions, social, political, and theolog- 
 ical. 
 
 No one of them was more important than this. It is time 
 that opportunity be given for some expression of the senti- 
 ments of the people upon this subject. 
 
 If it should be found! that but a fragment of our population 
 has been convinced that women should have the right to vote 
 by all this agitation, the agitation may as well cease; but, on 
 the other hand it may appear that the public judgment has 
 been and is maturing in favor of the exercise of her just 
 numerical share of the sovereignty by woman. 
 
 Should this be found to be the case a strong impetus would 
 be given to what many believe to be a great advance in the 
 cause of human liberty, the promotion of universal justice, 
 iind of truly republican government, throughout the world. 
 
 The republican form of government vests the sovereignty 
 In the people. The only other logical form of government is 
 it"he one man power. Sovereignty is sovereignty whether it be 
 vested in the despot or in the masses of mankind; and if 
 vested in the masses, there is no natural or logical reason why 
 it should! be confined to the male sex. 
 
 The right exercise of sovereignty is dependent upon the vir- 
 tue and intelligence of the sovereign. 
 
 Neither virtue nor intelligence is confined to males, nor is 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 693 
 
 the exercise of the sovereignty an act to be restricted to the 
 males of the community, because they are males. 
 
 The suffrage can be conferred in the republican form of 
 government only because the voter has the necessary virtue 
 and intelligence to qualify him for its proper exercise. 
 
 Woman can be deprived of the suffrage only because she is- 
 so deficient in virtue and intelligence as to be incapable of 
 properly exercising it. 
 
 Voting, or intelligent and honest exercise of the suffrage,, 
 is an act of the mind and not of the body. The soul is of no- 
 sex, and this whole sex argument in connection with the suf- 
 frage is utterly illogical and absurd. 
 
 If the sex of the voter is to decide the right to vote, it would 
 be difficult for man to show that his sex is any more important 
 than that of woman. 
 
 How much more important is a man than a woman in rais- 
 ing a family of children ? How much more important is man 
 in society than woman? Is his life worth more? Is the dollar 
 worth more because he owns it? Do human rights require 
 less protection because they belong to women rather than to 
 men? 
 
 If man be physically stronger than woman, he is in less 
 need of the law than woman, and should have less voice in 
 the making of it, and woman should vote and make laws 
 rather than man. 
 
 I believe that if the government is to be confined to but one 
 eex we would be better governed by women than by men. 
 
 Woman is more religious than man, and she is instinctively: 
 of a higher ideal in moral and 1 spiritual things. 
 
 With equal opportunity she is the equal of man intellect- 
 ually. There is no public question which agitates, or has agi- 
 tated, the American people which women have not mastered' 
 and upon which they cannot vote as intelligently as the mafe 
 population. 
 
 No public speaker in your Convention will rise in his place 
 and say that the women in the audiences of New Hampshire^ 
 during the last quarter of a century, have not comprehended 
 financial and economical questions as well as the men. 
 
694 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 She is always for temperance, for the education of her chil- 
 dren, for peace and good order, and it would be infinitely more 
 easy for her to convert her will into law by voting than by 
 talking. 
 
 She has life, liberty, and property. The sovereignty is for 
 their defense. She has less of physical force than man. 
 
 Why then should she not have the sovereignty to defend 
 her inalienable rights, as well as man? 
 
 It is no answer to say that as a class she does not want suf- 
 frage. What right has a class, so ignoble as to surrender its 
 own rights as a class by the failure of a majority to assert 
 them, to say that individuals of that class who do want their 
 rights and liberties, shall not 'have them? Why not give the 
 right to vote to women, and then let those vote who want to, 
 and those abstain from voting who want to, just as in the case 
 of men? 
 
 But women, as a rule, desire to vote. So long dependent 
 upon the stronger sex, and so uncertain of any change for 
 the better, from this agitation, sensitive to ridicule and 
 naturally anxious to please the stronger sex, upon which she 
 is so dependent, woman often withholds the true expression of 
 the secret desire of her heart for the exercise of the full-orbed 
 rights of a human being. 
 
 But, without taking the time of the Convention, as one of 
 the stronger sex, of mature years, anxious for the highest good 
 of our state, our country, and the world, I earnestly desire 
 that women shall have every right that I have, or that any- 
 body has. 
 
 I beg of the Convention to give the people an opportunity 
 to make women free as men are free, in the state of New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 Trusting that I may not too far trespass upon your courtesy 
 or upon the time of the Convention in asking that the con- 
 tents of this letter may come to its knowledge, I am, my dear 
 sir, 
 
 Very respectfully your obedient servant, 
 
 HENRY W. BLAIR. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 695 
 
 The President For the information of the Convention the 
 t-hair will state the question. On December 11 the Conven- 
 tion adopted the following amendment: "Resolved, That the 
 word 'male' be stricken from article twenty-seven, part two of 
 the Constitution.'' After the passage of that amendment, a 
 motion to reconsider was made, and that motion was laid upon 
 the table and was made a special order for this hour. The 
 question is upon the adoption of the motion to reconsider the 
 vote whereby the amendment was adopted. Is the Conven- 
 tion ready for the question? 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin I desire to detain the house but 
 one moment. I think in a matter of this importance I ought 
 to put myself on record as to why I vote as I shall vote on this 
 resolution. It is my firm belief that three fourths at least of 
 the entire women of this state do not desire the right of suf- 
 frage. I believe, gentlemen, if each one of you will take his 
 own personal acquaintances and ascertain the opinions of 
 those whom he reveres he will see that three out of four good 
 women for whom he has respect would not ask this privilege 
 of voting. I have n't any doubt but that when it is made to 
 appear to the legislature of this state that a large majority of 
 the intelligent women of the state desire the right of suffrage 
 it will grant it to them. Now if it is a fact that the majority 
 of the intelligent women of the state do not want to vote, what 
 Avould be the practical result of giving them the franchise. 
 To my mind, it would be this, the less intelligent and less 
 moral women of the country would be found at the polls; 
 every man who would sell his vote for $5 at an election would 
 be there, and take his wife, if he has one, and his daughter, if 
 he has one, and make so much more for the family. Gentle- 
 men, would your wife and mine go to the polls when such a 
 condition as that exists? I say "No." 
 
 Gentlemen, I think we madJe a mistake when we did n't 
 have a chance to vote on the amendment proposed by the gen- 
 tleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich. I was very sorry that we 
 <3ould not have acted upon it, for if we had and his proposition 
 
696 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 had been carried and finally adopted, there would have beei* 
 some provision for the future, whenever a majority of womerr 
 desire the privilege., but if you take the question as it is now 
 before the Convention and submit it to the people, as the- 
 friends of the measure say, it may be voted down by the peo- 
 ple and you are right where you started. If a constitutional 
 amendment is necessary, why not draw an amendment here 
 that the legislature shall have the authority when it appears 
 that a majority of women want the right of suffrage to give it 
 to them. I think the resolution ought to be put in that way, 
 and then if the women don't get at one session what they de- 
 sire they still have the right to go to the next session, and you 
 have continually a power in the legislature to grant this right 
 of women's suffrage whenever they see that the majority of 
 the women desire it. All you would then have to do would be 
 to make it plain to the legislature that a majority of th& 
 women of this state wanted the right and they would get it. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I will take but a minute of 
 the time of this Convention. I desire to say that since this 
 question came up I have received the views of a large number 
 of women from other states with reference to woman's suf- 
 frage, and have received many arguments and pamphlets from 
 other cities against it. 
 
 There has been read to this Convention a communication 
 from Hon. Henry W. Blair. I desire to offset that voice from 
 the past with a voice from the present. I have in my hands a 
 Manchester Union, and in it is an article which perhaps some 
 of you have read and some have not. It is an address made by 
 the governor-elect of New Hampshire, and I desire to read an 
 extract from his remarks: 
 
 "In this period of activity among the promoters of so-called 
 equal suffrage, however much we may force it, we should not 
 lose sight of the fact that the future welfare of the country 
 will be determined in the homes of the nation rather than at 
 the ballot box. The affairs of state and nation will be shaped 
 in the future as in the past by people whose principles of hon- 
 
THUKSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 69T 
 
 esty, integrity, and) morality have been fixed by home in- 
 fluence in youthful days rather than by legislation. What 
 honest man to-day cannot ( recall the home influence expressed 
 in the fondness and devotion of a mother, the deep affection 
 of a sister, or the love and fond encouragement of a wife, in 
 the sweet atmosphere of home, stimulating him to better and 
 greater deeds. 
 
 "We should remember that participation of woman in pub- 
 lic affairs always tends to draw her interest away from her 
 most sacred duty, that of home making. He who compares 
 the condition of the shackled slave in bondage with the con- 
 dition of women without the ballot box has but slight 
 comprehension of the sphere and influence of woman in shap- 
 ing the destiny of the nation through home influence and 
 would be almost justified in comparing the condition of 
 shackled inmates of hell with the saints of heaven. 
 
 "When woman wants the ballot no honest, intelligent man 
 will withhold it from her. The lack of interest among women 
 in securing the ballot is not so much from failure to recognize 
 its value as from a true appreciation of their present exalted 
 position in the homes of the nation. 
 
 "When woman wants the ballot this organization will not 
 oe an obstacle in her path and 1 will even help her to secure it,, 
 but in the discussion of the matter let us not overlook the im- 
 portance of an earnest effort to inspire woman with a true 
 appreciation of her present influence and power as a home 
 maker and character builder, and the loss to the nation from 
 any movement that detracts in the slightest degree from her 
 intuitive conception of mind and heart in her noble mission 
 of contributing to the home-making and home-loving ten- 
 dency of the American people." 
 
 Those are the remarks of the gentleman whom you elected 
 as chief magistrate of this state. They were made after he 
 had been master for eleven years of the State Grange, and 
 has visited the homes throughout the state. He speaks as a 
 man of experience in regard to the homes of New Hampshire, 
 and I do not believe that anybody on this floor could address 
 
698 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 us more intelligently than Governor-elect Bachelder on this 
 question. 
 
 I have only this to say. I do not believe that any man has 
 &ny moral right to send to the people of this state, with the 
 recommendation of this committee, any amendment which he 
 will not support at the polls, and which he does not believe 
 should be enacted. 
 
 Mr. Starr of Manchester This is a specious plea which the 
 gentlemen in favor of this resolution offers us that it does 
 not go to the merits of the question. I hope every gentleman 
 in this body who is opposed to this resolution will not be 
 fooled by any such plea as that. I am opposed to the resolu- 
 tion and in favor of the reconsideration of the action of the 
 Convention taken the other day, because I believe the 
 founders of this government, and of every other government 
 under the sun, imposed the responsibility and power of main- 
 taining government upon the men. Manhood suffrage was 
 the standard, not because man had any inherent^ natural, or 
 inalienable right, but because the framers of the Constitution 
 knew that behind the ballot must be the power to enforce the 
 law. 
 
 We have only to recall what was done in this chamber last 
 Friday to prove conclusively that suffrage is not a natural and 
 inherent right. On that day we voted to submit to the people 
 an amendment to our Constitution which provided for an 
 educational test for voters. Under the provisions of that 
 amendment, if it is adopted, very many men who are other- 
 wise qualified for the suffrage are disenfranchised because a 
 great many of them may not be able to read and write in the 
 English language, although they can in their own tongue, and 
 they may own property, and yet they will be deprived of the 
 right of suffrage. Now, I did not hear a single member of 
 this house rise to complain and say that it was an outrage 
 upon those men and an outrage upon the inherent and in- 
 alienable right of those people to deny them the right to vote. 
 There was not one in the house heard to utter a protest 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 699 
 
 against the proposed amendment, or to say that it was wrong 
 to have taxation without representation. 
 
 Our Constitution speaks of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
 happiness, and says that those are the inherent rights of the 
 people, but it does not state anywhere that representation is 
 an inherent right or that the right of suffrage is an inherent 
 right. 
 
 I am opposed to woman's suffrage because I believe it is 
 fundamentally, organically, and functionally wrong. I be- 
 lieve the place and sphere of women is the home, I be- 
 lieve that society rests upon the family, and that as the fam- 
 ily is vigorous and strong and happy and prosperous, in the 
 same degree and in the same ratio is the government and the 
 state well governed and prosperous. 
 
 Mr. S. W. Emery of Portsmouth I had no intention of 
 taking part in this debate, but I think every one should be 
 able to explain the ground upon which he stands in this 
 matter. 
 
 I have heard no one complain that women are oppressed, 
 that is, any legislation that they ask for that they cannot get, 
 or, that they in any way are denied any rights except the right 
 of suffrage. In this state, within the last fifty years, women's 
 rights of holding property have been extended as fast as the 
 spirit of the times warranted, and I have heard no one com- 
 plain that a woman in respect to her property does not have 
 as much right to act with reference to it as her husband does 
 with reference to his property. 
 
 It has been said in this Convention if you get women into 
 politics it is going to purify it. In the state of Colorado they 
 enfranchised women fully in 1893, and in the city of Denver 
 at the last election there were some forty or fifty of the lead- 
 ing Democratic and Republican lawyers who joined in a re- 
 quest that the repeaters and thugs and such like be punished 
 for violation of the election laws, and it was said that some of 
 the people accused of violating them were women. Now if we 
 bring women into politics it will not elevate politics but it 
 will degrade the women. 
 
700 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Another thing. I have heard it reported that this is going 
 to affect the laws in favor of temperance. I believe in every 
 one of the states in which the women are enfranchised the 
 local option law obtains, and not a single one of those states 
 has a prohibitory statute, nor is it likely that they will have. 
 So I cannot see anything in that point. 
 
 Furthermore, I do not believe that one woman in ten will 
 go to the polls to vote. It seems to me that this agitation 
 comes from a few women who have too much idle time on 
 their hands. 
 
 Mr. Lamprey of Concord Allusion has been made by the 
 last speaker to the dire results that have taken place in the 
 state of Colorado. I wish to read an extract here that has 
 come directly from that state, which shows what the people 
 of Colorado think to-day. 
 
 "We, citizens of the state of Colorado, desire as lovers of 
 truth and justice, to give our testimony to the value of equal 
 suffrage. 
 
 We believe that the greatest good of the home, the state, 
 and the nation is advanced through the operation of equal 
 suffrage. The evils predicted have not come to pass. The 
 benefits claimed for it have been secured!, or are in process of 
 development. A very large proportion of Colorado women 
 have conscientiously accepted their responsibility as citizens. 
 In 1894 more than half the total vote for governor was cast 
 by women. Between 85 and 90 per cent, of the women of the 
 state voted at that time. The exact vote of the last election 
 has not yet been estimated, but there is reason to believe that 
 the proportional vote of women was as large as in previous 
 years. 
 
 The vote of good women, like that of good men, is involved 
 in the evils resulting from the abuse of our present political 
 system; but the vote of women is noticeably more conscien- 
 tious than that of men, and will be an important factor in 
 bringing abo<ut a better order." 
 
 This statement is signed by forty or fifty of the leading 
 
THUHSDAY, DECEMBEK 18, 1902. 701 
 
 men in education and politics. It has come directly from the 
 state where the evils that have been spoken of are said to 
 exist. 
 
 I wish simply to notice one allusion made hy the gentleman 
 from Franklin, Mr. Leach. He says if women are granted the 
 right of franchise that only the less intelligent and the less 
 virtuous of the women will improve their opportunities. If 
 that is his estimate of women, I wish to say here, and wish to 
 be put on record, that it is very different from mine. I do 
 not believe that the good women of the state are going to 
 stay closeted at home after asking this privilege and after it 
 has been conferred upon them. I do not believe these women 
 will stay at home and see the less virtuous and the less intelli- 
 gent represent them when they have asked to have this privi- 
 lege conferred upon them. 
 
 The gentleman says the home influences will be corrupted 
 and weakened. As though the women, the mother and the 
 sister, could not give two days in a year to look after public 
 interests without ignoring her home! That is a bare assertion 
 that cannot be sustained. There is no argument in it. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, if we confer this right upon the women of 
 this state it is not the less virtuous and the less intelligent 
 who will avail themselves of the privilege, but it is the good 
 women who come here and who have asked us simply for the 
 privilege of submitting this question to the people. They do 
 not ask us to confer suffrage upon them, but they ask in the 
 most courteous terms that we give them the right to go to 
 the people of the state and to ask the people if they are will- 
 ing to confer it. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth I did not intend to say any- 
 thing upon this question to-day, as I have already expressed 
 myself in favor of this resolution, when it was before the Con- 
 vention last week. 
 
 Since that time, we have been flooded with foreign litera- 
 ture and newspaper criticisms from the opponents of women 
 suffrage. After such examination of these documents and 
 
702 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 criticisms as 1 have been able to make, I fail to find any valid 
 reason why we should not adhere to what we did last week, 
 when we voted to submit this resolution to the people. 
 
 Before the people will be called upon to vote upon it they 
 will have ample opportunity to inform themselves so as to 
 vote intelligently. 
 
 I do not think we have any occasion to fear such injurious 
 results as our opponents predict, should this resolution be 
 ratified by two thirds of the voters of this state. This talk 
 about its increasing corruption in politics is simply an asser- 
 tion, unsupported by evidence. 
 
 The effect of placing the ballot in tihe hands of womeji 
 would, in my judgment, be elevating rather than degrading. 
 
 Another reason assigned in one of these circulars against 
 equal suffrage is, that, if women are permitted to vote, they 
 will be constantly making unreasonable attempts to increase 
 their pay, and demand shorter days, and perform less labor. 
 
 If the granting of equal suffrage to women will tend in any 
 way to alleviate the sufferings of those poor women, who 
 are obliged to work in sweat shops twelve or thirteen hours a 
 day for wages hardly sufficient to sustain life, every member 
 of this Convention ought to be in favor of granting it at once. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry Does the gentleman from 
 Somersworth wish us to infer that there are sweat shops ex- 
 isting in the state of New Hampshire, compelling women to 
 work twelve or thirteen hours a day? 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth I do not wish to assert that, 
 but there are such shops in this country, and as the gentle- 
 man, who spoke so eloquently on Trusts, said, "The example 
 of New Hampshire may help the poor suffering women, 
 where those conditions exist." 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I desire, Mr. Chairman, simply to 
 make a statement. This Convention must not be drawn away 
 from the point under consideration. Some members, in dis- 
 cussing this question, evidently apprehend that we are to> 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 70S 
 
 settle this matter here and now, and perhaps fear that after 
 we have settled it the women will be here and occupy our 
 seats. This question is a question of submission to the people 
 whether they are in favor of granting the right of suffrage to 
 women. The people who will vote upon that question are 
 the present voters the men. 
 
 The gentlemen who have argued against this question are 
 positive in their assertions that a majority of the men are op- 
 posed to this amendment. In addition to that, they say that 
 a very large majority of the women are opposed to this 
 amendment. I know of no more convincing illustration of 
 woman's influence upon men than the example given this 
 Convention by the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, of 
 the influence upon him "of women. 
 
 Now then, if all women, or nearly all, in this state do not 
 desire the franchise and they have the influence with their 
 husbands and their fathers and their brothers that is asserted 
 here by those opposed to the submission of this question to 
 the people, then the gentlemen need have no fear of the 
 amendment being carried by the people. 
 
 I shall vote against the reconsideration of this question and 
 in favor of submitting it to the people. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Bedford Unfortunately for me I arrived 
 at this session too late to have heard all the arguments that 
 were made this morning upon this question. I feel, with the 
 gentleman from Portsmouth, Mr. Emery, that I should be 
 delinquent if I failed to express the opinion of one of your 
 body on this subject. 
 
 Gentlemen have stated that the action of this Convention 
 is conclusive upon this question that no man should vote 
 liere as he will not vote at the polls. But it seems to me that 
 the views of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, is the 
 more correct. If I understand our position correctly, we are 
 asked to grant, not a privilege, but a right. It is the right of 
 suffrage, and it is a right dependent in its last analysis upon 
 the power of the voters to bear their just share of the burdens 
 
704 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of the state. That is to say, the question of who pays the 
 taxes is the important question. We have come here and for 
 three weeks have been doing our best to arrive at a basis of 
 equality of representation. We have labored hard and have 
 not as yet produced any affirmative results. Is not the way 
 open here to us to very easily take a long step in the direction 
 of that equality? I believe that no member of this body for 
 a moment fails in his allegiance to his wife, mother, or sister. 
 I believe no man here desires to degrade or disparage them in 
 the slightest or remotest degree, and I believe also that no 
 man here would refuse any reasonable request which they 
 might prefer. Now the only organization which women have 
 has been present here through their delegates and representa- 
 tives, and they have asked us for what they consider their 
 rights, and it is for us to determine, not whether we will give 
 them their rights, because that is beyond our power, but 
 whether we will go home to our fellow-citizens and say to 
 them, "This request has been preferred to us, your repre- 
 sentatives, and we have done no more than to pass it on for 
 you to act upon." It seems to me it would be a very serious 
 injury in some aspects to introduce into the contest of the 
 primaries and the conventions the sacred gods of the house- 
 hold that we like to guard from anything of that kind. But 
 I take it we are to remember that the women come to us say- 
 ing that they want to share with us still more largely in the 
 burden of public affairs, and that they want to have a larger 
 voice in the management of the affairs of the state of New 
 Hampshire, and it is for us to determine whether they are to 
 be treated like children and told "no," or to be treated like 
 superiors who have only to prefer a request and it is granted 
 at once. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia At the time this matter came be- 
 fore the Convention I did not ask the privilege of addressing 
 you, but in view of the motion which is now being considered 
 I deem it my duty to express my views very briefly, and it 
 must be so. because I see the hour is fast approaching when 
 the vote is to be taken. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 705 
 
 I want to preface what I am about to say by stating that I 
 take no second place to any man in this Convention, or any 
 man in the state of New Hampshire, in my respect for wo- 
 manhood. No man who has sat at his mother's knee, or who 
 has regard for his wife, mother, or sister, can accuse me of 
 want of respect for womankind. But notwithstanding this, I 
 am not prepared to vote for the amendment suggested by the 
 gentleman from Warner, Mr. Thompson, that the word 
 "male" should be stricken from article twenty-seven of the 
 Constitution. I do not believe there is any public exigency, 
 or any demand on the part of the women of New Hampshire, 
 which necessitates any such amendment of the fundamental 
 law of this state. I am not prepared to say how many women 
 of New Hampshire ask for this amendment, but as far as has 
 come to my knowledge I understand there are something like 
 2,600 women who ask for it, and there are about 110,000 wo- 
 men, Mr. President, who ask nothing of the kind. I may be 
 right, and I may be wrong, but I assume that I am right. 
 
 Now, the proposition suggested here is to strike out from 
 article twenty-seven the word "male." That article reads now 
 as follows: 
 
 "The senate shall be the first branch of the legislature, and 
 the senators shall be chosen in the following manner, namely, 
 every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town 
 privileges," etc. 
 
 The purpose is to strike out from that article the word 
 "male" so that it will read: "Every inhabitant of each town 
 and parish ... of twenty-one years of age and up- 
 wards," shall have the right to vote. There is an able stand- 
 ing committee to whom matters of this kind should ordinarily 
 be referred, namely, the Committee on the Judicial Depart- 
 ment, and the question ought to be referred to them as to 
 whether or not the elimination of the word "male" will place 
 upon every inhabitant above twenty years of age the absolute 
 right to vote, whether naturalized or otherwise. 
 
 It seems to me that this Convention cannot afford to place 
 before the people of New Hampshire the stamp of its approval 
 
 45 
 
706 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of this amendment. If we submit this measure to the people, 
 it will go to them, with the approval of this Convention that 
 the word "male" be stricken from this article in the Constitu- 
 tion, and they will have a right to assume, and assume prop- 
 erly, Mr. President, when they vote on this amendment that 
 it has the approval of a select body of men elected to repre- 
 sent the people from every town and ward of this state. 
 
 I do not propose to talk any longer now, but I say simply 
 this. To send out from this Convention our approval of the 
 proposed amendment to strike out the word "male," without 
 first having the opinion of the proper committee as to what 
 the legal effect of the amendment will be if adopted by the 
 people of New Hampshire, will be wrong. 
 
 I believe that the adoption of this amendment instead of 
 raising the standard of manhood, would lower the standard 
 of womanhood. 
 
 The question being stated, by unanimous consent, the yeas 
 and nays were taken. 
 
 The following named gentlemen voted in the affirmative: 
 
 KOCKINGHAM COUNTY. Conley, Flanders of Brentwood, 
 Knowles, Kelsey of Deerfteld, Gillispie, Abbott of Derry, 
 Wetherell, Pillsbury, Battles, Peaslee, Emery, S. W., Emery, 
 S. P., Paul, Ham, Wingate. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Leighton, Hanson of Dover, Neal- 
 ley, Nute of Dover, Chesley, Webb, Gerrish, Moore, Cham- 
 berlain, Furbush, Gelinas, Cochrane, Gunnison, Libby, Leary, 
 Eoy, Morin, Hall of Strafford. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Morrill of Gilford, Pulsifer of La- 
 conia, Ward, Jewett, Thompson of Laconia, Eogers, Fellows. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Hobson, Dorr, Sanborn of Wakefield, 
 Hersey. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Blodgett of Allenstown, Buxton, 
 French of Bradford, Virgin, Mitchell of Concord, Foster, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 707 
 
 Walker of Concord, Howe, Casey, Jordan, Ford of Danbury, 
 Sanborn of Franklin, Leach, Wilkins, Head, Messer, Todd, 
 Chickering, Truesdell, Miller, Lang. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Whitaker of Deering, Peavey, 
 Fogg, Smith of Hillsborough, Marsh, Tarbell, Lambert, Ab- 
 bott of Manchester, Cross, Green of Manchester, Dodge of 
 Manchester, Bontwell, Jones, Robinson, Tremblay, Lord, 
 Hill, Precourt, McDonough, Tonery, Starr, Horan, Sullivan, 
 Griffin, Jennings, McAllister, Quirin Joseph, Clement of Man- 
 chester, Richer, Provost, Plante, Quirin Eugene, Guerin, Hall 
 of Manchester, Trinity, Gordon, Raymond, Spring, Harriman, 
 Ledoux, Hallinan, Proctor, Shedd, Earley, Slattery, Blan- 
 chard, Seavey, Scott, Richardson, Bales, Chapman. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Learned, Collins of Gilsum, Farwell, 
 Buckley, Hall of Keene, Woodward, Osgood, Emory, Mc- 
 Clure, Day, Stone of Troy, Spaulding, Goodnow. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Brooks, Tenney, Colby, Burpee, 
 Holmes, Bradley, Barton, Penniman, Brown of Springfield, 
 Brockway. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Bucklin, Dearborn of Ashland, Par- 
 ker of Benton, Morrill of Bridge water, Chase of Bristol, Pul- 
 sifer of Campton, Richardson of Canaan, Dresser, Walker of 
 Graf ton, Kidder, Ward, Colby of Hanover, Westgate, Sloane, 
 Jewell of Hebron, Flanders, Drake, Henry, Aldrich of Little- 
 ton, Morse, French of Orange, Lamprey of Orford, Went- 
 worth, Craig of Rumney, Green of Waterville, Shute. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Moffett, Rich, Daley, Boudreau, Murray, 
 Johnson, Thurston, Kent, Hartley, Phipps, Pike of Stark, 
 Hinman, Dodge of Whitefield. 
 
 The following named gentlemen voted in the negative: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Sanborn of Auburn, Eaton, Kim- 
 ball of Danville, Sanders, Eastman, Follansbee, Fuller, Leddy, 
 Hooke, Sanborn of Hampstead, Weare, Shaw, Chase of Kings- 
 
708 JOURNAL OP CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ton, Pollard, de Rochemont, Burley, Walker of Newmarket^ 
 Gate, Kelsey of Nottingham, Howard, Norris, Cullen, Healey, 
 Sawyer of Rye, Cole, Wheeler, Locke of Seabrook, Jewell of 
 South Hampton, Clark of Windhani. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Morrison of Dover, Moulton, Rob- 
 erts, Hall of Dover, Morang, Murphy, Willson of Farmington, 
 Nute of Rochester, Meader, Springfield, Nutter of Rollins- 
 ford, Edgerly. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Demeritt, Colbath, Bryar, Clark of 
 Center Harbor, Cogswell, Gorrell, Busiel, Lewis, Smith of 
 Meredith, Smith of New Hampton, Knox. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Nickerson, Rideout, Colman, Spencer, 
 Gibson, Morrill of Conway, Dearborn of Eaton, Harmon, Mer- 
 row, Murch, Meserve, Oilman, Goodwin, Brown of Ossipee, 
 Morrison of Tuftonborough. 
 
 MERRIMACK' COUNTY. Stone of Andover, Baker, Frame, 
 Sanborn of Chichester, Dudley of Concord, Foote, Hollis, 
 Lyford, Niles, Kimball of Concord, Lamprey of Concord, In- 
 galls, Chandler, Caldwell, Dolbeer, Stone of Franklin, Towne, 
 Wilson of Hill, Putnam, Wyatt, Green of Pittsfield, Thomp- 
 son of Warner. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Hubbard, Woodbury of Bed- 
 ford, Kimball of Bennington, Fessenden, Downes, Colby, 
 Paige of Goffstown, Bacon, Holman, Powers of Hol- 
 lis, Briggs, Hunt, Little, Rose, Gilmore, Farrington, Harvey, 
 Irwin, Allen, McQuesten, Powers of Manchester, McElroy, 
 Greager, Nettle, Paige of Manchester, Whitaker of Mason, 
 Knight, Rotch, Worcester, Hamblett, Clough of Nashua, Par- 
 ker of Nashua, Wason, Runnells, McKay, Flather, Desmarais, 
 Dodge of New Boston, Morrison of Peterborough, Simons. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Cooke, Amidon, Blake, Poole, An- 
 nett, Taft, Wright, Foskett, Newell, Craig of Marlow, Cass, 
 Buckminster, Rugg, Clement of Surry, Kiniry, Davis. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Mitchell of Acworth, Stockwell, Ros- 
 
THUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 709 
 
 siter, Fairbanks, Ide, Hanson of Goshen, Noyes, Bartlett, 
 Newton. 
 
 GKAFTON COUNTY. Carbee, Hildreth of Bethlehem, Ash- 
 ley, Young of Easton, Avery, Cumings, Parker of Franconia, 
 Pike of Haverhill, Glazier, Dewey, Hibbard, Woolson, Morris, 
 Green of Littleton, Melvin, Warden, Eussell, Woodbury of 
 Woodstock. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Wight of Berlin, Miles, Titus, Britton, 
 Wight of Dummer, Evans, Crawford, Perkins, McKellips, 
 Blanchard, Watson, Philbrook, Aldrich of Whitefield. 
 
 And 177 gentlemen having voted in the affirmative and 186 
 gentlemen having voted in the negative, the motion to re- 
 consider was lost, and the resolution was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the 
 Amendments Agreed to by the Convention. 
 
 The chair appointed the following Committee on Publish- 
 ing the Reports of the Proceedings of the Convention, in ac- 
 cordance with the resolution adopted yesterday: Messrs. Bux- 
 ton of Boscawen, Jewett of Laconia, Bales of Wilton, Spring 
 of Nashua, and Jones of Manchester. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord called for the special order, it 
 being the amendment reported by the Committee on the Bill 
 of Rights and Executive Department in relation to trusts, to- 
 gether with the resolution of the committee that the amend- 
 ment be adopted. 
 
 Question: Upon the adoption of the resolution. 
 
 By unanimous consent, at the suggestion of Mr. Aldrich of 
 Littleton, the word "thereof" at the end of the amendment 
 reported from the committee was stricken out. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua I said last evening that I did not 
 intend to engage in any discussion of this matter, but after 
 
710 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 considering the resolution as reported by the committee,, I 
 cannot vote for the same, and wish to state my reasons for 
 opposing it. 
 
 The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, stated that 
 the present Constitution probably gave to the legislature all 
 the power necessary to enable it to enact laws to meet the 
 evils complained of in relation to trusts. The gentleman 
 from Littleton, in the very elaborate address he gave us, 
 stated that the purpose of this resolution was to assist the 
 gentleman who presides over the affairs of this government, 
 and to declare to the other states and to the world that the 
 people of New Hampshire are opposed to unlawful monopo- 
 lies. "We all agree with the distinguished gentleman from 
 Littleton in being opposed to these unlawful combinations. 
 Every one in New Hampshire is opposed to the unlawful com- 
 bination of capital; but I submit that it is not necessary for us 
 to add to our Constitution or give out to the world a declara- 
 tion that the state of New Hampshire is opposed to such com- 
 binations. I do not believe it is necessary for us to declare to 
 the president or to our representatives in congress that we 
 oppose such combinations. The fact is, gentlemen, that the 
 state of New Hampshire has already declared through its leg- 
 islature from time to time against these combinations, and we 
 have given to the world, and to the gentleman who presides 
 over the affairs of this country, those very remedies which the 
 gentleman from Litttleton, Mr. Aldrich, said were necessary, 
 namely, publicity and control. Examine, if you will, the 
 statutes of New Hampshire, authorized by and based upon 
 the Constitution which you seek to amend. Can we have any 
 of the unlawful corporations complained of? Not one. The 
 corporations organized under the laws of this state, unlike 
 those of many other states, must have a paid-up capital, and 
 that capital must be paid in in cash; any false returns made 
 under oath and the statute provides that returns shall be 
 made under oath make the person filing such returns guilty 
 of perjury; the over-issue of any of the capital stock is a crim- 
 inal offense; under our statutes a stockholders 5 liability is 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 711 
 
 created; and every opportunity is given to ascertain how these 
 corporations are managed and controlled. These laws for the- 
 most part have been tested, and the supreme court of our 
 state has declared that they are constitutional. Now why 
 should we incorporate into our Constitution that which is 
 unnecessary; that which the author of the resolution, the gen- 
 tleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, and that which the gen- 
 tleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, have said is simply for 
 the purpose of declaring to the world our position with refer- 
 ence to this matter, when this state, through its legislatures, 
 has been one of the foremost in the nation in enacting laws 
 to prevent these combinations of which they complain. 
 
 I should like to ask the gentleman from Littleton whether 
 or not the resolution which he has offered here will prevent 
 the organization of labor, and I should like to have him 
 answer it at this time if he will. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I will take the opportunity in 
 my five minutes. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord In answer to the assertion of 
 the gentleman from Nashua, Mr. Hamblett, that there is no 
 need of putting this amendment into the Constitution, I de- 
 sire to call the attention of the Convention to the fact that 
 our national and state Constitutions do three things. First,, 
 they frame a form of government; second, they announce 
 principles which are for the protection of the people; and, 
 third, they command the legislatures to conform to those 
 principles. 
 
 Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is full 
 of the enunciations of principles. It forbids any law estab- 
 lishing religion; forbids any law against free speech or a free 
 press; forbids any law against the right of petition or the right 
 of the people to bear arms; prohibits the quartering of sol- 
 diers on the inhabitants, except in time of war; forbids un- 
 reasonable searches and seizures; forbids the taking away of 
 jury trials; it enunciates principles against unreasonable bail 
 and unreasonable punishments. 
 
712 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The New Hampshire Constitution forbids any law taking 
 private property for public use without compensation there- 
 for; declares against the trial of alleged criminals in any other 
 Bounty than the one where the crime was committed; declares 
 against unreasonable searches and seizures; against quartering 
 soldiers on the inhabitants; against excessive bail and fines, 
 or cruel and unusual punishments; against loaning money on 
 the credit of the state; declares against pardons before con- 
 viction; in favor of trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom 
 of assembling, and freedom of petition; commands the legisla- 
 ture of the state to promote commerce, and so on. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, the constitutions of the United States 
 and of this state demand all these things, and yet I believe 
 every one it is within the power of the state government to 
 enact, without the express demand of the people inserted into 
 the Constitution. The object of the Bill of Rights and 
 declarations of this sort is to declare principles and to com- 
 mand legislatures to enforce them, and that, Mr. President, is 
 what we want to do here and now. That is, we want to de- 
 clare the principle of free and fair competition throughout 
 the length and breadth of the state and to command not to 
 permit, but to command future legislatures to enforce that 
 principle. 
 
 Mr. Howe of Concord Mr. President and Gentlemen of 
 the Convention: The single naked question is a question of 
 necessity. Do we need in our Constitution the amendment 
 proposed? I am not, Mr. President and gentlemen, a stock- 
 holder or a bondholder in any trust; I do not ride upon the 
 free pass of any trust; I do not send my telegrams under the 
 frank of any trust; I am not interested in any manner what- 
 soever in any trust; but I believe that we have in our Consti- 
 tution everything that we need upon this subject, and that it 
 is inadvisable to annex to our Constitution this proposed 
 amendment. Our duty here is to revise the Constitution if it 
 needs it; not otherwise. It is important to see, before we 
 make any amendment of our Constitution, whether the Con- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 713 
 
 stitution is in need of amendment. We are not here to defend 
 trusts, or to attack trusts, or to decide whether or not they are 
 an evil, but simply to leave our Constitution, when we are 
 done with it, in the best shape in which we can put it. 
 
 The vital question is, whether there is not enough authority 
 now in the Constitution. jSTo gentleman who has advocated 
 this amendment has claimed that there is not ample authority 
 to enable the legislature to enact such legislation as is neces- 
 sary for the control of trusts, or the dissolution of trusts if 
 that is the thing best calculated to further the interests of the 
 state. 
 
 If the gentlemen who think some action upon this question 
 should be taken will kindly look at article five, part two of 
 the Constitution, and see what authority the legislature has 
 at the present time. That article reads as follows: 
 
 "And, further, full power and authority are hereby given 
 and granted to the said general court, from time to time, to 
 make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and rea- 
 sonable orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, directions, and in- 
 structions, either with penalties or without, so as the same be 
 not repugnant or contrary to this Constitution, as they may 
 judge for the benefit and welfare of this state and for the gov- 
 erning and ordering thereof and of the subjects of the same." 
 
 Full power and authority the legislature already has, and, 
 gentlemen, what more than full power can you give to the 
 legislature? When they have that, why annex to the Consti- 
 tution an amendment? It is perfect as it now is. Why, 
 gentlemen, and this is the point, why should we attach 
 something to the Constitution which is unnecessary, wholly 
 unnecessary? Have n't we as members of this Convention 
 already enough to answer for without sending out a thing of 
 this sort to the people? Now the only argument in favor of 
 these resolutions against trusts would apply as well to steal- 
 ing. The Constitution gives the legislature exactly the same 
 authority to control trusts as to control and punish stealing. 
 Do you need additional authority in the Constitution for 
 the prevention of stealing? You need exactly the same, and 
 
714 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 no more, additional authority with reference to the control of 
 trusts. 
 
 Mr. Cullen of Portsmouth I wish some member of the 
 legal profession here in the Convention would answer the 
 question already asked whether or not there is anything in 
 this proposed amendment that will affect the right of trades 
 unions. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord It may be as suggested, that the 
 broad terms of article five of part second of the Constitution 
 includes power to secure the object .sought to be accomplished 
 by this resolution. But this declaration is one I believe in a& 
 a declaration of principles. If the existing industrial troubles 
 or conditions existed at the time the Constitution was orig- 
 inally adopted, a provision, or declaration, similar to this 
 would have been added, I believe. While this may be as sug- 
 gested, covered by the general declaration of that article, yet, 
 a specific, positive, unmistakable declaration of the people of 
 this state, at this time, that there should be fair and free com- 
 petition in the trades and industries, and that the legislature 
 be further authorized to employ such additional power as may 
 be necessary to secure that result, will be advantageous and 
 wholesome. 
 
 In answer to the question of the gentlemen from Nashua, 
 Mr. Hamblett, and the gentleman from Portsmouth, Mr. Cul- 
 len, with reference to whether this prohibits trades unions, I 
 would say, in my opinion, it does not. If it did, I certainly 
 would vote against it. I believe trades unions are essential to 
 the protection, the welfare, and the improvement of the work- 
 ingmen, and there should be nothing in this declaration 
 of rights which will impair it or in the least degree modify the 
 right that now exists. Never should there be anything to 
 prevent the organization of labor, an instrumentality which 
 has accomplished so much for the benefit of both labor and 
 capital. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 715 
 
 I trust, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, 
 that this resolution will pass unanimously. 
 
 Mr. Cross of Manchester Mr. President and Gentlemen: 
 Show your colors. Which side are you on? Are you for the 
 trusts? Are you for free and open competition? Are you for 
 upholding Roosevelt in his struggle with the money power in 
 this land? Did you read in the Advertiser of Boston yester- 
 day that account of the "beef trust the conservative Adver- 
 tiser says that a beef trust is formed which will control the 
 food, at least the beef, of an hundred and fifty millions of 
 people people of this country, people of Great Britain, of 
 Germany, and of all Europe. It is already formed, and unless 
 some power shall prevent, the beef trust will raise prices of 
 meat from ten to thirty or forty per cent. When this struggle 
 is going on, when from the East to the West the people of this 
 country are looking about to see what the sentiment of New 
 Hampshire on this subject is, shall we say we don't know any- 
 thing about it, we think there is enough in the Constitution 
 to protect us, we do not care to utter our sentiments, we do 
 not dare raise our hands to help in this work? In my view, 
 this is one of the most important questions that has ever come 
 before the American people. It is a struggle for national life, 
 and what shall we do or attempt to do? Whether there is 
 anything in the Constitution giving the legislature sufficient 
 power to control trusts or not I do not care. I know this 
 question is now before me, and as a legislator I must give my 
 vote and my voice in favor of this resolution. 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton Mr Chairman, I am very glad 
 that we have heard the grounds of the opposition of the two 
 gentlemen who have spoken against this proposition to amend 
 the Constitution. At the time the declaration, to which the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Howe, has referred, was put 
 into the Constitution what we now call trusts were not known. 
 The resolution before us to-day is directed against present 
 monopolies, against new creations, and in the presence of such 
 
716 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 conditions of monopoly we need to be more specific. The 
 old declaration is general in its terms. What was taught in 
 the early days should be now declared more specifically and 
 more emphatically than before. A declaration should be ex- 
 pressly directed against existing evils. 
 
 Now, with respect to the query of the gentleman from 
 Nashua, Mr. Hamblett, as to whether this hits labor unions. 
 This proposition is not directed against labor unions. The 
 resolutions were referred to the committee after a vote of this 
 Convention, with only two dissenting voices, and on that com- 
 mittee were such distinguished lawyers as the gentleman from 
 Manchester, the Honorable James F. Briggs; the distin- 
 guished gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Sanborn; the gentle- 
 man from Exeter, Mr. Fuller; the gentleman from Claremont, 
 Mr. Colby, and others. The committee undertook, upon the 
 recommendation of the Convention, to draft a resolution 
 which should direct itself against trusts, not against labor, 
 and there was no purpose to direct the resolution against 
 labor unions, or against labor. The purpose is to restore equi- 
 librium, as far as may be and as far as New Hampshire influ- 
 ence goes, in the industrial and commercial conditions in this 
 country, and this would help to make labor unions and strikes 
 unnecessary; it would help to protect labor. I think it per- 
 fectly clear that what is proposed to be done, through the 
 amendment, is to declare it unlawful for combinations, con- 
 spiracies, and monopolies, by unfair means, to raise prices in 
 the trades and industries. 
 
 Now, let me ask gentlemen on this floor whether labor 
 unions are created for the purpose of raising the price of com- 
 modities. 
 
 I hope the proposed amendment will be adopted unani- 
 mously. 
 
 Mr. Sanborn of Franklin Inasmuch as the distinguished 
 gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, has alluded to me as 
 being on the committee, I wish to disclaim all thought in re- 
 gard to the union of labor. That matter was not at all sug- 
 gested. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 717 
 
 I did not suppose that by this declaration we should bring 
 about an Elysium in New Hampshire, but I thought possibly 
 it might give a little lift to the strenuous president and help 
 him bring his party into line so as to take the tariff off from 
 coal. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord called for a division. 
 
 The division resulted in 313 gentleman voting in the affirm- 
 ative and 2 gentlemen voting in the negative, and the resolu- 
 tion of the committee was adopted and the amendment re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to 
 the People the Amendments Agreed to by the Convention. 
 
 The following resolutions, previously adopted by the Con- 
 vention, were referred to the same committee: That of Mr. 
 Morris of Lisbon, to extend jurisdiction of police courts; Mr. 
 Russell of Plymouth, military; Mr. Norris of Portsmouth, 
 taxation. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Stockwell of Claremont, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 AFTERNOON. 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 On motion of Mr. Stone of Andover, the resolution offered 
 by that gentleman in relation to the supreme and superior 
 courts was indefinitely postponed. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester I wish to make a motion in 
 regard to the resolution of Mr. Baker of Bow with reference 
 to voting precincts in the large cities and towns. Early in the 
 session the gentleman from Bow, Mr. Baker, introduced a 
 resolution which was referred to a committee and reported 
 back to the house and adopted. Now, in the interests of all 
 
718 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 parties, I desire to make a motion that the amendment be re- 
 called from the Committee on Time and Mcde of Submitting 
 to the People the Amendments Agreed to by the Convention, 
 where it now is, in order that amendment may be made to it 
 here, or that it be referred to some committee who can report 
 it in an amended form. I move that the resolution be recalled 
 from the Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the 
 People the Amendments Agreed to by the Convention. 
 
 The motion being stated by the chair, was carried on a viva 
 voce vote. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore of Manchester I move that the vote by which 
 this resolution was passed be reconsidered. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow It seems to me I ought to make a little 
 explanation with reference to this matter. The gentleman 
 from Manchester has been a moderator and has had great ex- 
 perience in the details of election. This amendment of mine 
 was prepared solely with the view of accommodating the elec- 
 tors, and I had no thought at the time of counting the ballots 
 after they were cast. The Constitution as it now exists pro- 
 vides that the votes shall be counted in the presence of the 
 moderator and .selectmen and other officers. Of course if this 
 should remain as it is, all the ballots cast at the different pre- 
 cincts would have to be taken to one place and counted so 
 that the officers specified could be present. The purpose of 
 the gentleman from Manchester, as I understand it, is not in 
 any way hostile to the amendment, but he desires that it 
 should be so amended that provision can be made for the 
 counting of the ballots at the precincts where they are cast. 
 It is with no hostility toward the general purpose, but only for 
 the purpose of perfecting the details. 
 
 The motion to reconsider was adopted and the resolution 
 recommitted to the Committee on the Legislative Depart- 
 ment. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Jones of Manchester, the resolution of- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 719 
 
 fered by Mr. Starr of Manchester to amend article sixty-six, 
 part two of the Constitution, relating to secretary of state, 
 state treasurer, labor commissioner, and railroad commis- 
 sioners, and to provide for their election by the people, was 
 indefinitely postponed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kent of Lancaster, the resolution offered 
 by Mr. Foster of Concord, relating to pensions, was recalled 
 from the Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the 
 People the Amendments Agreed to by the Convention. 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the vote whereby the 
 above resolution passed the Convention was reconsidered. 
 
 The resolution was then laid upon the table. 
 
 Mr. Howard of Portsmouth, from the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department, to whom was referred the several 
 amendments to article twenty-five of part second of the Con- 
 stitution, relative to the increase of the membership of the 
 senate, offered by Mr. Wingate of Stratham, Mr. Baker of 
 Bow, Mr. Aldrich of Littleton, and Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam, 
 reported them with the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution 
 in this respect," 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Question, upon the adoption of the resolution. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Baker of Bow, consideration of the reso- 
 lution of the committee was postponed until after the disposal 
 of the special order assigned for this time. 
 
 The special order was called for, it being the report of the 
 majority and minority respectively of the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department with reference to the various resolu- 
 tions before them relating to the subject of representation. 
 
720 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The question was upon the motion of Mr. Scott of Peter- 
 borough, that the minority report be substituted for that of 
 the majority. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough I made the motion to substi- 
 tute the minority report for the majority, and of course I feel 
 called upon to say something in relation to the motion and its 
 object. 
 
 I am very glad, gentlemen, that we have approached that 
 time when it seems as though this vexed question which has 
 taken so much of the time of this Convention is about to be 
 settled. I know you all feel as I do, and I shall not take much 
 of your time, and I could not if I would under the rule which 
 has been adopted, nor do I feel physically equal to doing so. 
 
 I made this motion of substitution because it seemed to me 
 it would bring us directly to the issue. If this Convention is 
 of the same mind that it was when it considered this matter in 
 the Committee of the Whole, the minority report will be sub- 
 stituted for that of the majority, as the Convention practically 
 adopted the proposition which was submitted in the report of 
 the minority. If you vote down my motion to substitute the 
 minority for the majority report, then you are reversing your 
 action of the other day. 
 
 The only question, as it seems to me, which presents itself 
 to the Convention at this time is whether or not the basis of 
 representation in future shall be upon the basis of 600 for the 
 first and 1,800 for the second representative, or 800 for the 
 first and 1,600 for the second. That seems to me to be the 
 important question that confronts us under this motion. And 
 I think we can arrive at it in this way quicker than in any 
 other. 
 
 Since this matter was fully discussed before this Conven- 
 tion I have taken much pains to satisfy myself of the feeling 
 of my constituents and of the people in the vicinity in which 
 I live, and I have been assured in every single instance by 
 members of both political parties that any other method while 
 the town system obtains than the 600 for the first representa- 
 tive would be voted down as surely as submitted to the people. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 721. 
 
 Now,, with reference to the basis of 1,800 for the second 
 representative. You will remember that the resolution of the 
 gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, was that the second rep- 
 resentative should be elected on a basis of 2,000. Now why 
 has it been cut down to 1,800? Because there was complaint 
 by the representatives of the cities and the larger towns that 
 it took too many representatives from them, and we have con- 
 sented universally, so far as I know, to drop the basis for the 
 second representative from 2,000 to 1,800, which will rein- 
 state nine representatives. The city of Manchester will gain 
 two Ward One and Ward Ten, one each; the city of Nashua 
 will gain one, the town of Claremont will gain one, and the 
 city of Berlin will gain one of its representatives. None of 
 these come from the smaller towns. 
 
 Gentlemen, we have tried to approach this matter in a spirit 
 of fairness. Everybody knows the disadvantages under which 
 the small towns in the state labor, and all we ask in this mat- 
 ter and we ask it in a spirit of broad liberality and charity 
 towards the small towns of this state on the part of this Con- 
 vention is that the principles of representation should be 
 applied to the towns of this state as are applied by the govern- 
 ment of the United States in dealing with the various states. 
 Can we not afford to be as charitable towards them, the little 
 towns, as the general government is towards the little state 
 of New Hampshire in allowing her equal representation in the 
 United States senate with New York and the other powerful 
 and popular states of the Union? 
 
 I say, gentlemen, we are not asking too much. How do we 
 leave some of the larger towns and cities by this minority re- 
 port? Take Manchester, for instance, which now has a repre- 
 sentation of forty-nine. The minority report will leave her 
 with thirty-three representatives, which will then have two 
 representatives more than all the rest of Hillsborough county. 
 Ts that a hardship for the city of Manchester? The same pro- 
 portion also will apply to the other cities of the state. I say 
 that the minority of the committee have asked nothing out 
 of the way, and that their report should be substituted for 
 that of the majority. 
 46 
 
722 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Pike of Haverhill I was intending to offer an amend- 
 ment to the majority report, but since the minority report 
 has been offered as a substitute I am willing to endorse that. 
 I am sorry that the majority of the committee were not broad 
 and not fair enough to bring into the Convention a resolution 
 which should express the wishes of the Convention. 
 
 I do not agree with the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lam- 
 >rey, that this report of the majority is a fair one. 
 
 Mr. Wason of Nashua Gentlemen of the Convention: I 
 suppose that each and every one of us during the few days we 
 have been in session have been trying to treat each subject 
 fairly and squarely and to arrive at the best results for the 
 benefit of all in approaching and considering this question. 
 I assure you that while I come from the second city of the 
 state, I recognize the right of the small towns as well as the 
 rich cities, and in arriving at a conclusion on this subject I 
 trust that you will bear with me and believe that I am fair in 
 my views although they do not agree with those of each and 
 every one of you. 
 
 Now, then, what is all this smoke about? "What is the issue 
 and why the contest that has engaged us practically for the 
 last ten days? To put it in plain English, fairly and squarely, 
 what is it? It is whether or not the Convention here assem- 
 bled shall submit to the people a proposition pro-rating forty- 
 two towns more in the state of New Hampshire. Forty-tw 
 towns are all that is in issue. The principle has been settled, 
 and you know I voted with you for that. I believe in the town 
 system for the present, as against the district. I ask you if 
 there is a man here that believes that the house of representa- 
 tives should not be reduced, and if it should be reduced should 
 not it be reduced fairly as the Constitution provides? If that 
 is true, the gentlemen who are here, both those from the cities 
 and from the towns, must look at this question in a fair and 
 impartial way. 
 
 This, as I have said, is the question of forty-two towns. I 
 have the names of the towns in iny pocket, but the time is so 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 723 
 
 limited I will not attempt to enumerate them. There are 
 forty-two, and only forty-two which are affected. Is it a rank 
 proposition to submit to the people of New Hampshire that 
 forty-two additional towns should be pro-rated when for 
 thirty years sixty-nine towns in the old state have been pro- 
 rated? Is it a departure from the footsteps of our fathers? 
 No. It is the same step we have taken and the same principle 
 under which we have lived since 1876. Eight hundred for 
 the first representative and 1,600 for the mean increasing 
 ratio is the same proposition as 600 for the first and 1,200 for 
 the mean increasing ratio. It has worked well and fairly for 
 twenty-six years and there was no complaint from anybody 
 with reference to it. 
 
 The gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Scott, represents 
 one of the largest towns in our county, and he believes in giv- 
 ing these little towns the right of representation. If you 
 carry his principle and theory to its logical results you would 
 have to cut down the basis of representation for the first rep- 
 resentative to 300. So the little town of Temple that my 
 friend Hadley represents could have a representative all the 
 time. That is the proposition. If you are going to make 
 600 an arbitrary number for the first representative, why 
 t-hould you not go a step farther and protect the small towns 
 of even a less number of inhabitants than that. To be fair 
 upon the principles upheld by the gentleman from Peterbor- 
 ough, and by others pleading for the small towns, you would 
 have to- take such a course as that. 
 
 Let us decide to submit something here that the voters in 
 the cities will vote for and that the voters in the towns will 
 vote for. Then we have discharged our duty, and have acted 
 fairly with ourselves and have acted fairly according to our 
 Cfm judgment. I believe if we adopt the report of the ma- 
 f&rity of the committee that it will be doing just that and will 
 be carrying forward the principles that actuated our prede- 
 cessors and under which we have lived and prospered for the 
 last quarter of a century. My friend from Peterborough, Mr. 
 Scott, says that it will not be adopted. Let it be so. We have 
 
724 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 as many votes in Nashua for as they have in the town of 
 Peterborough against this proposition. 
 
 Mr. Shute of Wentworth Perhaps it is presumption for 
 me to come down here in front but I like to look the people 
 in the face. 
 
 Some of the gentlemen who have spoken remind me of 
 Josh Billings, who in the time of the war was willing to sacri- 
 fice all his wife's relations to carry on the war. Sixty-nine 
 towns have already been sacrificed. But that is nothing. 
 That is in the spirit of fairness. Gentlemen, is that so? No, 
 unless the spirit of annihilation is fairness. This is the spirit 
 of annihilation and nothing else. 
 
 One time when I was a boy I read a Russian story where 
 a peasant woman loaded herself and children in one of those 
 sleigh vehicles peculiar to the country, and started for an ad- 
 joining village. She had to go through a large stretch of 
 woods where the wolves were thick. In going through a pack 
 of wolves came upon her. She sent her pony away on a run, 
 but they gained upon her, and finally they jumped on to the 
 sleigh and to save herself she threw off one of her babies to 
 the wolves. The baby was soon devoured, and the wolves, 
 more ravenous than ever, still followed and rushed on to the 
 sleigh and grabbed at the robes, and she threw another baby 
 out to them, and still went on. This was repeated until every 
 baby was thrown to the wolves. When, alone and childless, 
 she arrived at her destination, she told what she had done to a 
 woodchopper, who felled her in death with his axe a de- 
 served fate. 
 
 We have thrown over sixty-nine children already sixty- 
 nine commonwealths, and the Josh Billingses present ask us 
 to throw over forty-two more. I want to tell you, gentlemen, 
 that is not the end. The next Constitutional Convention will 
 have another Josh Billings, and pretty soon every little com- 
 monwealth of the state of New Hampshire will all be thrown 
 over to the wolves of the cities, and the farming communities 
 will have no more voice in the affairs of government. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 725 
 
 Mr. Chase of Bristol I assume when the gentlemen of this 
 Convention assembled we came here with the understanding 
 that it was desirable and necessary in some way to reduce the 
 house of representatives, and I assume each came here with 
 the idea that we should endeavor to reduce it in some equita- 
 ble and just manner. 
 
 We seemed to have been forced into a series of votes the 
 other day whereby we adopted the number of 300 for one 
 limit and the number 280 for the other limit with reference 
 to the size of the house. We also took a. series of votes where- 
 by we arrived at the basic number of 600 for the first repre- 
 sentative. I was one who voted for the 600, but I did not 
 understand then, and do not now, that those votes were more 
 than merely declaratory of our views at the time, coming as 
 they did with the vote taken in the way it was. 
 
 Now the present increasing mean is 1,200, and the present 
 basic number is GOO, and it seems to me the fairest and most 
 equitable basis on which we can place this matter is that pro- 
 posed by the majority committee. They would increase the 
 basic number from GOO to 800, and would increase the in- 
 creasing mean from 1,200 to 1,600. Now we desire to sub- 
 mit something to the people, and we desire to submit some- 
 thing which they will approve, and I believe from what I 
 have talked with the members here, and from the general sen- 
 timent of the community with which I am acquainted, that 
 the proposal of the majority of this committee will come more 
 nearly to meeting the wishes of the people than that of the 
 minority. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury of Woodstock Mr. President and gentle- 
 men of the Convention: I have but a few words to say, be- 
 cause this very important matter has been pretty well talked 
 oait already. I do not think anything I can say or anything 
 that any one else can say will change the mind of any one in 
 regard to the subject. 
 
 I was one of the Committee on Legislative Department, 
 and when this question came before us with the recommenda- 
 
726 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 tion so overwhelmingly in favor O'f the town system, and a 
 recommendation of 102 majority in favor of the 600 basis, I 
 could not see it my duty to go behind that recommendation, 
 backed by such a vote, and make such a radical departure 
 from the wishes of the Committee of the Whole as has been 
 reported by the majority of the Committee on the Legislative 
 Department. I do not believe, gentlemen of the Convention, 
 that the time has come in the state of New Hampshire when 
 in order to reduce our majority we should go to work and dis- 
 franchise forty-three more towns practically. By the report 
 of the majority of the committee we disfranchise forty-three 
 more towns one fourth of the time, and we disfranchise sixty- 
 eight or nine towns on the average three fourths of the time 
 we are going to disfranchise something like 26,000 people 
 who are now represented part of the time in the legislature. 
 Now, gentlemen of the Convention, I wish to ask this. Can 
 the state of New Hampshire afford to do this? Cannot our 
 cities afford to lose some representation, cannot they afford to 
 lose the small representation which has been figured out 
 better than to have our little, small, struggling republics back 
 on the hills lose the last representative they have? I ask you 
 this question in all fairness and candor. 
 
 I have done a little figuring in regard to this matter, and 
 I find that under the proposition of the minority, twenty-one 
 towns of the state of New Hampshire concede half of their 
 representatives. And yet the delegates of those towns are 
 perfectly willing to do that in order to get a reduction of the 
 house of representatives, and seven towns of the state con- 
 cede one third of their representatives in order to reduce the 
 house to 325. Under the minority report the city of Con- 
 cord will have thirteen or fourteen representatives, the city of 
 Nashua will have about the same number, and the city of 
 Manchester will have about thirty-four. If this resolution of 
 the minority can be carried out, the house will remain at 
 about the figure of 325 until after the next census, and it has 
 been conceded on the part of all delgates that when the next 
 census is taken the country towns will be still smaller and 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 727 
 
 they will have less number of representatives in the legisla- 
 ture while those of the cities will be more. 
 
 I do not believe we should go to work and make 111 pro- 
 rated towns, and disfranchise the inhabitants of those towns. 
 We should recognize their individuality as townships in the 
 state of New Hampshire by granting them equal rights in the 
 halls of legislation. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Mr. President and Gentlemen: 
 The wolves live in the country towns. There are no wolves 
 in the cities. Perfect equality will be the district system. 
 Perfect equality under the town system, as I said the other 
 day, would make this house 666 members. Two hundred and 
 sixty-six town and city babies have been already destroyed by 
 the country wolves. Now, Mr. President, we are as much at- 
 tached to our babies in the city as they are to their babies in 
 the country. The proposition now is that we shall deliver 
 100 more of our babies to be devoured by the wolves of the 
 gentleman from Wentworth. 
 
 Mr. President, I wish to treat this matter seriously. We 
 have now come, in the last hour, to the critical contest of this 
 Convention. I can only repeat what I have already said, that 
 a reduction of the house cannot be made by entirely cutting 
 from the large towns and the cities. The people would not 
 adopt that proposition if we should unanimously ask them to 
 do it. If this proposition for reducing the house of repre- 
 sentatives by taking 100 members from the towns and wards 
 which now have more than one representative is sent to the 
 people it will be defeated. I also know that any proposition 
 sent to the people which the country towns are against can be 
 defeated, because the country towns and their friends from 
 the cities who have come here in their behalf can command 
 more than two thirds of the votes of the state. So here we 
 are in trouble. I believe that our friends from the country 
 towns should accept 800 and 1,600, because that reduces the 
 house without increasing the inequality. Under the existing 
 conditions you cannot increase that inequality and you can- 
 
728 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 not diminish it, and that fact would seem to settle our duty, 
 and the only way that seems to be possible to reduce the 
 house of representativs is to reduce it on the lines reported by 
 the majority of the committee. If that can be done, I think 
 we can secure the adoption of that proposition by the people 
 and then the question will be set at rest during the lives of 
 most of us here present. 
 
 Mr. Harmon of Effingham There is, Mr. President and 
 gentlemen of the Convention, one statement in the majority 
 report that I heartily agree with, and that is that the only 
 equitable method is that secured by the district system. You 
 will recall that I introduced such a measure, and it was in- 
 gloriously defeated, and I have no strength to wage lost bat- 
 tles over, but the friends of the town system all come to me, 
 and many of them prime movers, and state that the reason that 
 they voted against it and it was defeated was upon the prin- 
 ciple that the towns should be represented. Now, then, I 
 accept my defeat. I bow gracefully to it, but in the name of 
 consistency, if our measure is to be defeated on this ground, 
 why not give the little towns the representation that is 
 claimed for them. 
 
 There is a story that one legal gentleman of our country 
 a very bright man was one day conferring in his office with 
 the friend of a deceased gentleman who was very wealthy, but 
 very unscrupulous. He had amassed a great deal of property 
 by means not approved by the majority of the people. Some 
 one said to him, "Can you tell me how much the deceased 
 left?" "Not precisely," said the lawyer, "but I have heard a 
 report that he left all he had." Gentlemen, that is exactly 
 what the little towns have to do under the proposed appor- 
 tionment. You rob us of the district system of perfect equal- 
 ity, and then you ask the towns of 800 or less to leave all they 
 have. We, unlike the Eussian mother referred to, have 
 only one child to sacrifice and you ask us to lay that on the 
 altar of favoritism and injustice. I hope if we adopt the town 
 system it will be that approved by the minority. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 729 
 
 Mr. Hadley of Temple Mr. President and Gentlemen of 
 the Convention: I signed the minority report, and of course 
 I stand here as an advocate of the principles therein con- 
 tained. I think that 600 for the first unit and 1,800 for the 
 second is not asking too much from the larger towns. We 
 have heard a good deal ahout the inequality of asking this, 
 but when we stop and think that there was inequality forced 
 upon the people of the state in 1876 when the basis was 
 changed from ratable polls to population, we see there is 
 where inequality began. If we should go back to the basis of 
 ratable polls, then the proportion of one to three as recom- 
 mended in the report of the minority might be inequitable, 
 but I claim that on the basis of population the proportion of 
 one to two, that is 600 for the first representative and 1,200 
 for the second, as we now have it, or 800 for the first repre- 
 sentative and 1,600 for the second, as recommended in the 
 report of the majority, is inequitable, and that the basis of 600 
 for the first and 1,800 for the second, as recommended in the 
 report of the minority, comes nearer to equality. I claim that 
 for this reason, because the cities and large towns of the state 
 have a larger proportion of non-voting population than the 
 small towns. In the small towns I undersand that the ratio 
 of the voters to the population is about one to three, while in 
 the city of Manchester it is only about one to seven. I think 
 it is nothing more than fair for us to ask you to grant us this 
 concession, if you so consider it we consider that we have 
 made a concession to you in cutting down the number for the 
 second representative from 2,000 to 1,800. I hope that this 
 Convention will adopt the minority report, and not only that, 
 but that we shall go out in all spirit of fairness and try to 
 have the people adopt the resolution sent to them, and en- 
 deavor not to have the work of the Convention go for 
 nothing. 
 
 Mr. Lord of Manchester I want to call attention to one 
 statement made by the gentleman from Woodstock, Mr. 
 Woodbury, who stated that on the basis of 800 and 1,600 
 
730 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 there would be about forty-three towns disfranchised, which 
 would include about 26,000 people. Well, at Manchester, on 
 his proposition of 600 and 1,800 in that city alone, his prop- 
 osition will disfranchise 19,600. I do not know about the 
 other cities, but I think we can say that there are almost as 
 many if not more people disfranchised under his bill than 
 under the resolution reported by the majority of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 It has been said that the representation is to be based on 
 population. If you want to change the basis change it. If 
 you keep as a basis population, make your arguments on 
 population. Don't make your representation on population, 
 and come here and argue on ratable polls. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, you people come here and say that when 
 you take away sixteen or eighteen representatives from the 
 city of Manchester and hold on to every representative you 
 have in the small towns you are treating us in a spirit of fair- 
 ness. It may seem fair to you but to me it does not seem fair 
 to take everything and give nothing. You can pull me out 
 into the street by force and turn the hose on me, but cannot 
 make me believe it is fair treatment. 
 
 Mr. dough of Nashua I have figures here that were pre- 
 sented a number of days ago showing that the surplus popula- 
 tion not represented is 74,000. I believe that it was so stated. 
 I think the population of the towns which were not repre- 
 sented was stated as about 34,000. I think that is right, but 
 I have not attempted to prove it. 
 
 It seems to me in considering this question here, it is not a 
 question wholly of cities against towns, but of cities and large 
 towns against the small towns. If it is put upon that basis it 
 will be found that the cities and large towns have a surplus of 
 70,000 about, while the small towns have a surplus of 34,000. 
 That is on the basis of 600 and 1,200. If you put it on the 
 basis of 600 for the first representative and 1,800 for the 
 second, you will find that in the cities there will be about 
 146,000 surplus, while the small towns will have only 34,000. 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 731 
 
 That does not look as though the small towns were getting so 
 badly used as we might be led to believe by their arguments. 
 
 Mr. Smith of Hillsborough We are willing to submit to a 
 loss of some of our representatives, because we believe in a re- 
 duction of the house, and we are willing to bear our part in 
 such reduction. I believe, however, that the proposition 
 embodied in the report of the minority committee is unfair, 
 inasmuch as it attempts to lay the whole burden of the reduc- 
 tion upon the large cities and towns of the state. Those who 
 represent the small towns and those who are in favor of the 
 town system, it seems to me, should be willing to concede 
 something for the purpose of this reduction. I myself am in 
 favor of the town system as against the district system, and 
 voted for that proposition in the Committee of the Whole, 
 and also voted for reducing the membership of the house of 
 representatives, and we are all substantially agreed upon that 
 point. But there is a diversity here in the manner in which 
 the reduction should be made. I think it should be made in 
 the spirit of fairness to all sections of the state, to the cities 
 and large towns as well as the smaller towns, and I think the 
 resolution reported by the majority of the committee is the 
 one much fairer to the whole state at large. 
 
 Mr. Barton of Newport Mr. President and members of 
 the Convention: I certainly do not wish to stand up here 
 and advocate an unfair proposition. I stand, I think, on cor- 
 rect principles. I may be a victim of my convictions, but at 
 any rate I have no other motive than to advocate some thing 
 which I believe is right and eminently just. I stand on this 
 proposition where I stood on the day I introduced the resolu- 
 tion on this subject. 
 
 It seems to me we fail to consider the distinction between 
 losing the last man and dropping one of many. That has 
 been referred to a good many times, but have we carefully 
 considered what it means the losing of the last man who 
 stands for a town and who appears in the court and answers 
 
732 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 for its cause, or the loss of a man from a delegation of two or 
 or three or four. The losing of one man is losing all that 
 the town has, while the losing of one of three or four is losing 
 only a portion. One man stands for a principle, he stands 
 for representation, and that we recognize in the American 
 government through all of its relations with the people. 
 When you get more than enough men to represent you and 
 your interests, then you are getting into the field of politics 
 pure and simple, and you say because you drop one or two in 
 your field of politics the little town should drop the last man 
 it has for representation. The distinction between the two 
 ought to be carefully considered. You are asking us to lose 
 our representative, and we are asking you to lose one or two 
 in your field of politics. Manchester can be amply repre- 
 sented by thirty-two or thirty-three or thirty-four men, but 
 when you take away a representative from a little town, its 
 last man is gone and it is not represented at all. 
 
 The majority of this committee have attempted to insert 
 into their proposition which they present to us a district sys- 
 tem. It crops out all the way along. It is a district system 
 from first to last, and whatever they have put in it of the 
 town system amounts to almost nothing. Of what effect, too, 
 is their district system where two towns may join together to 
 choose a representative? How will it work? The resolution 
 provides that two or more towns who cannot choose a repre- 
 sentative for themselves on account of their small population 
 can join together and send a representative to the legislature, 
 but in practice how will that work? The two or more towns 
 will have to agree. If one wants to join with another, and 
 the other does not want to, the whole thing is of no practical 
 utility. 
 
 It seems to me you are placing upon the 111 towns a system 
 which you have repudiated. If you take this step you are 
 crowding these towns into a district system, and everybody 
 not in favor of the district system everybody in favor of the 
 town system ought to oppose this report of the majority. 
 
 That, gentlemen, is all I have to say on this subject. If 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 733 
 
 you look at the figures you will find it takes the same number 
 2,400 to* get the second representative in both plans pro- 
 posed, and as you go up the scale the two systems are identi- 
 cal. The only difference is that the report of the majority 
 calls for 800 in population for the first representative, while 
 the report of the minority bases the first representative upon 
 600, and it is between 600 and 800 that the damage is done. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth The first speech made before 
 the Convention on this question, if I recollect correctly, was 
 made by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, in favor 
 of the district system. He represented to the members of this 
 Convention that the district system was the only one by which 
 absolute equality could be obtained in the representation of 
 the different sections of the state. That proposition was op- 
 posed by many of the members of this Convention from the 
 small towns, they declaring themselves in favor of the town 
 system on the ground that the small towns would be practi- 
 cally annihilated if the district system prevailed. They told 
 us they preferred to retain their town system, and take repre- 
 sentation a proportionate part of the time, rather than be 
 classed under the district system. Upon that representation 
 many members voted in favor of the .town system, when their 
 interests and the interests of the locality from which, they 
 came were naturally in favor of the district system, and the 
 town system was consequently adopted by the vote of this 
 Convention. 
 
 Now these original advocates of the town system claim 
 that the whole reduction should be made from the large towns 
 and cities, and that the small towns should still retain the 
 same number of representatives they now have. This does 
 not seem fair. I believe the same ratio should be preserved 
 between the large towns and cities and the small towns that 
 have existed since the Convention of 1889. That is exactly 
 what the delegates from the small towns told us they were 
 willing to do, if the town system could be retained. 
 
 How do the delegates from the small towns expect members 
 of this Convention, who live in the large towns and cities, to 
 
734 JOURNAL OP CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 go to their constituents and ask them to give away a part of 
 their representation for the sole benefit of these small towns? 
 Such a proposition ought not to be entertained at all. Every 
 one ought to be willing to compromise, and compromise 
 means a yielding on both sides. It is no attempt to com- 
 promise for one side to demand all, and insist that the other 
 side shall yield the whole. 
 
 I am friendly to all these small towns. I was born and 
 brought up in a small town, and know the inconveniences of 
 living in a place of that kind, and I can subscribe to much 
 that has been said in favor of the small towns, as against the 
 large towns; but, nevertheless, I claim that the small towns 
 ought to be willing to deal justly with the large towns and 
 cities. All that the large towns and cities want is equality, 
 which every man in this Convention declares he is willing to 
 give. In order to have that equality, or as nearly that as pos- 
 sible under the town system, it is necessary for the small 
 towns to accept the report of the majority of this committee, 
 and bear their proportionate part of the reduction we have 
 voted to make. 
 
 Mr. Sanders of Deny Is it not perhaps possible there are 
 worse than wolves living in some of our cities? 
 
 I believe every country town in the state should have a rep- 
 resentative here. It is no more than their right, and they be- 
 lieve they are justly entitled to it, I fail to see what differ- 
 ence it makes whether 100 members compose our legislature, 
 or 400. A dozen men, whoi have ability and are recognized all 
 over the state, do practically the work of the legislature. 
 They introduce all the measures, and do all the talking. 
 Their ability is recognized. They are able fellows, smart and 
 intelligent, and they have been in the legislature in previous 
 years and know the ropes and know what to do and how to do 
 it, and the other members of the legislature follow, and per- 
 haps rightly, the lead of these men. For instance: Take it 
 in this very Convention, there are a few men who have done 
 all the work, and there are the others, perhaps 300, who have 
 
 I 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 735 
 
 taken no active part in these sessions. They have done no 
 harm, and perhaps have done no good, but they have been im- 
 bibing knowledge which they will carry to their homes. It 
 makes them better citizens, better able to advise their fellow- 
 men, better able to give counsel to* their fellow-men. They 
 learn lessons here which they would not learn elsewhere, yes, 
 and lessons which they will never forget. The gentleman 
 from Manchester, Mr. Cross, has said that the legislature was 
 not intended for a school. Very true, but it is a benefit for 
 these gentlemen to come here and to learn what they would 
 learn in no other way, and any expense that may be incurred 
 over and above what is actually necessary for legislative pur- 
 poses I. believe to be well expended. I would have this legis- 
 lature remain as it is to-day, but amend the law so there shall 
 be no increase of the present number. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover From the moment I entered this 
 Convention up to the present time I have earnestly desired 
 to maintain a system perhaps unequal, but better than any 
 other system in existence the town system. I believe in 
 that to-da.y, and it is because I believe in the town system 
 notwithstanding the arguments of inequality which are spe- 
 cious ones, it seems to me that I take the position I do now. 
 If I believed we could maintain the town system on the basis 
 of 600 for the first and 1,800 for the second representative, 
 I should most earnestly advocate it. 
 
 I am speaking now to the advocates of the town system. 
 
 It is a system I believe to be absolutely right and just, and 
 it is because I want to preserve it that I take the position 
 which I do to-day. 
 
 I shall vote to preserve or endorse the majority report, be- 
 cause I believe that if we adopt the minority report the work 
 of this Convention, in this respect, at least, will be repudiated 
 by the people. If that were all; I would say no. But 'there is 
 something else that appeals to me as bearing upon the preser- 
 vation of the old New England town system. If the proposi- 
 tion of the minority is accepted by the Convention and re- 
 
736 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 pudiated by the people of New Hampshire, another Conven- 
 tion will come back here and, gentlemen of the Convention 
 who advocate the town system, you will be beaten in such a 
 Convention, and the district system will be adopted. So, I 
 say, let us adopt the majority report and thus preserve the 
 town system. In my judgment it will be endorsed by tho 
 people at the polls. 
 
 One thing further. The advocates of the district system in 
 their amendments have constantly alluded to what they 
 assume to be a fact, that the town system was doomed. I do 
 not believe it. I believe the tendency is for better roads and 
 improved facilities of travel, and people will come out of the 
 cities and have residences in the country, and in the near 
 future, when the census taker comes, the greater proportion 
 of the population will be found in the country towns. And 
 to-day upon us depends the question whether, by the action 
 taken here, we shall preserve the town system for future years, 
 or lose it. It is for these reasons, as I have already said, that 
 while advocating the town system, I urge upon you, friends of 
 the town system, the adoption of the majority report. 
 
 As has been alluded to, when arguing with the friends of 
 the district system, we told them that we did not want the 
 district system, that we were willing to be pro-rated, only save 
 us our individuality, and many of you, like the gentleman 
 from the town of Temple, asked here that you might be per- 
 mitted to send a representative as a town instead of being 
 classed as a district with two, or three, or four towns. Gen- 
 tlemen, the majority report retains the town system, and 
 while it pro-rates a larger number of towns than are at present 
 pro-rated, it is what we said we were willing to accept in order 
 to retain the town system. 
 
 I believe and hope that all of you who believe in the town 
 system will vote for the majority report, and in that way we 
 shall preserve the town system, not for a few years, but for 
 many years, for I believe if we adopt the majority report our 
 action will be ratified at the polls, and what we do here will 
 be effectual in preserving the town system. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 737 
 
 Mr. Aldrich of Littleton I rise not to make a speech but 
 to explain why I shall vote for 800 and 1,600. 
 
 This is a representative government. I am one of those 
 who believe not only that every man, woman, and child should 
 be represented every minute of the time, but that every inch 
 of territory c'ountry and city should be represented every 
 minute of the time. That can only be accomplished by the 
 district system which I voted for. That scheme has been re- 
 jected, although in my judgment it was the most adequate 
 scheme presented to the Convention. That scheme was re- 
 jected upon the grounds of sentiment and tradition. That 
 scheme being rejected, the Convention was brought to the 
 question how the house of representatives could be reduced 
 upon the town plan. 
 
 I am one of those who never would have voted to raise the 
 number necessary for the first representative from 600 to- 800, 
 but for the splendid discussion and the just plan submitted 
 to the Convention by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Mitchell. He has suggested to this Convention a plan where- 
 by no future disfranchisement of towns need to go on, a 
 principle upon which every town can be represented every 
 minute of the time. While, therefore, as I have said, I would 
 not and could not consistently have voted under the town 
 system to have raised the number for the first representative to 
 800, yet under this plan presented by the gentleman from 
 Concord, in order that the diminution of the house of repre- 
 sentatives shall fall on all portions of the state alike, I can con- 
 sistently vote to raise the minimum from 600 to 800, because 
 at the same time we extend to the towns which would thereby 
 be disfranchised an opportunity to come in and class them- 
 selves with other towns and in that way be represented all the 
 time in our legislature. Thus there is no compulsory dis- 
 franchisement. The situation of disfranchisement would be 
 wholly a voluntary one. The towns of less than 800 inhabi- 
 tants can get together and be represented all the time. If 
 they stay out, it is because they do not want representation. 
 For instance, the town of Pitteburg and the town of Clarks- 
 47 
 
738 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ville can associate themselves together and have a representa- 
 tive all the time, instead of the town of Pittsburg having a 
 representative two thirds of the time and the town of Clarks- 
 ville one third of the time. 
 
 The same principle spreads over the entire state. Under 
 this plan, if any towns are unrepresented, it is because they 
 voluntarily put themselves in that attitude. 
 
 I am in the! situation of the young fellow halting between 
 his first and his second love. My native town is the last one 
 on the map. It is a small town, but an important one for all 
 that. It finds itself like the little boy in school who was num- 
 ber twenty in his class, and when asked why he was there, 
 said: "Because there were only twenty in the class." That 
 is the way with my native town. There is no town beyond it, 
 and yet I have an interest in it as well as in the town of Lit- 
 tleton. I therefore desire that a measure shall be passed here 
 which will be equitable to the small town as well as to the 
 larger one. 
 
 Now I say that the plan advanced by the gentleman from 
 Concord, Mr. Mitchell, of extending to the pro-rated towns 
 under a certain number of inhabitants the opportunity to get 
 together and send a representative to the legislature, involves 
 a principle which leaves it entirely with the towns under 800 
 to be represented or not as they choose. There is nothing 
 compulsory about it. They can send a representative down 
 here if they choose a proportionate part of the time, or they 
 can* come in with other towns and be represented all the time. 
 For this reason I shall vote for the majority report which de- 
 clares that the basis shall be 800 for the first and 1,600 for 
 the second representative. 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry I desire to take but one 
 minute of your time. My position in relation to this question, 
 as you know, is that I have been in favor of the town system. 
 It is because I wish the perpetuation of the town system, 
 and because I wish to have the town system kept in the or- 
 ganic law of this state that I shall vote for the majoritv re- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 739 
 
 port. If we adopt the minority report even if it should be 
 carried by this Convention and be ratified by the people the 
 time would come when we would have so many representa- 
 tives here thai another convention would be called very soon 
 .and the same question would come up before that conven- 
 tion, and very likely the district system adopted. 
 
 I believe under this present ratio we can maintain for forty 
 years at least this town system. On the ratio of 50 per cent, 
 increase in the country towns and 50 per cent, increase in 
 the cities, we can maintain our present town system for the 
 next fifty years, and then let the next generation tackle this 
 problem. I am in favor of the report of the majority. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord. I desire, in the first place, to apolo- 
 gize to my friend from Wentworth, Mr. Shute, for my mis- 
 take in saying that he occupied the floor so much. It was 
 his earnestness outside this chamber that misled me. 
 
 When the vote was taken in this Convention, rejecting the 
 district system, I accepted that vote in perfect good faith. I 
 desire to thank the gentlemen from the country towns for the 
 fairness with which they have treated me in the presentation 
 of a proposition which to them appeared unfair. I accepted 
 the result and the vote of this Convention as a desire to pre- 
 serve the town system. 
 
 Xow, then, any proposition that increases the inequality 
 over what exists now so far as inhabitants are concerned is, 
 in my judgment, doomed to failure. If I desired a personal 
 vindication of the position I have taken on the district system 
 I would ask that the proposition submitted here by the 
 minority of the committee be presented to the people, for, in 
 my judgment, it would be defeated, and with that defeat 
 would come an increase of the house within the next ten years 
 which would necessitate another convention to reduce the 
 house of representatives. Then the question will be, not of 
 method, but how much the house can be reduced. 
 
 Gentlemen here have expressed varied opinions as to 
 Avli ether the resolution of the minority would be defeated or 
 
740 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 not. I only wish to say that the votes to carry any proposi- 
 tion would come largely from the large towns and cities of the 
 state, and it is much easier to rally votes against a proposition 
 than it is for it. 
 
 The proposition presented by the majority of the commit- 
 tee reduces the house in this manner it takes sixty-six mem- 
 bers from the large towns and cities and takes fourteen from 
 the pro-rated towns a proportion of about five to one. The 
 incoming house of representatives will be 393, and so you see 
 with a house of 313 there is a reduction of eighty members, 
 and sixty-six of those members., as I have said, will be taken 
 from the large towns and cities of the state, and fourteen, or 
 one third of the new pro-rated towns, will come from the 
 forty-two towns which would have to be pro-rated under that 
 measure. 
 
 Is there any fairer proposition that could be presented to 
 this house under the town system. 
 
 In the manual prepared by the gentleman from Hanover, 
 Mr. Colby, it will be found that in 1791 there were a number 
 of classed towns the number being much larger than at the 
 present time. Rockingham county had eleven; Carroll 
 county all of its towns were classed; Merrimack county had 
 six, and Grafton county had twenty classed towns. The 
 other counties ran in the same proportion, and yet it was 
 not deemed by our forefathers that any injustice was being 
 done the towns by that method of classification. 
 
 Gentlemen have said that we can afford to lose from the 
 large towns and the cities of the state better than they can 
 afford to accept a reduction from the small towns. But is 
 that so? When it comes to a question before the legislature, 
 a question of taxation, a question of voting appropriations, 
 and almost every other question of importance before the 
 legislature, are not the large towns and the cities as much in- 
 terested in those questions as the smaller towns, and do not 
 the interests of these large towns and the cities demand that 
 they should have their proportion of representation in the leg- 
 islature? In the legislature it is a* question of votes, and the 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 741 
 
 people of the large towns and the cities of the state will look 
 at this question, not in the light of sentiment merely, but in 
 the light of what is just to all the state. 
 
 If the gentlemen desire the district system presented inside 
 of ten or fifteen years, they will do well to submit the proposi- 
 tion of the minority to the people, for that will be defeated at 
 the polls. But if they desire to preserve the town system, as 
 the vote of this Convention would seem to indicate, they 
 should accept the proposition presented by the majority of 
 the committee. You can then preserve the town system on 
 that basis probably for a period of twenty or twenty-five years. 
 
 Mr. Eastman of Exeter Like the gentlemen who have pre- 
 ceded me in the discussion of these questions, I rise to give 
 my reasons why I shall support the minority report of the 
 committee. 
 
 When we came here there were two propositions submitted, 
 whether the district system or the town system should be the 
 system to prevail in choosing the representatives in the future. 
 We voted to have the town system, and the argument then 
 was that if we had a, town system and adopted a certain basis 
 -of representation it would cause the pro-rating of other towns; 
 that we already had sixty-nine towns pro-rated, and it would 
 pro-rate forty-three other towns. That was the reason urged 
 against that basis of representation, as I understood. A vote 
 ocf this Convention was taken, and this Convention voted to 
 have the number necessar}'" for the first representative 600. 
 Now, then, itl is said that this is unequal and unjust to the 
 cities and larger towns of the state, and if presented to the 
 people it will not be ratified. 
 
 Arguments of this kind remind me of an incident that oc- 
 curred during the Civil war. A certain general declared that 
 a certain fort could not be taken, and he succeeded in con- 
 vincing the president and his cabinet that his assertion was 
 true, but while he was demonstrating his claim another gen- 
 eral took the fort. 
 
 The statement of these gentlemen that it is a fact that the 
 vote as taken will be absolutely defeated by the people is, in 
 
742 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 my judgment,, as true as the proposition decided by that gen- 
 eral. My judgment is to the contrary. What large town 
 comes here to say that it is not willing to make a concession 
 in this regard to the small towns of the state? Have we not 
 had representatives from these larger towns who have advo- 
 cated and endorsed this number of 600 for the first repre- 
 sentative, and is it to be believed that they do not under- 
 stand the feelings of their constituents and fellow-citizens in 
 this regard,? I believe that the people of the state are ready 
 to endo<rse the proposition submitted to them on the basis of 
 600 for the first representative, and the information which 
 leads me to that belief comes from the gentlemen who signed 
 the minority report of this committee, one of whom is Mr. 
 Cochran. He has taken some pains to inquire in his locality 
 about how the feeling is, and believes that the people would 
 be satisfied with the measure introduced here by the minority. 
 
 You would think, by the remarks of some of the gentlemen 
 opposed to this minority report that all the inhabitants were 
 in the cities. As a matter of fact, two fifths are in the cities 
 and three fifths outside. Are the three fifths not entitled to 
 consideration by this Convention? 
 
 They say that we are not going to cut down the house suf- 
 ficiently by the proposition made by the minority. The ma- 
 jority report makes the house 313, and the proposition of the 
 minority of 600 for the first representative and 1,800 addi- 
 tional for the second representative, makes a house of 324 or 
 327. That is an enormous difference! It is not worth consid- 
 ering. Is it of any material difference when you talk about 
 cutting down the house, whether it is cut down to 313 or 
 324? it is a difference of between thirteen and twenty-four. 
 
 Now the gentleman from Littleton, Mr. Aldrich, a gentle- 
 man whom I respect, said that he was in favor of 600 for the 
 first representative until he heard of the magnificent proposi- 
 tion made on the part of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Mitchell. Now what is the proposition offered by the gentle- 
 man from Concord? It is simply this, that towns under a 
 certain number may be given the right to class themselves to- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 743 
 
 gether and to that extent it favors the district system. It 
 allows the towns to form districts and unite together and in 
 that way, as the gentleman from Littleton says, be repre- 
 sented all the time. But this proposition of the district sys- 
 tem has been repudiated by this Convention, and yet the gen- 
 tleman from Littleton says that on account of that proposi- 
 tion he favors the majority report, and if it had not been for 
 that reason he would be in favor of adhering to the original 
 proposition of 600. That is no reason at all, I submit, when 
 you come to< investigate it. 
 
 But why should we make this change at this time? Why 
 should we force upon the small towns a basis of representa- 
 tion which they do not want? Is there any great clamor for a 
 decrease of the size of the house to a considerable extent? As 
 has been said, the people are not greatly desirous of decreas- 
 ing the number in the house, and they will not do so if it in- 
 volves injustice to any part of the state. 
 
 The President Under the order adopted by the Conven- 
 tion the vote will be taken at this time unless some further 
 order is made. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I call for the yeas and nays. 
 
 The President It is the general understanding, and by 
 unanimous consent the vote will be taken by yeas and nays. 
 The question is upon the motion offered by the gentleman 
 from Peterborough, Mr. Scott, that the report of the minority 
 be substituted for that of the majority. Those who are in 
 favor of substituting the report of the minority will vote yes, 
 and those who are opposed will vote no. The vote "yes" to 
 sustain the minority report is a vote to sustain the figures of 
 600 and 1,800, and the vote "no" for the, majority is to sustain 
 the figures 800 and 1,600. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the affirmative: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Conley, Sanborn of Auburn, Flan- 
 ders of Brenkvood, Eaton, Knowles, Kimball of Danville, 
 
744 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Kelsey of Deerfield, Morrill, Eastman,, Follansby, Wetherell, 
 Leddy, Hooke, Sanborn of Hampstead, Towle, Weare, Shaw, 
 Chase of Kingston,, Pollard,, de Rochemont, Burley, Walker, 
 of Newmarket, Battles, Gate, Kelsey of Nottingham, Healey, 
 Jewell of South Hampton, Wingate, Clark of Windham. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Fo-lsom, Chesley, Nutter of Farm- 
 ington, Willson of Farmington, Webb, Gerrish, Moore, Cham- 
 berlain, Nute of Rochester, Springfield, Cochrane, Nutter of 
 Rollinsford, Libby, Hall of Strafford. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Demeritt, Colbath, Bryar, Clark of 
 Center Harbor, Morrill of Gilford, Cogswell, Smith of Mere- 
 dith, Smith of New Hampton, Rogers. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Nickerson, Rideout, Colman, Spencer, 
 Morrill of Conway, Dearborn of Eaton, Harmon, Merrow, 
 Murch, Meserve, Gilman, Goodwin, Brown of Ossipee, Dorr, 
 Page of Tamworth, Morrison of Tuftonborough, Hersey. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Buxton, Baker, French of Brad- 
 ford, Frame, Sanborn of Chichester, Virgin, Jordan, Ford of 
 Danbury, Caldwell, Dolbeer, "Wilson of Hill, Head, Putnam, 
 Clough of London, Messer, Todd, Wyatt, Green of Pittsfield, 
 Webster, Lang. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Hubbard, Woodbury of Bedford, 
 Kimball of Bennington, Fessenden, Whitaker of Deering, 
 Downes, Peavey, Bacon, Fogg, Powers of Hollis, Marsh, Tar- 
 bell, Whitaker of Mason, Gordon, Raymond, Hamblett, Har- 
 riman, Dodge of New Boston, Blanchard, Seavey, Scott, Had- 
 ley, Simons, Chapman. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Amidon, Learned, Madden, Craig of 
 Marlow, Caiss, Buckminster, McClure, Rugg, Clement of 
 Surry, Davis. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Mitchell of Acworth, Fairbanks, Ide, 
 Hanson of Goshen, Burpee, Holmes, Noyes, Barton, Brown of 
 Sprimgneld, Bartlett, Newton, Brockway. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Bucklin, Carbee, Parker of Benton, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 745 
 
 Morrill of Bridgewater, Pulsifer of Campton, Ashley, Young 
 of Easton, Avery, Walker of Graf ton, Kidder, Pike of Haver- 
 hill, Jewell of Hebron, Flanders, Glazier, Woolson, Stoddard, 
 Melvin, Warden, French of Orange, Lamprey of Orford, Ford 
 of Piermont, Craig of Rumney, Bowles, Park, Green of Water- 
 ville, Shute, Woodbury of Woodstock. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Paine, Daley, Miles, Johnson, Titus, Brit- 
 ton, Wight of Dummer, Thurston, Kent, Phipps, Blanchard, 
 Pike of Stark, Hinman, Aldrich of Whitefield, Dodge of 
 Whitefield. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the negative: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Sanders, Gillispie, Abbott of 
 Derry, Fuller, Pillsbury, Peaslee, Emery, S. W., Emery, S. P., 
 Howard, Norris, Paul, Ham, Cullen, Sawyer of Eye, Cole, 
 
 Wheeler. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Leighton, Morrison of Dover, Moul- 
 ton, Roberts, Hanson of Dover, Nealley, Hall of Dover, Mo- 
 rang, Nute, Murphy, Furbush, Meader, Gelinas, Gunnison, 
 Edgerly, Leary, Roy, Morin. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Pulsifer of Laconia, Jewett, Gorrell, 
 Busiel, Thompson of Laconia, Lewis, Knox, Fellows. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Hobson, Gibson, Sanborn of Wake- 
 field, Clow. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Blodgett of Allenstown, Stone of 
 Andover, Dudley of Concord, Foote, Hollis, Lyford, Mitchell 
 of Concord, Eamball, Walker of Concord, Lamprey of Con- 
 cord, Niles, Foster, Howe, Whittier, Ingalls, Chandler, Casey, 
 Stone of Franklin, Leach, Towne, Wilkins, Chickering, Trues- 
 dell, Miller, Thompson of Warner. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Colby, Paige of Goffstown, 
 Smith of Hillsborough, Lambert, Wilkinson, Abbott of Man- 
 chester, Brings, Cross, Hunt, Green of Manchester, Dodge of 
 Manchester, Boutwell, Little, Rose, Jones, Robinson, Trem- 
 blay, Lord, Gilmore, Farrington, Harvey, Hill, McDoaiough, 
 
746 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Tonery, Starr, Horan, Greager, Precourt, Glancy, Sullivan, 
 Griffin, Jennings, Irwin, McAllister, Quirin Joseph, Allen, 
 Clement of Manchester, Powers of Manchester, Littleneld, 
 McQuesten, McElroy, Richer, Provost, Plante, Quirin Eugene, 
 Guerin, Boivin, Hall of Manchester, Paige of Manchester, 
 Nettle, Trinity, Knight, Botch, Worcester, Spring, Clough of 
 Nashua, Ledoux, Parker of Nashua, Woodbury of Nashua, 
 Hallinan, "VVason, Proctor, Runnells, McKay, Shedd, Flather, 
 Early, Slattery, Desmarais, McGlynn, Morrison of Peterbor- 
 ough, Richardson, Bales. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Cooke, Blake, Annett, Poole, Wright, 
 Foskett, Hall of Keene, Newell, Woodward, Emory, Day, 
 Stone of Troy, Spaulding, Kiniry, Goodnow. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Brooks, Tenney, Stockwell, Rossiter, 
 Colby, Bradley, Penniman. 
 
 GEAFTON COUNTY. Dearborn of Ashland, Hildreth of 
 Bethlehem, Chase of Bristol, Richardson of Canaan, Cumings, 
 Dresser, Parker of Franconia, Ward, Colby of Hanover, West- 
 gate, Sloane, Drake, Dewey, Hibbard, Morris, Aldrich of Lit- 
 tleton, Green of Littleton, Morse, Russell, Wentworth. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Wight of Berlin, Moffett, Laplante, Rich, 
 Boiudreau, Murray, Evans, Crawford, Perkins, McKellips, 
 Watson, Philbrook, Ripley. 
 
 The following gentlemen were paired: 
 
 Collins of Gilsum and Buckley of Hinsdale; Taft of Keene 
 and Osgood of Nelson. 
 
 And 177 gentlemen having voted in the affirmative, and 
 199 gentlemen having voted in the negative, the motion to 
 substitute the report of the minority for that of the majority 
 was lost. 
 
 Question, upon the adoption of the majority report of the 
 committee. The affirmative prevailed and the report was 
 
THUKSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 747 
 
 adopted., and the amendment proposed by a majority of the 
 Committee on the Legislative Department and adopted by the 
 Convention was referred to the Committee on Time and Mode 
 of Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed to by 
 the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I now call up the proposition 
 against free passes. 
 
 The President The chair will rule that it is not in order. 
 The special order is that in reference to the size of the senate, 
 which was made to follow the question of representation. Be- 
 fore the special order is taken up the chair submits the fol- 
 lowing resolution offered by the gentleman from Manchester, 
 Mr. Cross: 
 
 "Resolved, That the present session of this Convention come 
 to a close on Friday afternoon, December 19, at 3 o'clock." 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord It does not occur to me that 
 there will be any difficulty in adjourning to-morrow after- 
 noon if an evening session is held to-night, and all proposi- 
 tions adopted by the Convention are sent to the committee of 
 which I have the honor toi be chairman. The final resolu- 
 tions of the Convention submitting to the people the amend- 
 ments which have been adopted should be framed with care. 
 If the Convention, before the report of that committee is in, 
 decides to adjourn to-morrow afternoon, we shall do the best 
 we can this afternoon and evening to prepare the report and 
 submit it, but I sincerely hope the putting of that motion will 
 be reserved until the committee can say that it will be pre- 
 pared to make its report in season. 
 
 The President The chair will suggest that it seems to be 
 necessary that the Committee on Finance should have as early 
 information as may be with reference to the time of closing. 
 They are in some trouble now with reference to the financial 
 affairs, and there may have to be a report this evening with. 
 
748 JOTJKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 reference to the way tihe pay-rolls are to be made up. If this 
 adjournment is taken at 3 o'clock to-morrow afternoon, and 
 the Convention is to "be prepared to adjourn at that time, 
 it is somewhat necessary that the Committee on Finance 
 should have early notice of it. 
 
 Mr. Chandler, of Concord Having listened with attention 
 to- the argument in favor of the resolution from the presiding 
 officer, I still think the Convention ought not to vote too 
 hastily as to final adjournment. I have no objection to a vote 
 being taken that we will adjourn to-morrow (Friday) which 
 gives the Convention until midnight to-morrow to do its clos- 
 ing work, but I am opposed to the resolution of the gentleman 
 from Manchester at this time. I would suggest that we pass 
 over the resolution now, or still better, omit the hour of ad- 
 journment. I hope the gentleman from Manchester will 
 strike out the hour, so that the motion will read that we ad- 
 journ to-morrow. Then the Finance Committee can figure 
 upon our adjourning to-morrow, and the treasurer can get his 
 money ready with which to pay the members, and the mem- 
 bers can leave town some time Friday. 
 
 Mr. Cross of Manchester Personally I have no wish about 
 it either way as to the time, and I withdraw the resolution. 
 
 The special order was called for, it being the report of the 
 committee on the various resolutions relating to the size of 
 the senate, that it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as 
 proposed. 
 
 The question being stated, the resolution of the committee 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord moved that the Convention now 
 resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the 
 various resolutions in relation to free passes on railroads. 
 
THUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 749 
 
 In Committee of the Whole. 
 (Mr. Madden of Keene in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord In order that the committee 
 may have a proposition before it to act upon, I move that the 
 committee do now arise ajid recommend to the Convention 
 the adoption of the amendment which I had the honor to 
 propose. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
 of the Committee: It seems to me it might be well for us to 
 pause a bit before we recommend the adoption of an amend- 
 ment which will write into the Constitution of the state a 
 charge against all the legislators that we have had in the past> 
 that they have not done their duty, and a fear of all those we 
 are going to have in the future that they will not do theirs. 
 I believe there has been altogether too much giving of free 
 passes in the state of New Hampshire, and if we were in the 
 house of representatives I would join with the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Chandler, in attempting to adopt some 
 sort of legislation putting a prohibition upon the pass system. 
 But I do not believe we ought to write it into the Constitu- 
 tion. I believe it is properly a matter of legislation. I am not 
 retained by any railroad corporation in the state, and I do not 
 use any pass, not even to come to this Convention, and there- 
 fore I feel I may talk on this matter with absolute freedom. 
 
 I do believe in all seriousness and all earnestness that there 
 is no proper place in our Constitution for any measure of this 
 kind. Action in this regard should be left to the legislature. 
 The legislature created the corporations of the state, and it 
 can prescribe all the restrictions necessary to put upon the 
 railroad corporations or any other corporations that may be 
 chartered. The legislature which creates- has also the power 
 to regulate and to destroy, if necessary. And the legislature 
 having all that power, it does seem to me that this proposed 
 amendment is not needed. The argument of example fails 
 when only nine states of the Union have a constitutional 
 
750 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 amendment with reference to this matter, and only one of 
 the nine goes to the extent which the gentleman from Con- 
 cord, Mr. Chandler, wants to go here. Eight of those, states 
 simply prohibit the giving of passes to the officers of the court 
 and to members of the legislature. But this proposal goes 
 farther than that, and but one state, namely, the state of 
 Pennsylvania, has gone as far. And the state of Pennsylvania 
 has in its Constitution more legislation than all the other 
 states in the Union have. The less of legislation in the Con- 
 stitution the better, I think. 
 
 For this reason, that I believe the legislature now has all 
 the necessary power, and with the desire that the Constitu- 
 tion may be left as nearly as possible as it came from our 
 fathers, I ask you to say that it is inexpedient) to write into it 
 a matter with which the legislature of the state has now full 
 power to deal. And whenever the legislature acts in ac- 
 cordance with the dictates of the two political parties to 
 which its members belong, it will pass some law which will 
 regulate whatever evil there may be in this matter. I there- 
 fore ask you to vote against the resolution, and to say it is 
 inexpedient to recommend its adoption. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin In order to bring this matter into 
 such shape that we may dispose of all these resolutions, I have 
 prepared a resolution which I desire to substitute for the 
 resolution of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler. 
 
 The Chairman The gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Leach, 
 moves that the following be substituted for the resolution of 
 the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler: 
 
 "Resolved, That the committee rise and report to the Con- 
 vention, with a recommendation that the legislature consider 
 the subject of free passes and enact such legislation, if any, as 
 the public good requires." 
 
 Mr. S. W. Emery of Portsmouth Mr. Chairman and Gen- 
 tlemen, of the Convention: I promise you that this is the last 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 751 
 
 time I shall trouble you during the session of this Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 I do happen to be counsel for a great many railroad cor- 
 porations of this* state, but I am not here as their attorney, 
 and I do not care what position they take upon this question. 
 Here I am not their man, but my own. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, this legislature, as we call it, of the state 
 of New Hampshire is one of our courts. We have a supreme 
 court, and we have a superior court, and we have a general 
 court,, and that is the legislature. There is one suitor before 
 that court that is there at every session of the legislature, and 
 that is the great railroad system of this state, the Boson & 
 Maine railroad. It is before every legislature, interested in 
 legislation for itself, and asking that such legislation be 
 passed. How many of you, if you had a case against the Bos- 
 ton & Maine railroad to be tried before a jury, would try it 
 before a jury whose pockets were filled with passes? Do you 
 think you would get fair, equitable, and honest treatment? 
 If you had a case to be heard before the supreme court of 
 this state, where your dearest rights were at stake, would you 
 feel hopeful of getting justice if every one of those judges sat 
 there with his pass from, the Boston & Maine railroad in 
 his pocket? Is that American? Is that fair? 
 
 The Republicans had a Convention when Frank W. Rollins 
 was nominated for governor, and they referred this matter to 
 the legislature to act upon, and you know how much it did in 
 that direction. The next legislature, gentlemen, not only did 
 nothing to abate this evil, but they put into a law already ex- 
 isting the broadest right, the broadest privilege, to the rail- 
 roads to give passes to everybody, and referred the matter to 
 us. The next legislature, and the next legislature, will be 
 composed of members who will have free passes in their 
 pockets, and they will pass this matter by as the legislators in 
 the past have already done, and the people will get no relief. 
 
 Is there any reason why there should be a distinction be- 
 tween the general court, between those who come here and 
 grant franchises to those railroads and give other rights to the 
 
752 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 railroads, from the people is there any reason why there 
 should be any distinction between that court and the other 
 courts of the state? 
 
 Why do I favor Mr. Chandler's resolution ? For the reason 
 tihat it carries its teeth right in it, and it makes it a crime for 
 a legislator, or an officer of the state, to carry a free pass in 
 his pocket. As long as we insist that judges shall not take 
 presents from parties who are before them in litigation, just 
 so long we need this amendment, so that legislators can not 
 take gifts from corporations coming to them for favors. 
 
 I shall say no-tiling of what has been done in the past; but 
 I say that this free-pass-giving ought not to be allowed in the 
 future, and if it is to be allowed in, the future, God save the 
 state of New Hampshire, for its citizens have lost all sense of 
 honor! 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Comcord I have no desire to detain th& 
 members of the Constitutional Convention, keeping them un- 
 necessarily from going to their homes, by any mode of trans- 
 portation which they may choose to adopt, but I do desire, and 
 shall endeavor to have, a call of the yeas and nays on this 
 question. The people are not going to be deceived. This 
 question was taken up in two> state conventions, and both 
 parties instructed its representatives what to do in the next 
 legislature. There was a refusal to do that duty by a vote of 
 292 to 22, and it was refused oil the ground that a Constitu- 
 tional Convention was necessary in order to deal with this 
 great evil. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are in a Constitutional 
 Convention and are told it is for the legislature to deal with 
 it. I ask for the yeas and nays on my resolution, and I am 
 quite sure the people will not be deceived. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin The statute expressly provides that 
 the salaries of our railroad commissioners shall be paid by the 
 railroads and not by the state, and therefore I think my 
 friend from Portsmouth, Mr. Emery, is a little off in his rea- 
 soning on the ground that the legislature is a court and there- 
 fore should not take passes from a party before it. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 753 
 
 I also think my friend from Concord, Mr. Chandler, is 
 wrong. In the first place he tells us that he voted against 
 the calling of a Constitutional Convention. I take it that at 
 that time he thought there was no particular reason for chang- 
 ing the Constitution in this respect, -or a sufficient reason for 
 calling a Constitutional Convention to do it. He tells us 
 again that there is great danger that if we adopt so many 
 amendments the people will not ratify them, and refers us to 
 the example of an earlier coowention where that very thing 
 happened. We have already adopted more amendments than 
 that convention did, and unless there is some crying demand 
 for further amendments, it seems to me we have gone far 
 enough, and it is a good place to stop. 
 
 He has introduced an amendment that in future amend- 
 ments of the Constitution the matter should be referred to 
 two succeeding legislatures, and if they should find in favor 
 of an amendment, then it should go to the people. Now if my 
 friend's theory is correct, that the legislature is the proper 
 body to consider what should be the constitutional amend- 
 ments and frame them for ratification by the people, then that 
 body is the proper body to leave the matter of free passes to. 
 It seems to me it is a question of legislation. We are not here 
 to make up a moral code, but we are here to see what amend- 
 ments there should be to the Constitution, and that alone. 
 
 Here there are three or four different propositions, and it 
 seems to me the only reasonable thing to do is to let the legis- 
 lature take care of this. It is not a matter that belongs to a 
 Constitutional Convention. 
 
 It seems to me, also, that this creates a reflection upon 
 every member of this body who has ridden on free passes, and 
 every member of the legislatures who has ridden on free 
 passes for the last twenty-five or thirty years. I do not think 
 that the members of this Convention are going to feel they are 
 doing anything wrong, anything that ought to be prohibited 
 by an amendment of the constitutional law, in taking these 
 free passes. Certainly the railroad is not here asking for any 
 favors. The only resolution I have heard in any way in favor 
 48 
 
754 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 of the railroad is the resolution introduced by the gentleman 
 from Concord, Mr. Chandler, and the other resolution of like 
 character, prohibiting the use of free passes. Such an amend- 
 ment, or such legislation, as that would be of practical benefit 
 to the Boston & Maine railroad, and all these other railroads, 
 to an amount of I don't know how much, but I take it to the 
 extent of twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars a year. Are 
 there any other matters before this Convention that you can 
 conceive of that the railroads have any interest in in any way? 
 I think the reasonable thing to do is to refer this whole 
 matter to the legislature, the body to which Mr. Chandler has 
 been in favor of referring all constitutional amendments. 
 
 Mr. Wingate of Stratham I hope that the Convention 
 will adopt the resolution of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Chandler, and I will tell the gentlemeni of the Convention 
 why I do not believe in free passes. Many years ago, when I 
 was a very young man, I heard Ira Perley talking with a gen- 
 tleman, and he said that when he was appointed judge he re- 
 fused all offers of free passes, he did not think that a judge 
 of a court should take a pass. That strongly influenced my 
 mind at that time, and I have seen no reason since to change 
 the view that I obtained! by overhearing that conversation. 
 This year, when I received my pass, I sent it back and gave 
 my reasons why I did so. At another time when I received a 
 pass from the road to come to the legislature, I did the same, 
 but this year I gave 1 an added reason, and that was, that is was 
 probable that this Convention would have under considera- 
 tion the question of free passes, and when we were considering 
 a question of this kind I certainly did not want any pass in 
 my pocket, I believe that it is important that we should re- 
 gard our reputations as men and individuals, and the honor of 
 the state, by the passage of some such resolution as this. "VVe 
 who are here, above all others, ought to be careful of our repu- 
 tations. 
 
 Mr. Hadley of Temple I rise out of a sense of justice, or 
 injustice. I am a member of this Convention, as you all know, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 755 
 
 and come here on a free pass. If it were not for the free pass 
 I would not have money enough out of this scrape to go back 
 and forth. I was a member of the house in 1895, and I rode 
 back and forth on a pass at that time. I was not owned by 
 any road, and was working and voting all through the session 
 in favor of the Manchester & Milford railroad. 
 
 I do not believe there is any need of giving the Boston & 
 Maine railroad a slap in the face because they are considerate 
 enough to help out the state of New Hampshire by giving the 
 members of the legislature and of this Convention free passes. 
 
 I do wish to say that the Boston & Maine railroad has greatly 
 benefited the grange in New Hampshire, not so much in the 
 free pass line, as by giving us concessions to our fairs and 
 state grange meetings^ and this is a measure against all such 
 reduction of rates, or concessions. I also want to say this, too, 
 out of justice to this same railroad, I want to say publicly that 
 the patrons of New Hampshire appreciate the courtesies ex- 
 tended to that body by means of which we have attained such 
 prosperity as we could not have attained in any other way 
 except by these concessions and the encouragement that we 
 have received from them, and I wish to/ extend the sincere 
 thanks of this organization to the railroad in this public man- 
 ner for their many courtesies. 
 
 Mr. Niles of Concord Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the 
 Committee: I feel very strongly that tihe delegates, in con- 
 sidering this matter from a theoretical standpoint, are in 
 danger of overlooking the broad fundamental basis of fact un- 
 derlying the fabric of our government, without a due appre- 
 ciation of which we cannot adequately pass upon the merits 
 of this question. 
 
 There is an apparent disposition to dwell with, perhaps, un- 
 due insistence upon the theory upon which our government 
 purports to be established, that all men are created free and 
 equal, and that the real reposition of power and responsibility 
 is to be found in the people of the state as a mass, rattier than 
 in any specially favored or specially burdened few. When we 
 
756 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 fervently declare that all just government rests upon the con- 
 sent of the governed, we forget the correlative proposition, 
 that a government, which does in fact rest upon the consent of 
 the governed, is necessarily, in the nature of things, a just 
 government. Did we bear this latter principle clearly in 
 mind, we would at once appreciate the necessity of going a 
 step farther, and considering what form of government does 
 at the present day, in New Hampshire, in fact, rest upon the 
 consent of the governed. 
 
 Lincoln, speaking from the theoretical standpoint, declared, 
 in the spirit; of prophecy, that "Government of the people, by 
 the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the 
 earth." But prophecy is one of the most dangerous things in 
 which man can indulge. The remarkable coincidences be- 
 tween New Testament facts and Old Testament prophecies are 
 so unparalleled in human experience as to be regarded as 
 one of the strongest arguments in support of the position that 
 the prophets of the old dispensation were guided in their pre- 
 dictions by some power above their own unaided wish and 
 imagination. 
 
 Lincoln, however, laid claim to no such superhuman guid- 
 ance. He was simply an officer employed and paid by the gov- 
 ernment, which employs and pays weather prophets. 
 
 We therefore have the right, and it is our duty, to inquire 
 closely into existing conditions, and ascertain whether his pre- 
 diction finds fulfilment in the facts as we see them. 
 
 I do not noiw desire to express any opinion as to those facts, 
 but I feel it my duty to call attention to the proposition some- 
 times advanced, and, curiously enough, by strenuous advo- 
 cates of this radical and drastic measure, that government 
 of the people, by the people, and for the people, has, in fact, 
 to some extent, perished from the earth, so far at least as New 
 Hampshire is concerned, and that there has been established 
 here, by the apparent consent of the governed, a government 
 of the people, l>y the railroads, and for the railroads. 
 
 Again note, that upon the question of fact involved, I now 
 express no opinion, either as to whether such a government 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 757 
 
 actually exists, or whether it has received the consent of the 
 governed. 
 
 But if it does so exist, we are confronted by the grave ques- 
 tion whether we shall obstinately adhere to and attempt to 
 realize the theories of Lincoln, or shall regard it as our own 
 duty to disown the de jure government, existing only 'on 
 paper, or in the imagination of doctrinaire enthusiasts, and 
 yield our ungrudging allegiance to the de facto government, 
 just because resting on the consent of the governed. 
 
 Only the most misguided zealot, recognizing the existence 
 of such a de facto government, could fail to appreciate the rev- 
 olutionary character of the measure under consideration, 
 whose only intent is to hamper the de facto government in the 
 exercise of its executive, legislative, and judicial functions. 
 
 We all understand Lincoln's theory of government, but a 
 prophet is not without honor, save in his own country. And 
 this is Lincoln's country. An then, Lincoln is dead. 
 
 And the wise man tells us that "A cur dog is better than a 
 dead lion." Ought we, then, to allow the memory of the 
 majestic roar of the now dead lion to dull our ears to the in- 
 sistent barking of the living dog, to whom men say we must 
 look for our enjoyment of the blessings of life, liberty, and the 
 pursuit of happiness? Shall we muzzle our protector? 
 
 If the experience of the past has demonstrated that the 
 judicious use of free passes aids it in the performance of its 
 governmental functions, that without their aid executive, leg- 
 islative, and judicial hot-boxes are inevitable, and passes 
 surely would not be employed if they were not found service- 
 able; to hold otherwise would be to cast doubt upon the wis- 
 dom and judgment of those who dispense them. If this is so, 
 of what stupendous folly would we be guilty, should we com- 
 pel them to run the complicated machinery of government 
 without grease? And this is just what Mr. Chandler's resolu- 
 tion contemplates. 
 
 On the other hand, how can we defend ourselves before our 
 constituents, if we compel them to apply passes with lavish 
 profusion, where their experienced judgment shows them 
 
758 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 that they would be wasted, to daub the whole machinery of 
 government with grease, to the great waste of grease, and the 
 unseemingly defilement and disfigurement of costly portions 
 olf the machinery designed solely for ornamental purposes. 
 And this would be the result of adopting the amendment 
 proposed by Mr. Kogers. 
 
 Either of these measures, admitting the existence of such a 
 form of government, would be nothing less than revolu- 
 tionary. 
 
 But the Constitution of New Hampshire, in article ten of 
 the Bill of Eights, contains the following startling proposi- 
 tion: 
 
 "Government being instituted for the common benefit, pro- 
 tection, and security of the whole community, and not for the 
 private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class 
 of men, therefore, whenever the ends of- government are per- 
 verted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other 
 means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right 
 ought to, reform the old or establish a new government. The 
 doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and op- 
 pression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and 
 happiness of mankind." 
 
 This article clearly declares the right and enjoins the duty 
 of revolution "whenever the ends of government are perverted 
 and public liberty manifestly endangered." The possible rev- 
 olutionary character of this measure is, therefore, not con- 
 clusive against the propriety of its adoption. 
 
 There are some, who, believing that such a de facto govern- 
 ment as I have described is in actual operation, yet hold, and 
 frankly declare, that they regard such a state of things as de- 
 sirable and conducive to the best interests of the community; 
 that the people are incapable of governing themselves, and 
 need the guidance of a strong and resolute hand; and that any 
 change in the existing state of affairs would be nothing less 
 than a public calamity. Persons holding those views, if such 
 there are in this Convention, would of course oppose Mr. 
 Chandler's resolution, because of its injuriously revolutionary 
 character. 
 
THUKSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 759 
 
 Others, while recognizing the fact that Lincoln's theory of 
 government still prevails in this state, are of opinion that a 
 change would be beneficial. Such persons, realizing that the 
 principle of the equality of every man before the law is prac- 
 tically unrecognized outside of America, deem it unwise for us 
 to hold aloof from our sister nations, and would welcome also 
 as advance in civilization any step which would place us on a 
 more nearly equal footing with them. Such persons, if any 
 there are in this Convention, would oppose Mr. Chandler's 
 resolution as a dangerous obstacle in the path of progress 
 toward the attainment of higher ideals. 
 
 Those, on the other hand, who believe that such a govern- 
 ment does in fact exist, and that thereby "the ends of govern- 
 ment are perverted and public liberty manifestly endangered," 
 will naturally feel that the circumstances are such as to de- 
 mand the exercise of their constitutional right of revolution. 
 Such persons, if any there are in this Convention, will of 
 course vote for the adoption of Mr. Chandler's resolution. 
 
 For myself, I cannot approve of the suggestion of Mr. 
 Eogers, that the giving of passes to all state officials should be 
 made compulsory. Such a measure would have too close a re- 
 semblance to the statute compelling the railroads to pay the 
 salaries of the railroad commissioners, a statute which, while 
 in no way capable of improperly influencing the commission- 
 ers in the performance of their duties, unjustly places them 
 in the uncomfortable position of seeming to be in some way 
 the beneficiaries of the railroads. The state can surely afford 
 to pay the salaries and expenses of all its officers; it cannot 
 afford not to do so. 
 
 Believing, as I do, that Lincoln's theory of government has 
 not, in fact, been abandoned in this state, and a new form of 
 government established, with the consent of the governed, 
 and that such an event would be a most deplorable perversion 
 of the ends of government and would manifestly endanger the 
 public liberty, I shall feel it my duty to vote for the adoption 
 of Mr. Chandler's resolution; and others who feel as I do will 
 take the same course. In so voting, they will not necessarily 
 
760 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 declare their belief that any attempt to pervert our liberty has 
 been made, or is contemplated. But they will be declaring in 
 concrete form their intense conviction that the doctrine of the 
 inherited equality of all men before the law survives in all 
 its original force in this state, and should survive, and that 
 government of the people, by the people, and for the people 
 has not perished, and must not perish from the earth. And 
 the people will understand the spirit of the amendment, and 
 will welcome with enthusiasm the opportunity to ratify it at 
 the polls. 
 
 And I am sure that in no other way can we so effectively 
 dispel the general suspicion under which this body must rest 
 by reason of the distribution of passes to its members. In no 
 other way can the delegates so- clearly and forcibly demon- 
 strate the fact that they are not susceptible to such influences. 
 A vote against the further issuing of such passes will satisfy 
 the people of the state that, whatever their influences upon 
 legislators and public officers generally, the virtue of this body 
 cannot be bought, at any rate, at so cheap a price. 
 
 Mr. McAllister of Manchester I do not propose at this 
 time to trespass upon your patience, for we are all anxious to 
 finish our business and go home; but I do wish to say that I 
 am heartily and earnestly in favor of the amendment proposed 
 by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler. I believe it 
 is an amendment calculated to benefit the people and promote 
 their welfare. 
 
 Gentlemen, railroads do not give passes to the members of 
 the legislature unless they expect something in return. They 
 come to the legislature for favors, and it is wrong that they 
 should be permitted to make a present to each member of the 
 legislature equal to his railroad fare during the session. I am 
 in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendment to the 
 Constitution, which will make it impossible for a railroad cor- 
 poration to influence the members of the legislature or of a 
 Constitutional Convention, in its favor, by giving railroad 
 passes tjo them. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 761 
 
 Mr. Howe of ConcoTd I have but a single word that I care 
 to say upon this subject. I voted this morning against the 
 declaration against trusts and I did it because I did not think 
 it was a constitutional subject, but a legislative subject, and 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am of the same opinion on 
 this subject. I hold this is a subject for the legislature and 
 not for a Constitutional Convention, and I hope the pro- 
 posed amendment of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. 
 Chandler, will not be adopted. 
 
 The Chairman Gentleman, the question is, shall the reso- 
 lution offered by Mr. Leach of Franklin be substituted for the 
 resolution offered by Mr. Chandler of Concord, and on that 
 question a division is called for. 
 
 Upon division the chair declared that 101 gentlemen voted 
 in the affirmative and ninety-seven gentlemen voted in the 
 negative. 
 
 Mr. Little of Manchester I rise to a point of order. There 
 is no quorum present. 
 
 The Chairman The point is well taken. 
 
 In Convention. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Madden of Keene, chairman of the Committee of the 
 Whole, reported that the committee had been in session, hav- 
 ing had under consideration the various resolutions relating to 
 free passes, and no quorum being present the committee arose. 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth moved that the Convention 
 adjourn. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord called for a division. And 112 
 
762 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 gentlemen having voted in the affirmative, and twenty-eight 
 gentlemen having voted in the negative, the Convention was 
 declared adjourned. 
 
 EVENING. 
 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord, from the Committee on the Legis- 
 lative Department, to whom was recommitted the amendment 
 of Mr. Baker of Bow, relating to voting precincts, reported the 
 same in the accompanying new draft with the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the amendment in the new draft be 
 adopted." 
 
 New Draft. 
 
 "The legislature shall have full power and authority to 
 establish more than one place of public meeting within the 
 limits of any town or ward in the state for the casting, count- 
 ing, declaring, and returning of votes, and the election of 
 officers under the Constitution; to prescribe the manner of 
 warning, holding, and conducting such meetings, and for that 
 purpose may divide any town or ward into voting precincts." 
 
 The report was accepted, and the resolution adopted. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Baker of Bow, the resolution offered by 
 Mr. Clyde of Hudson in relation to representation and initia- 
 tive and referendum, was indefinitely postponed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth, the resolution 
 offered by him relating to the incompatibility of certain 
 offices, together with the report of the committee thereon, was 
 taken from the table. 
 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 763 
 
 On motion of the same gentleman, the proposed amendment 
 was indefinitely postponed. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord As a peaceful delegate, I ask 
 unanimous consent that the proposition relative to free passes 
 on railroads, made by the gentleman from Franklin, Mr. 
 Leach, be voted upon, to-morrow at 12 o'clock. The proposi- 
 tion which the gentleman from Franklin makes is against the 
 various propositions which have been submitted for amending 
 the Constitution, so that free passes cannot be issued, and is 
 the one on which I think the friends of free passes would de- 
 sire to vote; on a call for the yeas and nays, and anticipating 
 that desire I will state now that when the matter comes up for 
 final action I will call for a yea and nay vote of this Conven- 
 tion on that very important subject. 
 
 The President If the gentleman from Concord should 
 make a motion that the vote be taken at 12 o'clock, and the 
 motion is adapted unanimously, in that way he would get the 
 special order he desires. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord If I should make that motion I 
 am afraid somebody would vote against it. I make the mo- 
 tion, however, that a vote be taken by yeas and nays tomorrow 
 at 12 oi'clock, on the motion of the gentleman from Franklin, 
 Mr. Leach, relative to free passes. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Chandler is stated and declared adopted.. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I will not do as my friend from 
 Somersworth did when he was afraid that some one would 
 object to coming back here this week, ask whether there is 
 any such individual, and if so ask him to> rise. I suppose the 
 gentleman from Somersworth meant to say that if that partic- 
 ular individual would come back again another week he would 
 pay the gentleman from his own pocket, but the gentleman 
 from Somersworth did not make any such liberal offer. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth No one stood up. 
 
764 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I offer a resolution of the Com- 
 mittee on the Tim and Mode of Submitting to the People 
 the Amendments Agreed toi by the Convention, which I desire 
 to have read and considered, and perhaps adopted, but not 
 acted upon until to-morrow afternoon. This is with reference 
 to the time when the popular election shall be held when the 
 amendments made by this Convention shall be voted upon. 
 It reads as follows: 
 
 "I. Resolved, That the alterations and amendments pro- 
 posed to the Constitution shall be submitted to the qualified 
 voters of the state, at meetings which shall be duly called and 
 held in the several towns, wards of cities, and other places in 
 the state on the second Tuesday of March, 1903, to be by said 
 voters acted upon atl said meetings, or any adjournments 
 thereof within the same week. 
 
 "II. Resolved, That the selectmen of the several towns, 
 wards, and places in the state be and are hereby directed to 
 insert, in their warrants calling the said meetings, an article 
 to the following effect: 'To take the sense of the qualified 
 voters whether the alterations and amendments of the Con- 
 stitution proposed by the Constitutional Convention shall be 
 .approved/ ' 
 
 Mr. President, the committee, or those members of it who 
 were present to-day, and I think all but four were present, 
 were divided in opinion as to when these amendments should 
 be voted upon. Two or three members were in favor of de- 
 laying the submission until a year from next November at the 
 presidential election, because, they said, that would be the 
 only time when there could be secured a full vote of the peo- 
 ple of the state. This time was naturally enough objected to 
 because it was thought by some that it was too far off, and 
 that the people would not only forget the Convention (per- 
 haps it woiuld be desirable that they should do that) but they 
 would forget the amendments themselves, and they would 
 have to be brought to public view and called to the attention 
 of the people again in order to get them to take sufficient in- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 765 
 
 terest to vote upon them at the election. So, on the whole, 
 only three or four members of the committee could bring 
 themselves to advise that such a time should be selected. 
 
 The majority of the committee were in favor of the second 
 Tuesday of March next. The advantages are that the towns 
 hold their town-meetings at that time, and although it would 
 be necessary for the cities to hold special elections it would 
 not be necessary for the towns to hold special elections, and 
 those inhabitants who desired to vote upon the amendments 
 might do so at their annual town-meeting. 
 
 The objections to submitting the amendments next March 
 were stated in this way: that whereas a year from next Novem- 
 ber is too long a time;, the second Tuesday of March gives too 
 short a time. We are submitting, Mr. President and gentle- 
 men, very important amendments to the people of this state 
 the amendment to change the method of taxation is im- 
 portant, and above all, perhaps, in its importance, is the re- 
 quirement of the educational qualification for suffrage. The 
 change in the basis of representation, which was adopted this 
 afternoon by so narrow a majority, is a matter of great im- 
 portance, and should be fully understood by the people, and 
 they should vote upon it with deliberation. And certainly the 
 women of the state should have their cause fully and amply 
 championed before the people prior to voting thereon. So it 
 was contended by several of the gentlemen, and it was appre- 
 ciated by all, that January and February would give hardly 
 time enough; for the education of the people upon these very 
 important matters. 
 
 Therefore the members of the committee were really in a 
 quandary, those who* were present, to know how to act under 
 the circumstances. The majority of the committee instructed 
 me to report this resolution, with the statement that I am 
 now making, and a request that the Convention will decide. I, 
 therefore, have taken a few minutes at this time to present 
 the question, but as there are trains now leaving, and some 
 of the delegates may be going, it may not be well to act now, 
 but I think we can give consideration to it, as the committee 
 
766 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 would not like to make a report which would not be accepted 
 by the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster Was a year from next March con- 
 sidered? 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord A year from next March was 
 not thought of. But this was thought of a gentleman from 
 one of the country towns suggested it that there might be a 
 special election some Saturday, either in the latter part of 
 September or October next. It was thought that would give 
 about the right time for the discussion of the amendments 
 proposed by the Convention. The objection was understood 
 toi be the necessity of having special elections on this subject 
 in every town and ward in the state. I do not believe any 
 one suggested it would be wise to submit the amendments a 
 year from the coming March. 
 
 Mr. Daley of Berlin I understand there are four cities in 
 the state which hold their elections in March. If I am wrong 
 about this I should like to be corrected. I think the city of 
 Portsmouth, the city of Somersworth, the city of Laconia, 
 and the city of Berlin are the four. I understand these four 
 cities hold annual meetings in March. That would leave, as I 
 understand it, seven cities in the state, including the large 
 city of Manchester, which would be under the necessity of 
 holding special elections if these amendments were submitted 
 on the second Tuesday of March next. Personally I favor the 
 submission of the amendments at this time, inasmuch as it 
 favors my own city. It seems to me that it is the proper thing 
 to do any way, in view of the fact that all the towns in the 
 state hold their elections on the second Tuesday of March, 
 and four cities of the state hold their elections on the same 
 day, so that the special elections would be necessary only in 
 seven cities of the state. 
 
 With reference to the matter of discussion, the people of 
 the state will have a general knowledge of the subject by rea- 
 son of the reports of this Convention, and will be better pre- 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 767 
 
 pared to vote upon the question in Maxell than at any other 
 possible time. Great interest is being manifested in the Con- 
 vention which we are attending, and as a result there could be 
 no better or moire effective information than that which is 
 going out from this Convention to the people. 
 
 It has been suggested by the gentleman from Concord that 
 perhaps it might be well if the people should forget this Con- 
 vention. I don't think so. I think it is well for the people to 
 remember this Convention, and I think further, by remem- 
 bering it they will remember what has taken place and will 
 rememb-er the discussions oni these different amendments. 
 
 For these reasons I believe the vote on matters which 
 are to be submitted ought to take place on the second Tues- 
 day of March next. 
 
 Mr. Craig of Marlow I represent one of the towns of the 
 state, and I think the election for voting upon these amend- 
 ments ought to be held on the second Tuesday of March. 
 The towns holding their town-meetings upon that day cover 
 a large section of the state, and if a special election should be 
 held it should be in the cities, as it is more convenient for 
 them to hold elections than in the country towns throughout 
 the state. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster I have no motion to make to-night 
 in this connection. I understand that we hardly want to risk 
 taking a vote here which might disclose the absence of a 
 quorum, but rather we are talking over this matter in an in- 
 formal way to get the sense of the Convention for the action 
 of the committee. 
 
 There is much toi be said, perhaps, both ways. The only 
 times suggested are the second Tuesday in March next, which 
 really is prettty quick after the close of the Convention, and 
 the other time is a year from next November, which is a long 
 way off. I would suggest this, for the purpose of calling forth 
 suggestions from other members, whether it would not be well 
 for the committee, in considering this part of their report, to 
 
768 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 consider a year from next March. If next March is too quick, 
 and a year from next November is too far off,, I should think 
 that a year from next March much better than either, and 
 especially than to put it over until a year from next Novem- 
 ber. I would like to hear the opinions of other members as to 
 selecting the second Tuesday of March, 1904, rather than the 
 second Tuesday of March, 1903, or the first Tuesday of No- 
 vember, 1904. 
 
 Mr. Fairbanks of Cornish It seems to me that the people 
 of this state, will not forget this Convention,. I think it would 
 be better to submit the amendments to the people a year from 
 next March. They will at that time have become more fully 
 acquainted with the amendments and will understand the sub- 
 jects better than they do) now with a year's time to discuss 
 them in, or than they would as early as next March. I would 
 be glad to see the time set for a year from next March. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard of Amherst I think the second Tuesday of 
 next March would be plenty late enough. I presume in re- 
 gard to most of the amendments that we have to- submit the 
 people would not want more than ten minutes to express their 
 opinions in, and to decide the matters most effectually. 
 
 I presume that the people will remember this Convention 
 as long as they want to, but I think they will be as well pre- 
 pared to vote upon the amendments next March as they will 
 be a year, two years, or three years from that time. 
 
 Mr. Bartlett of Sunapee There is certainly one advantage 
 in voting upon the amendments next March. As I under- 
 stand it, the basis of the next legislature would have to be 
 acted upon by the legislature immediately following the adop- 
 tion of the amendments by the people. The legislature sit- 
 ting in January would probably be in session after the second 
 Tuesday in March, and they can establish the basis of repre- 
 sentation for the next legislature, and thus save the state 
 some $18,000. 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 769 
 
 Mr. Ashley of Dorchester I think with Mr. Fairbanks that 
 the people of this state will have occasion to remember this 
 Convention, at least the 111 pro-rated towns will. 
 
 In regard to; the time of submitting these amendments to 
 the people, it seems to me that the better time is the second 
 Tuesday of next March. Within a year from that time they 
 will have forgotten to a great extent the substance of these 
 amendments, and the reasons and arguments for and against 
 them. Then it will be better to have it in March at the March 
 meeting, for at that time yotu will get a fuller attendance and 
 you will get a better vote than at any other time. The people 
 of this state are not in ignorance of what is or has been going 
 on in this Convention. They are keeping posted, and I think 
 they will be prepared to vote by the second Tuesday of March 
 next. , 
 
 Mr. Stockwell of Claremont I represent in part one of 
 the largest towns in the state, and as far as we are concerned 
 I do not believe it would make much difference whether next 
 March or a year from next March, or a year from next Novem- 
 ber, is set for the time for submitting these amendments. 
 Personally, I have been in favor of the back towns the small 
 dogs, as you might call them but my constituents have sent 
 me here to vote as they wish to have me vote, and I voted for 
 the majority report to-day, which I think perhaps may be 
 ratified or may not be. I will say this, I was born and brought 
 up in a very small town back in the country, and my expe- 
 rience is that coming to town-meeting on the second Tuesday 
 of March is sometimes about impossible. Now if these gen- 
 tlemen from the small towns that are back in the country 
 want to carry their point, and they are prepared, as I have 
 heard represented this afternoon, to vote down this amend- 
 ment with respect to representation which we passed here, 
 they had better put off till a year from next November when 
 the going will be good and you will get out a fuller vote than 
 at any other time. 
 
 I think myself, as a rule, that next March will be too soon, 
 49 
 
770 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 And if you are going to put it off until a year from next 
 March, you had better put it off till a year from next No- 
 vember. 
 
 Mr. Buckminster of Kosbury I, too, bow to my constit- 
 uents, as the gentleman has said who last spoke. I think it 
 will be satisfactory to the small towns or the small fry, so- 
 called, to vote at any time the questions may be submitted. 
 It occurs to me, however, that it would be better to have next 
 March. Many of the small towns have sent but one delegate 
 to this Convention, but I think they would be able to circulate 
 among the people and give them some information if re- 
 quested and necessary for them to do so, and I think they may 
 be able to remove some of the doubts with reference to these 
 amendments that the people might have. I think that next 
 March, or a year from next March, is the better time, and I 
 think it would be better to have it next March. 
 
 Mr. Hamblett of Nashua It seems to me if the work of 
 this Convention "were well done, it were well if it were done 
 quickly." If the amendments are for the benefit of the state, 
 we cannot adopt them too quickly, and if they are wrong the 
 sooner we are set right the better for all concerned. I believe 
 next March gives ample time to consider them, and at that 
 time we shall have it nearer to our hearts and firmer fixed in 
 our memory, and shall be more earnest in giving what instruc- 
 tion we can to our fellow-citizens. I think the second Tues- 
 day of next March is the proper and fitting time. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth As a member of the Com- 
 mittee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the 
 Amendments Agreed to by the Convention, I desire to call 
 attention to some suggestions that have been made in regard 
 to the proper time of submitting our amendments to the 
 people. 
 
 It has been stated that in many of the larger towns it re- 
 quires all day to transact the ordinary business of the town, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 771 
 
 and that such towns would not have time to consider these 
 amendments at their annual town-meeting. 
 
 It has also been said that in a great many towns only a 
 small proportion of the voters are in the habit of attending 
 the town-meetings in March. 
 
 There are but few of our cities that hold their annual 
 meetings on the second Tuesday of March. These are some of 
 the reasons advanced why the amendments should -not be 
 voted upon at our next annual town-meetings. 
 
 It is entirely immaterial to me or to* the city from which I 
 come when these amendments are submitted because we hold 
 our city election on the second Tuesday of March, and the area 
 of our city is quite small, and it is not very difficult for our 
 voters to come out and vote at any time; but I can readily see 
 that it may make some difference to many other cities and 
 towns in regard to the time of taking the sense of the voters. 
 
 Some think March would be too early because it would not 
 give sufficient time to canvass the state and conduct an edu- 
 cational campaign to enable the people to vote understand- 
 ingly upon all these amendments. 
 
 If in the opinion of the larger part of the members present 
 there is sufficient time between now and the second Tuesday 
 of March to properly consider these amendments so as to ob- 
 tain a fair and intelligent expression upon them I should cer- 
 tainly be in favor of submitting them to the people at that 
 time. 
 
 The members of the committee are anxious to obtain an 
 expression of the members present so as to enable them to fix 
 upon the time that will be the fairest and most satisfactory 
 to all sections of the state. 
 
 Mr. Wilkins of Henndker It seems to me that the best 
 time for the submission of these questions is when these 
 amendments are in the minds of the people. We have our 
 daily papers, which under the system of free rural delivery 
 are delivered to every farmer of the state, and these farmers 
 are reading the papers, and these matters are fresh in their 
 minds and will be on the second Tuesday of March next. 
 
772 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The only objection to that date, as I see, is that in the cities 
 there will necessarily be special elections. But if the election 
 is held one year from next March the same thing will be neces- 
 sary,, and the objection to a year from next November is that 
 a long time must elapse, and the people will be thinking of 
 other things, while now they are thinking of the doings of 
 this Convention. 
 
 It seems to me if we have to subject the cities to the ex- 
 pense and inconvenience of a special election, it is best it be 
 done at the coming March election. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough I think that the suggestion of 
 the committee is the fairest to the voters, to have this submis- 
 sion at the coming March meetings, and is the best suggestion 
 that can be made. I don't know how it is in all the towns of 
 this state, but I am confident a full vote throughout the state 
 in regard to the questions submitted to them by this Conven- 
 tion can be had at the March meetings, and fuller than at the 
 presidential election, or at a fall meeting in November. 
 
 I do not know just what the custom is in all the different 
 towns in regard to taking the vote at the fall elections, but I 
 presume about the same system prevails everywhere, that 
 there is but a small portion of the time during the day of elec- 
 tion when but a small part of the people congregate in the 
 place where the vote is being taken. In the March meeting 
 there comes up the question of the selection of a road agent, 
 and it is the time when you raise your money; it is the time 
 when all the questions relating to municipalities come before 
 the people, and the people are there, and they are staying to 
 hear discussions in regard to all the questions which come be- 
 fore them. It seems to me this is the time when this vote 
 should be taken and that a fuller vote can be had at that time 
 than at any other. 
 
 Whether it is too soon or not I do not know, but I am not 
 of the opinion that it is. Perhaps all the gentlemen present 
 do not feel as I do about this matter. I have this matter upon 
 my mind, and want to get it off. We have had a free, frank, 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 773 
 
 open, and good fight, but the question is not settled until it is 
 fairly before the people and they have thrown their votes 
 upon whether the proposition passed by the majority report 
 here will receive the two-thirds majority which it requires. 
 
 One reason why I want this off my mind is simply in conse- 
 quence of remarks that gentlemen like to make, as they al- 
 ways do when a person is defeated. One gentleman said, 
 "How do you feel since you rode in from the valley of the 
 shadow?" My reply was, "I don't feel that I have ridden in 
 from the valley of the shadow." I could hardly think what he 
 meant, but I suppose it was that number 600 that was in his 
 mind the 600 for the first representative. Of course it car- 
 ried my mind back to> the 600 of Balaklava, although I could 
 not see any analogy between the two, unless it was that there 
 was a large army of ex-senators in front of us; ex-judges and 
 lawyers at the right of us, and naval officers and lawyers at 
 the left, and gentlemen who had not the courage of their con- 
 victions at the rear of us; but they did n't alarm me, neither 
 -do' I feel alarmed or chagrined about this matter. We have 
 fought a good fight, and although we have not won we have 
 frightened you and are in as good a trim as you are, and want 
 it off our minds, and no better time can be suggested, to my 
 mind, than the next March meeting, and, gentlemen, we will 
 meet you there. 
 
 Mr. Cole of Salem The gentleman from Peterborough, 
 Mr. Scott, has very nearly expressed my position. We came 
 here with the expectation of cutting down the house of repre- 
 sentatives, and I think it was the desire of my town, and I 
 think it is the duty of us all to go home I think it is my 
 duty, and I shall goi home and talk with the people and try to 
 get them to ratify what we have done to-day, and I think 
 three months is amply long enough for that purpose. 
 
 I was one of those that started out with the idea of 800 for 
 the first representative, and although with most of the small 
 towns we lose half of our representation by this measure, we 
 are willing to do so for the sake of reducing the house. I 
 
774 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 have been with the majority ever since the vote, and I think I 
 shall he with the majority when this vote comes, whether it 
 comes next March, or a year from next March, or a year from 
 next November. 
 
 Mr. Johnson of Colebrook I do not agree with several .of 
 the gentlemen who have said that from now till the second 
 Tuesday of next March is too short a time. I do not believe it 
 is necessary, after the discussions we have had in this Con- 
 vention, that there should be any campaign of education, or 
 any special process of carrying the merits of these amend- 
 ments to the people. I believe the people of this state have 
 kept pace with this Convention, and have understood what we 
 have done here, and have carefully weighed the amendments 
 that have been proposed, and the arguments against them; 
 and that they will be better prepared, next March, to act upon 
 them than at any other time. The discussions will probably 
 be kept up, and the people will be continually considering 
 these matters and keeping them in mind, knowing that they 
 are to act upon them, and pass final judgment at that time. 
 Whereas, upon the other hand, if they understand that action 
 is postponed until a year from next March, or a year from 
 next November, this Convention will be forgotten, and its 
 work will be substantially forgotten by many, and then, 
 I admit, a campaign of education may be necessary to bring 
 these ideas back into the minds of the people. Now if we sub- 
 mit them at the election in March next, I do not believe it 
 would be necessary. Consequently, I believe that this Con- 
 vention should adopt as the time for the people to act upon 
 these amendments the second Tuesday of next March. 
 
 Mr. Clark of Windham This appears to be a sort of ex- 
 perience meeting, and perhaps it would be well that I should 
 state my experience. After going home last Friday night, 
 and being among my constituents during the intermission of 
 the Convention, I am convinced that they will be as well pre- 
 pared the second Tuesday of March next as they could be at 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 775 
 
 any time in the future. I found that they were well posted, 
 and I think I am safe in saying that they were better posted 
 than some of the delegates of this Convention, judging from 
 the empty seats that have continued empty throughout the 
 session. 
 
 Eeference has been made in regard to the 600. My town is 
 one of the towns between six and eight hundred one of the 
 forty-two towns that will be pro-rated under the amendment 
 proposed. Now I will speak for them in this way. I think 
 they were unanimous in their idea of cutting down the mem- 
 bership of the house, and they were willing to turn in their 
 mite toward cutting it down,. I voted to-day with the minor- 
 ity, but now that, we have, a,s a Convention, accepted the 800 
 and the 1,600 to recommend to the people, I >will venture to 
 state that I believe that my town will not go back on the 
 doings of the Convention. 
 
 Mr. Pollard of Newfields I am a delegate from one of the 
 small towns, between 600 and 800, and I voted this morning 
 on the basis of 600 and 1,800. But I accept for one the action 
 of the Convention. If that act had been different, I should 
 have expected that the delegates of the cities would have gone 
 home to their constituents and would have asked them to 
 ratify the amendments which had been offered to them by this 
 Convention. As it is, I shall feel it my duty to go home and 
 advise the voters of my town to ratify what has been done by 
 this Convention. It looks to me, as has been stated here, that 
 the matter is fresh in the minds of the people of the state, and 
 that they will be ready to vote upon it on the second Tuesday/ 
 of next March. 
 
 Mr. Bucklin of Alexandria I am another delegate from 
 one of the back towns, and I presume the back towns have 
 the floor this evening. I think when I go home to my con- 
 stituents they will ask me why we put off this vote until a 
 year from next November, or even a year from next March. 
 
 I may be dull, but unless I hear some other reason than has- 
 
776 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 been given I want to know what to say to them. I think the 
 best business-like proposition that this Convention can adopt 
 and the members of this Convention are all bright men, as 
 I have been informed and as I have also seen is to have the 
 vote taken at the next March meeting. 
 
 Mr. Demeritt of Alton I also represent a small town, but 
 the vote we have passed to-day will have no effect on us. I, 
 for one, would be in favor of having these amendments sub- 
 mitted to the voters next March. 
 
 As I have sat here and heard so much from the city people 
 about our men coming down here and begging and begging 
 that you should let us keep our rights, I say that we fellows 
 from the back towns do not want, and should not want, to 
 beg to ask you to have this vote at the next March meeting. 
 Set your own time, and we of the minority, the people from 
 my town, and the people from the 110 pro-rated towns, will 
 know what date it is that you set, and if you put it off until 
 next March, a year from next March, oir a year from next No- 
 vember, the people of these 111 towns will be there, and you 
 will hear from them. 
 
 Mr. Powers of Hollis As the small towns seem to have 
 the floor this evening, I will say a word. I come from a small 
 town, a town having about 900 inhabitants, and I voted with 
 the minorit}' r . I can guarantee, I think, that ooir town will 
 acquiesce in the doings of the Convention to-day. I believe 
 we should strike while the iron is hot, as has been said, and 
 while the amendments that have been made are fresh in our 
 minds. I think a year from next March, or a year from next 
 November, are too far distant. I can see only one objection 
 to having it on the second Tuesday of March next, and per- 
 haps that is no objection that is, it might not give time for 
 the women to make their campaign and present their cause on 
 the woman's suffrage question. 
 
 Mr. Cogswell of Gilmanton I cannot say that I represent 
 a little town. I represent the mother of nearly half of the 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 777 
 
 towns in Belknap county, the town of Gilmanton. Gilman- 
 ton was twenty-five miles long and fifteen miles wide, and 
 from it was taken Gilford, Belmont, and parts of other towns, 
 and it is not a small town now. So I cannot sympathize fully 
 with the gentlemen from the small towns like the gentleman 
 from Alton. 
 
 There has been only three propositions presented by the 
 committee this evening, and one of the three propositions, as 
 I understand it, is that these amendments shall be submitted 
 to the people at the election in March, coming on the second 
 Tuesday of March. The other proposition that has been 
 recommended by some one is, that we submit the amendments 
 some time along in the fall, September or October, or some 
 pleasant Saturday afternoon, and ha.ve special elections all 
 over the state to vote upon these questions, and the last prop- 
 osition was to postpone everything twenty-three months from 
 now, that is, until November, 1904. 
 
 I don't know how it is with you, gentlemen, but I forget 
 many things in that length of time, and I also hope I learn a 
 good many things. If you let this matter remain so long, the 
 people of New Hampshire will forget, their interest will die 
 out. As Colonel Scott said, we want to be in this fight and 
 -out of it as quickly as possible. If it is necessary to have a 
 campaign of education to teach the men to vote on woman's 
 suffrage we have now four months in which that campaign 
 can be made. 
 
 I submit in all seriousness that the proper time to submit 
 these amendments is the time when the greater part of the 
 people in New Hampshire will be at the polls. There is no 
 better tame than at our town-meetings, where we meet 
 together to raise money, to elect road agents, to fight over 
 selectmen, and to get into a general scramble all round. 
 There is plenty of time to vote upon those matters at those 
 meetings, and I hope it will be the sober sense of this Con- 
 vention that when we vote on the amendments it will be on 
 the second Tuesday of next March. 
 
 Mr. Cross of Manchester offered the following resolution: 
 
778 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 "Resolved, That the present session of this Convention 
 ooone to a close on Friday,, December 19, not later than & 
 o'clock in the afternoon., the exact hour to be fixed by the 
 Convention at the morning session of the 19th. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 The President The chair will state to the Convention 
 that there are very few matters remaining undisposed of upon 
 the secretary's desk. There will be two reports of committees 
 to-morrow morning. Both of them are already made, and the 
 reports will be "inexpedient." In addition to that, there is 
 an amendment which was passed, relating to pensions, the 
 vote on which was rescinded. That amendment is now on the 
 table. There is a resolution of the gentleman from Exeter, 
 Mr. Fuller, with reference to the appointment of solicitors, 
 and there is a vote on the Leach substitute to the resolution 
 of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, on the free 
 pass question, which vote will be taken at 12 o'clock to- 
 morrow. So far as legislative business is concerned, the chair 
 is not aware there are any other matters undisposed of. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Is it expected that the resolu- 
 tion about pensions is to be taken up and acted upon? The 
 Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People 
 the Amendments Agreed to by the Convention hope to be 
 ready with their report early tomorrow, and we desire to have 
 all matters before us as early as possible, and if they are 
 submitted promptly we shall have no difficulty in getting our 
 report ready. It is very important that the text of the- 
 amendments should be read with care, and that any error- 
 that have been overlooked should be corrected. I think it is 
 the purpose of the committee toi hand to the secretary with 
 their report the exact text of all the amendments which have- 
 been adopted. 
 
 I feel, Mr. President, that the Committee on Time and 
 Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed 
 to by the Convention have done wisely in bringing in the 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 779 
 
 question that we have been discussing th;e question as to 
 the time of submitting the amendments. It is very evi- 
 dent that the time will be the second Tuesday of next March. 
 I am very glad because it is disclosed that there is an excellent 
 sentiment in the Convention. There is friendship and love 
 of our state manifest here to-night, for rousing which I be- 
 lieve the committee ought to receive the thanks of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 The President The chair will inquire if the chairman of 
 the Committee on Finance will be able to make a report? 
 
 Mr. Clement of Manchester Mr. President and Gentlemen 
 of the Convention: The Committee on Finance has had sev- 
 eral meetings, and we know approximately at the present time 
 about what the amount of the bills are. By to-morrow morn- 
 ing at 9 o'clock we will know exactly, and then we will be 
 able to submit to you a definite report. 
 
 At the present time we can submit the following: We have 
 determined to recommend to the Convention that the secre- 
 tary be instructed to make up a pay-roll for the members for 
 the full eighteen days since the session was called. The actual 
 number of days that the Convention has been in session is 
 fourteen, but the whole number of days since we convened is 
 eighteen. We have 413 members at a salary of $3 per day, 
 and that, including the salary of the officers of the Conven- 
 tion, would make an expense, so far as salary is concerned, of 
 $1,300 each day, a total of $22,000. In addition to that, we 
 have some other running expenses, the amount of which is 
 some $2,500 to $2,700, making the expense thus far about 
 $24,700, or $24,800. That leaves unprovided for, the mileage 
 of the officers and members, which is estimated at $4,900 or 
 $5,000, and the printing and compiling of the journal, which 
 has been estimated somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000. 
 
 We shall recommend to-morrow that the salaries of the offi- 
 cers and members be paid in full, with the running expenses 
 incurred since we met here, and leave to some future legis- 
 
780 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 lature the duty of appropriating the necessary money to pay 
 the mileages, and for compiling and indexing and printing 
 the journal, and for the distribution of pamphlets containing 
 the amendments to the Constitution which we have adopted, 
 which I understand the Convention will order distributed and 
 placed in the hands of every voter in the state. 
 
 Toi-morrow morning, as soon as some further reports are in, 
 we will render a full report. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I don't quite understand how 
 much of a deficiency there will be. 
 
 Mr. Clement of Manchester There will be a deficiency of 
 somewhere between four and five thousand dollars, as I un- 
 derstand, for the mileage of members, and besides that there 
 will be the expense of printing and indexing the journal, and 
 the expense of getting out the copies of the amended Consti- 
 tution to place in the hands of the voters of the state, which 
 Avould be from three thousand to four thousand dollars more. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia, from the Committee on the Legis- 
 lative Department, to whom was referred the amendment of 
 Mr. Colby of Hanover relative to the privileges of electors, re- 
 ported the same with the following resolution: 
 
 "Eesolved, That owing to the lateness of the session of the 
 Convention it is inexpedient to attempt to 1 amend the Consti- 
 tution in this respect." 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Colby of Hanover If the Convention had not resolved 
 to adjourn sine die to-morrow I now should deem it my duty 
 to urge the adoption of a moral test for the suffrage, evi- 
 denced by habitual obedience to the positive law of the state. 
 We already have agreed to recommend to the people the adop- 
 tion of an educational test for the suffrage and in my judg- 
 ment the welfare of the commonwealth also demands the 
 
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1902. 781 
 
 establishment of a moral test which, shall exclude criminals 
 from the privilege of voting. Every state in the Union, if I 
 mistake not, except three, now disfranchises for certain speci- 
 fied crimes, and one of these three is Xew Hampshire. 
 
 Unfortunately my resolution on this subject was not orig- 
 inally referred to the same committee to which was referred 
 that relating to the educational test, and thus its considera- 
 tion by the Committee on Legislative Department was so de- 
 layed that no report upon it was possible until this late hour. 
 It is clear that any proposal affecting so* vital a matter as the 
 suffrage if now taken up might lead to prolonged discussion. 
 Under these circumstances, despite my judgment regarding 
 the importance of such a moral test for the suffrage, I 
 acquiesce in the practical wisdom of the report of your com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. Lyford of Concord I should say, in behalf of the com- 
 mittee, that the committee as a whole was very much im- 
 pressed with the idea presented by the gentleman from Hano- 
 ver in his resolution. It was unfortunate that that measure 
 did not reach us until a very late day. We considered it very 
 fully, and we had frequent conferences with the gentleman 
 from Hanover, and thought at one time to-day we had reached 
 an agreement in regard to it so as to present it here and b& 
 able to justify our action in reporting it favorably. A little 
 later it appeared tliere was some difference of sentiment in 
 the committee. We again considered it this afternoon, and 
 found we could not present a unanimous report, and owing to 
 the lateness of the time we considered the best we could do 
 without precipitating a discussion upon this Convention 
 which would be fruitless and probably result in nothing, to 
 present it without prejudice to the Convention, giving as the 
 only reason why the majority of us did not recommend its 
 adoption, the lateness of the hour. 
 
 Upon a viva voce vote the resolution of the committee wa& 
 adopted. 
 
782 JOUBNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Penniman of Plainfield, the Convention 
 adjourned. 
 
 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 
 The Convention met according to adjournment. 
 
 (The President in the chair.) 
 
 Prayer was offered by the Rev. Mr. Dearborn of Eaton. 
 The reading of the journal was dispensed with. 
 
 Mr. Sanborn of Wakefield, from the Committee on the 
 Legislative Department, to whom was referred the resolution 
 offered by Mr. Clyde of Hudson in relation to the initiative 
 and referendum, reported the same with the following reso- 
 lution: 
 
 "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution, 
 as proposed in the resolution." 
 
 The report was accepted. 
 
 Question, upon the adoption of the resolution of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. Dudley of Concord moved that the proposed amend- 
 ment be indefinitely postponed. 
 
 Mr. Clyde of Hudson One hundred and twenty-six years 
 ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new 
 nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition 
 that all men are created equal and that all just power of gov- 
 ernment is derived from the consent of the governed. Their 
 ideal conception of liberty was almost miraculous. 
 
 After they had secured their freedom they set themselves 
 to work out those great principles into the details of govern- 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 783 
 
 merit. The primary factors that were to make up the great 
 whole of their fabric of government were the little "town re- 
 publics/' we have been talking about before this Convention, 
 which in themselves, God bless them, were pure democracies. 
 
 In these little republics all matters were decided by direct 
 legislation. In these little republics was the fullest carrying 
 out of the principle that all just power is derived from the 
 consent of the governed. 
 
 In those days the means of communication between com- 
 munities were difficult and when the states were founded of 
 these little republics it became necessary for each to clothe 
 with power an agent to represent it and act for it in the con- 
 ference of the whole. 
 
 I said the other day that the fathers made a mistake in thus 
 clothing their representatives with too great power. As the 
 honorable member from Kensington said, "I withdraw my re- 
 marks," and will say that for their time, perhaps, they did 
 not; in the times of the fathers there was a high standard of 
 individual integrity, political intrigue had not then become a 
 science, the monsters, the trusts, were not seeking to crush 
 out all individual effort, and corporate power, with its vast 
 wealth, was unknown. That these evils are in the land to-day 
 is admitted by all parties. 
 
 Even the fathers put checks into their state and national 
 constitution. The senate was to be a check on the house, and 
 the veto power of the executive was to be a check over both. 
 Experience has taught us that it is necessary to reserve in our 
 .organic law another veto power the direct veto power of the 
 people themselves over careless and corrupt legislation that 
 may be enacted by their agents. 
 
 This has been commonly termed the referendum, and this 
 combination with the initiative, of which I shall presently 
 speak, together with the power to dismiss unfaithful officers 
 by ballot will do for our people of the present time more than 
 the Magna Charta did for the people of England. It will give 
 us real self-government in state matters and a reasonable con- 
 trol of our agents in office. 
 
784 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The initiative of which I spoke is but carrying out into a 
 larger fulness and into state matters, so far as practicable,, 
 the old New England town-meeting system, which, as stated 
 by the Professor of Constitutional Economy, in Iowa college, 
 Jesse Macy, in his excellent work entitled, "Our Country," 
 isi pure democracy. 
 
 Not a breaking away from the old, but the bringing of our 
 whole fabric of government into larger fulness in accord 
 with that great foundation principle that all just governments 
 among men derive their power from the consent of the gov- 
 erned. A carrying out of that principle to meet the changed 
 conditions. 
 
 With these ideas in view the descendants of the old New 
 England stock, who* have gone out and made new homes for 
 themselves in the West, have made these things a part of the 
 organic law in a number of their states. They have already 
 become a part of the organic law of South Dakota, of Oregon, 
 and of Utah, are already pending before the people of Ne- 
 vada. In the state of Oregon this very amendment I have 
 presented to this honorable body was made a part of the 
 organic law of Oregon last June by a vote of 62,024 toi 5,677, 
 or about 11 to 1. 
 
 In Iowa,, Illinois, Missouri, California., and Massachusetts 
 the legislatures, empowered by their Constitutions, have en- 
 acted laws granting to municipalities a large use of the 
 optional referendum and initiative in the management of 
 their local affairs. It is the simplest and most direct and cer- 
 tain method of controlling corrupting influence in our body 
 politic that can be devised. 
 
 The measure speaks for itself. If a bad law is passed five 
 per cent, of the voters can, upon petition, demand the refer- 
 ence of the same to the people. So for any measure that is in 
 the interest of the people, that has, through the influence of 
 the corrupt lobby, been defeated in either branch of their 
 legislative government, upon petition, five per cent, of the 
 legal voters of the state may bring the same directly to the 
 court of last resort for its decision. 
 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 785 
 
 Some have commonly supposed that the direct legislation 
 meant the enacting of all laws in that way, but you will notice 
 "by the reading of my resolution that it does not relate to mat- 
 ters of immediate exigency and that the duty of proposing 
 and enacting laws is still with the legislative branch of the 
 government. It is merely the reserving to the people the 
 power to directly remedy sins of omission as well as veto sins 
 of commission. 
 
 In the little republic of Switzerland, where these laws have 
 been with the people, they have only been invoked twenty-six 
 times in twenty-four years. The system has been in operation 
 in South Dakota since 1899, and the Eepublican governor of 
 that state, Governor Heriod, says: 
 
 "Since the referendum has been a part of our Constitution 
 we have had no charter-mongers or railway speculators, no 
 wild-cat schemes submitted to our legislature. Formerly our 
 time was occupied by speculative schemes of one kind or an- 
 other, but since the referendum has been a part of the Con- 
 stitution these people do not press their schemes on the legis- 
 lature, and hence there is no neecssity for having recourse to 
 the referendum." 
 
 In Oregon, the Eepublican governor, Governor Geer, ad- 
 vised the people of the state toi adopt the system. He said: 
 
 "If the referendum amendment is adopted by the people, 
 and made use of after adoption, it will be helpful all around 
 as a restraining influence over careless legislatures. Even if 
 not often brought into requisition, the fact that it is a part of 
 tjhe state constitution, ready to be used as a check against ill- 
 advised legislation at any time will justify its adoption. It 
 may not be needed now any more than it was one hundred 
 years ago, but there have often been times in the past when 
 even 'our fathers' could have been- wisely checked by this 
 wholesome reservation of the rights of the people." 
 
 Now, gentlemen, let me refer briefly to a few points in 
 favor of direct legislation. 
 
 Under direct legislation the best men chosen would be to 
 50 
 
786 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 fill all positions where fitness was needed, as no measure 
 would be sacrificed by the choice of men. 
 
 Under direct legislation each measure would be considered 
 on its merits as it would be voted on independently of all 
 other questions. 
 
 Under direct legislation money would lose its corrupting 
 power in legislation, as all would see that where money was 
 used to influence legislation, the person who furnished the 
 money would expect to reimburse himself many times from 
 the coffers of the people. 
 
 Under direct legislation the "third house" in the legislature 
 would lose its power for evil for the lobby would know that 
 the representative could not surely deliver that which was 
 sold. 
 
 Under direct legislation the assertion that "all men have 
 their price" would be wiped out, as no man would pay money 
 for goods which the vendor could not deliver. 
 
 Under direct legislation each particular measure would be 
 considered independently from all other measures, and would 
 thus become a mighty educational power, as men would see 
 that unless they understood what measures stand for they 
 could not act for their interest. Therefore men would study. 
 
 Under direct legislation the people would undoubtedly 
 make mistakes, but they would hold in their own hands the 
 power of correcting the mistakes as soon as they found out 
 that they had made the mistake. 
 
 Under direct legislation the question of license or prohibi- 
 tion would be decided by the people themselves, and the 
 officials would be sure that the public was with, them when 
 they made an honest attempt to enforce the law, whatever it 
 might be. 
 
 Under direct legislation the people would control legisla- 
 tion, which is the best and only real public ownership of any- 
 thing. 
 
 Under direct legislation the people would change their 
 minds on any question with, full power to* change the law so 
 as to conform to their changed minds. 
 
FKIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 787 
 
 Under direct legislation if the people had been deceived as 
 to the merit of any of their acts they would be in a position to 
 enact the correct measure as soon as they became aware of 
 the deception. 
 
 Under direct legislation the representatives would be dili- 
 gent to learn what the will of their constituents was so as to 
 l>e real representatives as well as in name. 
 
 Under direct legislation officials could pray "lead us not 
 into temptation," and their prayer would be answered, for 
 they would be shorn of their power for evil. 
 
 Under direct legislation no franchise would be given away 
 to any corporation contrary to the wish of the people to whom 
 the franchise belongs. 
 
 As I referred in my remarks last Friday I believe the peo- 
 ple's veto, of which I have been speaking, might be of great 
 value in Xew Hampshire in the next few years to correct any 
 evils that might arise from the inequality of representation, 
 which has been clearly demonstrated here as impossible to 
 overcome. 
 
 If I understood the position of our city friends in this 
 great controversy we have had here in regard to the subject 
 of representation, it has not been adequacy of representation 
 they have objected to under any of the resolutions offered, 
 but for the power of vote that they might be protected in all 
 their interests. While on the other hand their country 
 friends have been contending for the adequacy of representa- 
 tion and for the good of the state and the welfare of legisla- 
 tion I believe it should be. 
 
 Xow, gentlemen of the country districts, I believe if you 
 are to demand adequacy of representation you should give 
 to the cities the possibility of escape and the right of appeal 
 to the people from any injustice that may be wrought by any 
 careless legislature of the future composed of a majority of 
 country members. This I contend my amendment provides. 
 And it provides further the means for giving to cities the 
 largest possible self-government. 
 
 I believe in this state, as well as in. many others, mistakes 
 
788 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 have been made in the state legislature interfering with the 
 local self-government of cities, a practice undemocratic in 
 principle and vicious in final results. Let me read an article 
 in the May 10 North American Review of 1901, by John Ford 
 on "Municipal Government in the United States." 
 
 "Hitherto, the checks relied upon to prevent municipal 
 misgovernment have been found, in state constitutions and 
 state legislatures instead of the public sentiment of the gov- 
 erned community itself. This policy is based on the theory 
 that public sentiment of the rural districts furnishes a safer 
 guarantee of proper administration of municipal affairs. For 
 the past five years the writer, as a member of the upper house 
 of the New York legislature, has had an opportunity to study 
 this theory in practical operation, and he has no hesitation in 
 pronouncing it not merely unsound, but actually vicious. 
 
 "The checks really needed are constitutional checks upon 
 state legislatures to prevent them from interfering with the 
 internal local affairs and finances of cities." This is what we 
 should do while at the business. 
 
 But you may say that you are introducing an innovation. 
 
 "New occasions teach new duties, 
 Time makes ancient goods uncouth. 
 
 He must upward still and onward 
 Who would keep abreast of truth." 
 
 I declare that in principle this is no innovation, but a 
 bringing out into a larger fulness to suit the conditions of 
 the age the pure, democracy of the fathers. A rededication of 
 the old principles that there may be a new birth of freedom, 
 and that a government of the people, by the people, and for 
 the people may not perish from the earth by reason of the 
 power and corruption of wealth. 
 
 You may say the people will not exercise these powers re- 
 served, and if they do use them will not do so rightfully. 
 July 27, 1861, Andrew Johnson, then a senator from Tennes- 
 see, was speaking in the United States senate to the proposi- 
 tion, "The Government Must Be Maintained." He said: 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 789 
 
 *' % We have confidence in the people, and we have confidence in 
 the integrity and capacity of the people to govern them- 
 selves. We have lived entertaining these opinions, we intend 
 to' die entertaining them." 
 
 I want to ask you whether Mr. Johnson's prophecy came 
 true. Whether Lincoln could put confidence in the people 
 when Thomas for five terrible hours held the road to Chatta- 
 nooga and served the army of the Cumberland. I want to ask 
 you whether he could put confidence in the people when Lee 
 marched down the valley of the Shenandoah, crossed the 
 Potomac and met the people in blue at Gettysburg. 
 
 I want to ask you if it was not a fulfilment of Mr. John- 
 son's prophecy when Lee gave his sword to Grant and the 
 people in blue laid down their arms and quietly came back to 
 their northern homes and then stood by during the trying 
 period of the reconstruction of the Union. 
 
 They have been standing by everything good and true for 
 the most part ever since and they will ever stand by that 
 which is good and true and right. 
 
 I am not in sympathy with some of the things that have 
 been said in this Convention in regard to ratification by the 
 people should a number of propositions be submitted by this 
 body. I think -it an unjust reflection on the intelligence of 
 the Xew Hampshire people. 
 
 I believe the people of this state desire that our Constitu- 
 tion be made a living, working instrument for them and their 
 children. I believe if the fathers could speak out of their 
 graves they would say, "Make it such," they would respect 
 us for the love and reverence we hold for institutions of their 
 days. They would say, "Apply the principles we used in 
 new forms if necessary to meet your conditions that you may 
 enjoy and secure the blessing God has given you through the 
 inventive genius of men and do not be thwarted in your pur- 
 poses by the power of corporate wealth." 
 
 Gentlemen, this movement for the power of direct legisla- 
 tion by the people has been for the most part a non-partisan 
 one. Republicans have supported it and carried it forward in 
 
790 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 western states, grangers have supported it, Democrats have 
 declared in its favor, and organized labor through the country 
 is asking for and demanding it. 
 
 As fair-minded men that you have shown yourselves to be 
 these last few weeks, I ask you, gentlemen, that this amend- 
 ment may be submitted to the people of New Hampshire. 
 
 Mr. Dudley of Concord moved that the amendment, to- 
 gether with the resolution of the committee, tihereon, be laid 
 upon the, table. 
 
 
 On this motion the affirmative prevailed on a viva voce vote. 
 
 A division was called for which resulted in 236 gentleman 
 having voted in the affirmative and 34 gentlemen having 
 voted in the negative, and the motion to lay upon the table 
 prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Baker of Bow, the resolution offered by 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter in relation to county solicitor, together 
 with the report of the committee on the same, was recalled 
 from the Committee of the Whole, to which the resolution and 
 report had been referred for consideration. 
 
 The question being stated, "Shall the recommendation of 
 the committee that the resolution as reported! in a new draft, 
 be adopted?'' 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter I am aware that this session is about 
 at its end, and by merely debating it is possible to kill .any 
 measure, however meritorious, unless it commended itself so 
 strongly to this Convention that the effort to kill proves 
 abortive. I shall endeavor not to waste any time in this mat- 
 ter, but it seems to be due the Convention that I should state 
 the reasons for this resolution, which was introduced by me. 
 
 This is a measure introduced by me, though not in its 
 present form. It was not introduced by me on my own 
 notion, but on request of a large number of the lawyers of 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 791 
 
 the state and of the members of the New Hampshire Bar 
 association,, of which I have the honor to be appointed one of 
 a committee. 
 
 The resolution seeks to remedy an evil which is felt, not 
 in one county of the state, but in several, under the present 
 method of choosing solicitors. Solicitors, as you are all 
 aware, since 1877 have been chosen by the people elected, 
 that is, in the several counties, and it is the evil that has re- 
 sulted from those methods of choosing solicitors that this 
 proposed amendment was intended to remedy. The idea of 
 introducing it was not that the people are not to be trusted by 
 any manner of means. I believe that they are eminently fit 
 to be trusted. But this office is one that cannot be, and is 
 not, filled by intelligent action upon the part of the people. 
 
 The office of solicitor, while in reality one of the most im- 
 portant in the state, is usually by the rank and file of the 
 voters regarded as very unimportant, and as more of a polit- 
 ical office than anything else. This results largely on ac- 
 count of the insignificant salary which is attached to the 
 office, and also because a solicitor is seldom brought before 
 the people unless in the case of a murder trial where the at- 
 torney-general takes charge, and where he receives the blame 
 for any blunders, and the credit for any good; although it is 
 well known that it is the solicitor that generally does most of 
 the work in those cases. This, however, is an important office., 
 and it is so because the solicitor has charge in general of the 
 administration and prosecution of all the criminal cases 
 throughout his county, and because he has immense power to 
 work evil by simply not doing or overdoing in these cases, 
 and also because the solicitor controls the pay-roll and has 
 power to summon witnesses at large expense to* the county, 
 and has the power to subject the county to the expense of 
 lengthy investigations of criminal matters. 
 
 Now how is the solicitor chosen by us, the people? Have 
 you ever attended a county convention in which a solicitor 
 was nominated? If so, you have some knowledge of the way 
 it is done. For instance, in one convention there was one 
 
792 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 man with three followers, and he was the candidate for so- 
 licitor, and his three followers were wanted in addition to the 
 other delegates who were pledged in order to put in an excel- 
 lent man for county commissioner these three delegates 
 were what was necessary to elect him. Of course, in return 
 for the votes of these delegates;, the followers of the candidate 
 for county commissioner would vote for the candidate for 
 solictior not on account of his fitness they knew nothing 
 about his fitness, nor did they care. That is the way a candi- 
 date is chosen to fill this important office. He has a good 
 chance for the nomination if he can control three or four 
 delegates that will vote as he tells them. That is the way the 
 voice of the people is heard. 
 
 And I say that under the present system evil has been felt, 
 and I say it is due to that method of choosing the solicitors. 
 It is for you to judge whether that is so. 
 
 The evil that has been felt is not confined to one county. 
 Of course, in my county, and in our day, there is nothing to 
 complain of, but in some of the counties of this state we have 
 had solicitors that were not worthy to fill the offices they 
 held. This is not the case in Hillsborough, where it is an im- 
 portant office and where quite a heavy salary is attached. A 
 solicitor in one of the counties of this state is at the present 
 time under an indictment in the Dominion of Canada, as I 
 am informed, for blackmail and conspiracy, of which I hope 
 he is wholly innocent, but nevertheless under indictment. A 
 solicitor in one of the counties possibly a different county- 
 came very near to getting into trouble with a grand jury, and 
 did get into trouble with the court, from which trouble, how- 
 ever, he came out all right. He is no longer solicitor and 
 will not be again. 
 
 I say if we have the solicitors appointed by that part of the 
 people that knows their qualifications and their abilities, their 
 faithful attention to business, and their integrity, we should 
 mot have so frequent scandals, and we should not find a so- 
 licitor putting a county to the expense of taking three days 
 in the investigation of an immaterial matter. We should not 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 793 
 
 have the scandals which, we have to-day. I am sorry to talk 
 these things here, but it is necessary. 
 
 As I understand, that portion of "us, the people," who best 
 understand the reputation and character of the lawyers as 
 made up of the judges before whom they practice. The 
 judges of our superior court have no temptation to appoint 
 incompetent men. They have no temptation, or if they have 
 they will resist the temptation to appoint a corrupt man to the 
 office of solicitor. If they are appointed by the court I think 
 it will undoubtedly tend to the advancement in character of 
 the men that are appointed. 
 
 Up to 1877 solicitors were appointed by the governor and 
 council, and up to that time we had in my county such men 
 as Hon. J. S. H. Frink, not then as eminent as now but the 
 same man; Albert E. Hatch, now dead, and Charles H. Bell, 
 later United States senator and governor of this state, and 
 other eminent lawyers of the state. 
 
 We had good men under the appointive system up to 1877, 
 and I think it would be better to have that same system now 
 than to have the solicitors elected by the people, but in order 
 to avoid any danger of making this a political office we desire 
 that they shall be appointed by the courts and not by the gov- 
 ernor and council. We do not want them appointed by the 
 governor and council, in the first place, because we are all 
 aware that appointments by the governor and council are to 
 some extent personal, and to some extent political not to a 
 great extent, perhaps, but still those influences have some 
 weight. Neither can the governor and council investigate or 
 know the character of the candidates as well as the court.. 
 
 This plan was referred to the Committee on the Judicial 
 Department, and the report which they have made embodies 
 a resolution that the solicitors shall be appointed by the court 
 and commissioned by the governor and council. It seems to 
 me that will commend itself not merely to the lawyers, but to 
 all of this body. 
 
 I will not take further time to debate this question. I had 
 trusted that the gentleman from Franklin, Judge Blodgett, 
 
794 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the chairman of the Committee on the Judicial Department, 
 would be here and he intended to be here and speak on this 
 question, but he is suffering from the result of a railroad 
 injury and is unable to be here at this time. 
 
 I trust this Convention will ratify the action of that emi- 
 nent committee and will pass this amendment to the people 
 for them to a.ct upon, and then if the people still desire to re- 
 tain the present system of electing solicitors, they can do so. 
 
 Mr. Jewett of Laconia The resolution I understand pro- 
 vides for the appointment of solicitors by the court instead of 
 the present method of electing by the people. I would agree,, 
 as a member of the profession who is brought somewhat in 
 contact with the office of the county solicitor, that some better 
 method could probably be devised for filling that office than 
 the present method of election. I would not, however, for 
 one moment cast any sort of reflection upon any county so- 
 licitor with whom I have been brought in contact. My judg- 
 ment is that a better method of filling this office could be 
 suggested than that which is now in force, but. I would not, so 
 far as my experience has gone, want to agree with the gentle- 
 man from Exeter, Mr. Fuller, that the appointment should be 
 made by the court. I would agree with the general proposi- 
 tion that the office could better be filled and we would get 
 better satisfaction if it could be taken out from politics and 
 made an appointive office. I think, however, that the office 
 should be filled by appointment by the governor and council, 
 and I would give that method my approval. I would most 
 certainly agree to that, and I think the legal profession stand 
 with me, and the solicitors of the different counties, I think, 
 would be very glad, almost to a man, to agree to that proposi- 
 tion. While, of course, it is not for the legal profession to 
 dictate to this Convention what the method shall be for filling 
 this office, yet by their profession the lawyers of this Conven- 
 tion are likely to have a more definite idea and perhaps better 
 judgment of how this should be than the ordinary person 
 would have. 
 
 I move that the resolution reported by the Committee on 
 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 795 
 
 the Judiciary Department be amended so that the appoint- 
 ment be made by the governor and council, and I certainly 
 hope the Convention may see fit to adopt that amendment. 
 
 Mr. Fuller of Exeter I second the motion. 
 
 Mr. Stone of Andover I have sincerely hoped that I could 
 keep quiet to-day, but on such an amendment as that I must 
 express my views. 
 
 I had intended to vote for the bill presented by the com- 
 mittee, but this changes it entirely. If the solicitors are to 
 be capable men and the reason that they are not is because 
 the people cannot judge rightly of the character of men 
 necessary to fill that office, and if the office is to be filled by 
 people who are capable of judging them, of all persons it is 
 for the court to appoint solicitors, and not the governoT and 
 council. 
 
 Whatever may be done with this resolution, whether it is- 
 passed as reported by the committee or not, I sincerely trust 
 that the office will not be taken from the people and com- 
 mitted to the governor and council. If we are to correct the 
 present method, let us make the correction in a way that will 
 entirely remove the office from politics and from other in- 
 fluences, and place it in the hands of the court. 
 
 Mr. Jones of Manchester Mr. President. Just one word. 
 The Convention will bear in mind that up to 1876 the county 
 solicitors of the state were appointed by the governor and 
 council, and that the Convention of that year took the power 
 of appointment away from the governor and council and pro- 
 vided for an election by the people. That amendment was 
 submitted to the people of the state and the people ratified it. 
 Are we going back to a condition of things that existed be- 
 fore the people had a chance to express their opinion on the 
 change, and for any reason that has been offered here ? 
 
 I, myself, believe that it would be an ideal thing if the 
 county solicitors, who are really the agents of the court in a 
 good many respects, were appointed by the court; but unless- 
 
796 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 there is to be a change so the court shall make the appoint- 
 ment, I shall most heartily oppose any change. I think, 
 rather than to have the appointment made by the governor 
 and council, as it used to be and as contemplated by the 
 amendment proposed, it is better to keep it in the hands of 
 the people where it now resides. 
 
 Mr. Fellows of Tilton The committee were unanimous on 
 the new draft as read and reported, and the gentleman from 
 Exeter, Mr. Fuller, was contented with that. The gentleman 
 from Laconia has in some way withdrawn the gentleman from 
 Exeter from his first position. 
 
 The adoption of this amendment as proposed in the report 
 of the committee will leave the appointment in the hands of 
 the superior court, the governor and council to commission 
 the appointees. No persons will be better able to judge as to 
 the qualifications of the candidates for this position than the 
 .judges of the superior court, and it will come just as far from 
 being a partisan appointment as it can possibly be. 
 
 I hope the amendment suggested by the gentleman from 
 Laconia, which is an amendment I do not think he has had 
 in mind more than five or ten: minutes, will not prevail. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I am not afraid of going back- 
 ward if I have gone forward on the wrong road. 
 
 I am opposed toi the election of solicitors by the people, 
 and I am, in favor of having them appointed by the gov- 
 ernor and council. I am not in favor of having them ap- 
 pointed by the superior court, which court should not be 
 made a part of the political machinery of the state. 
 
 The recommendation of the majority of the committee, 
 with due respect to the committee, I think is unsound. It 
 says that the court shall nominate the solicitors, and the gov- 
 ernor and council shall commission them. How much power 
 of appointment does that give the governor and council? I 
 wish the committee had brought itself to advise a recommen- 
 dation that both the county commissioners and the solicitors 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 797 
 
 should be appointed. The reasons why it is not wise to have 
 them elected by the people are very evident and need not be 
 stated here. 
 
 Mr. Scott of Peterborough I happen to be a resident of 
 one of the most populous counties in the state the county 
 of Hillsborough. Under the system which now prevails we 
 have elected three different solicitors. The first solicitor was 
 the Hon. Eobert M. Wallace, who is now one of the superior 
 court judges of this state. The second was James P. Tuttle 
 of Manchester, who served in that capacity ten years with 
 ability and honor to the county and to the position, and to the 
 satisfaction of every citizen, I believe, in the county of Hills- 
 borough. Last year we elected another gentleman, and there 
 is no doubt but what if he is a successful man he will con- 
 tinue in that office by the will of the people for another ten 
 years. Now, gentlemen, we have had excellent success in our 
 county under this present system of election by the people, 
 and if two years from now we find that we have made a mis- 
 take, we can rectify it at the polls. I hope, therefore, and I 
 move that this resolution and the accompanying resolutions 
 be all laid upon the table. 
 
 The modion of Mr. Scott of Peterborough was stated by 
 the chair and on a. viva voce vote prevailed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ledoux of Xashua, the resolution offered 
 by him in relation to initiative and referendum was indefi- 
 nitely postponed. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster offered the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That when this Convention finally adjourn to- 
 day it adjourn) to meet at the call of the President, or, in case 
 of his death, at the call of the governor of the state/' 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. dementi of Manchester, from the Committee on 
 Finance, submitted the following report: 
 
798 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 The Committee on Finance present the following report: 
 
 They recommend that the secretary be authorized to make 
 up the pay-roll of the members of this Convention as follows: 
 
 Eighteen days' service, at $3 per day, for 413 
 
 members $22,302.00 
 
 That the officers and employes be allowed the respective 
 sums placed opposite their names: 
 
 T. H. Madigan, Jr., secretary $154.00 
 
 L. Ashton Thorpe, assistant secretary 154.00 
 
 John K. Law, sergeant-at-arms 76.00 
 
 George W. Allen, doorkeeper 54.00 
 
 W. W. Lovejoy, doorkeeper 54.00 
 
 Charles W. Torr, doorkeeper 54.00 
 
 M. L. Piper, doorkeeper 6.00 
 
 O. H. Brigham, warden 54.00 
 
 G. W. Johnson, assistant warden, 54.00 
 
 W. H. Harriman, page 36.00 
 
 H. B. Jackson, page 36.00 
 
 H. J. Pelren, page 36.00 
 
 George H. Stone, page 36.00 
 
 Burton W. Lockhart, chaplain 25.00 
 
 C. L. Roberts, page : . . . . 4.00 
 
 F. A. Gardner, page 4.00 
 
 E. M. Nason, janitor 30.00 
 
 H. L. Ingalls, assistant janitor 20.00 
 
 J. W. Lowry, assistant janitor 20.00 
 
 S. S. Ford, assistant janitor 20.00 
 
 F. E. Shuftleff, stenographer 130.00 
 
 James E. Dodge, temporary secretary 10.00 
 
 $1,067.00 
 
 That the following bills for printing and other purposes 
 be allowed: 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 799 
 
 Fred Leighton, Concord Patriot $50.00 
 
 J. Ed. Coffin, Manchester Union 50.00 
 
 H. C. Pearson, Concord Monitor 50.00 
 
 G. W. Fowler, Manchester Union 50.00 
 
 James M. Cooper, Manchester News 50.00 
 
 I. E. Keeler, Boston Globe 50.00 
 
 A. H. Robinson, Boston Herald 50.00 
 
 E. A. McQuade, Manchester Mirror 50.00 
 
 Susan E, Morrison, telegraph operator 25.00 
 
 $425.00 
 
 That the following bills for printing and other purposes 
 be allowed: 
 
 S. A. Carter, printing $97.73 
 
 I. C. Evans company 16.00 
 
 I. C. Evans company 369.05 
 
 J. Phaneuf & Son 21.00 
 
 Arthur E. Clarke 3.35 
 
 Rumford Printing company 63.42 
 
 Manchester Union 127.50 
 
 Concord Monitor 144.50 
 
 Rev. Mr. Reed 3.00 
 
 Rev. Mr. Buckshorn 3.00 
 
 F. P. Mace, for blanks .50 
 
 A. H. Britton & Co., supplies 12.65 
 
 E. C. Eastman & Co ' 30.11 
 
 Patriot Job Printing company, cards 1.75 
 
 John H. Dickson, Jr., messenger 5.00 
 
 Xelson "W. Page, contesting seat 20.00 
 
 $918.56 
 
 And the total amount of bills as approved by the Finance 
 Committee is $24,712.56. 
 
800 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 That the payment of the mileage roll of the mem- 
 bers of this Convention, as made up by the 
 secretary, amounting to 49,522 miles $4,952.20 
 
 And the mileage roll of the officers and employes, 
 
 which is 1,494 miles 149.40 
 
 Total $5,101.60 
 
 together with the printing of the journal, and the proposed 
 amendments to tlie Constitution, and all other bills in con- 
 nection, with the session of this Convention, be deferred until 
 an appropriation to cover the same has been made by the in- 
 coming legislature. 
 
 That the officers and employes' mileage roll be as follows: 
 
 T. H. Madigan, Jr 2 
 
 L. Ashton Thorpe 40 
 
 John K. Law 86 
 
 George W. Allen 362 
 
 Warren W. Lovejoy 234 
 
 Charles W. Torr 122 
 
 Martin L. Piper 60 
 
 George W. Johnson 1 2 
 
 George H. Bingham 72 
 
 Walter H. Harriman 76 
 
 Harry B. Jackson 232 
 
 Harry J. Pelren 2 
 
 George C. Stone 126 
 
 Eev. Burton W. Lockhaxt 40 
 
 Charles L. Koberts 2 
 
 Fred A. Gardner 36 
 
 The report was accepted and the recommendations adopted. 
 
 Mr. Buxton of Boscawen, for the committee to whom was 
 referred the matter of the publication of the proceedings of 
 the Convention, reported the following resolution: 
 
FKIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 801 
 
 "Resolved, That the official reporter be directed to make a 
 copy of the debates verbatim, not including addresses in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole by persons not members of the Conven- 
 tion,, and that he be paid in full for his services in copying 
 said debates the usual compensation of twenty cents for each 
 hundred words, and that his account be audited by the gov- 
 ernor., who shall draw his warrant for the same. 
 
 "Resolved, That the secretary of the Convention be in- 
 structed to supervise the printing of the journal of the Con- 
 vention, and to prepare and cause to be printed therewith a 
 proper and extended index, under suitable headings, for ready 
 reference to names, towns, and subjects; and that his bill for 
 compensation therefor, when audited and approved by the? 
 governor and council, be allowed and paid. 
 
 "Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to procure as 
 soon as possible after the close of the Convention 2,200 
 printed copies, in pamphlet form, of said journal, to be dis- 
 tributed as follows under the direction otf the secretary of 
 state:- One copy to each member and officer of the Conven- 
 tion, one copy to each town, to be kept in the office of the 
 town clerk; one copy toi each secretary of other states and ter- 
 ritories, to be placed in their respective state or territorial 
 libraries; one copy to each public institution of learning in 
 our state; one copy to each public or circulating library in our 
 state;five copies -to Dartmouth college; five copies to the New 
 Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts; five 
 copies to the New Hampshire Historical society; ten copies to 
 the New Hampshire state library; 500 copies to be reserved 
 for the use of members of future conventions; and the re- 
 mainder to be disposed of at the discretion of the secretary of 
 state. 
 
 "Resolved, That in the event of the appropriation made for 
 this Convention be exhausted before the publication of the 
 journal as above provided, that the incoming legislature be 
 requested to make such further appropriation as may be neces- 
 sary to carry into effect; the object of these resolutions, and 
 51 
 
802 JOUBNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 that the President of this Convention be instructed to see that 
 this matter is presented to said legislature." 
 
 The report was accepted and the resolution adopted. 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth offered the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 "Resolved, That there be printed and distributed among the 
 delegates, for distribution by them, 5,000 copies, in a separate 
 pamphlet,- of the proceedings of the Convention upon the 
 propositions concerning trusts, including the propositions 
 themselves, the speeches, and the record of the action of the 
 Convention." 
 
 The resolution was lost. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I move that the time for sub- 
 mitting to the people the proposed amendments adopted by 
 the Convention be the second Tuesday of March, 1903. 
 
 Mr. Everett of Nashua I move to amend the resolution of 
 Mr. Chandler so that the time for submitting to the people 
 the amendments agreed to by the Convention be at the No- 
 vember election, 1904. 
 
 "The motion to amend was lost. 
 
 The question being upon the adoption of the resolution of 
 Mr. Chandler, the same was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell of Concord offered the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the sincere thanks of the Convention are 
 hereby tendered to Professor James F. Colby, for his pains- 
 taking, exhaustive, and scholarly labors in the preparation of 
 the excellent manual of the Convention, which has been so 
 useful and is so highly appreciated by the members of the 
 ^Convention. Through the use of this serviceable book, the 
 members of the Convention have been able to more intelli- 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 803 
 
 gently, expeditiously, and thoroughly consider the various 
 propositions presented for action." 
 
 The resolution was unanimously adopted by a rising vote. 
 
 (Mr. Little of Manchester in the chair.) 
 Mr. Cross of Manchester offered the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be presented 
 to the Hon. Frank S. Streeter for the ability and impartiality 
 with which he has presided over its deliberations/' 
 
 And said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: It is a pleasure to me to present this reso- 
 lution for your adoption. I congratulate you, gentlemen, first 
 that you have met here and from day to day have deliberated 
 and have considered so fairly, have considered so impartially, 
 with zeal each for his own section and each for his own ideas. 
 Most of the amendments to the Constitution that have been 
 presented have been voted down. Some of us have been dis- 
 appointed, but most of us are satisfied with the amendments 
 agreed to. 
 
 I knew something of the Convention of 1850. I saw it and 
 the men who sat in it, and I saw the Convention of 1876. I 
 was a member of the Convention of 1889, and in ability, in 
 caution, and carefulness of detail this Convention is not in- 
 ferior to either of the others, but in my judgment surpasses 
 either of them. 
 
 And allow me to say to my country friends I was born a 
 -countryman, I lived a countryman for some years, and I love 
 my country home. "Dear is that school-boy spot I shall ne'er 
 forget, though there I am forgot." But I am now in a city. 
 I think I am true in my allegiance to my early home, but I am 
 bound in honor in accepting a place in this Convention to 
 contend within reasonable limits for what my constituents 
 approve. My friends from the country towns: If in the legis- 
 lature your rights are attacked, if any wolf comes around your 
 
804 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 fold, I assure you that every man from our city,, every man 
 from every other city of the state, will come to your rescue, 
 and will hold your rights as near and as dear as their own. 
 
 General Streeter, allow me, my dear friend, for such you 
 are my friend and my brother allow me to congratulate 
 you that you have had the pleasure and the honor of presiding 
 with such marked ability over this Convention. It is a proud 
 day for you, and it will be a proud memory for you and your 
 friends as long as you live. If you never seek or never receive 
 another honor in your life, this in itself is a crowning honor, 
 and I congratulate you most heartily and most sincerely. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am an old fellow, as some think, but I 
 want to say a wo-rd further and I don't want these reporters 
 to know it. The door is closed, and this must not be written 
 down. I am going to talk just a word to my brethren here, 
 to all the members of this Convention. I don't know as I 
 ought to*, but an old fellow is apt to be garrulous, so I want 
 to say a few words more and it must not go into* the record I 
 protest. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Convention, I was in this building the 
 room has changed a little in 1848, a member of the legisla- 
 ture. I was a member of the legislature of 1849, of 1876, and 
 otf 1877, and of the Convention of 1889. Now, as I look 
 around, I ask where are the men of 1848 and 1849? I see sons 
 of two of my friends from Newport, who were here in 1849, 
 and these sons have woirthily represented their fathers. I re- 
 member Edwards and Chamberlain from Keene; Hatch and 
 Goodwin, and W. H. Y. Hackett from Portsmouth; from Exe- 
 ter, my dear friend who was my room-mate, General Marston; 
 from Nashua, my brothers and my dear friends, General 
 Stevens and George Y. Sawyer. I could go into almost every 
 town and city represented by you and call to memory the 
 names of men that were with me in years long ago*. I stand 
 almost alone. You may think it a sad hour for me. In one 
 sense it may be called a sad hour. But still, gentlemen, every 
 year and every day brings to me something brighter than the 
 past. 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 805 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as we are about to part, 
 should I say farewell? No. There is no such word in my 
 vocabulary as farewell, with the usual idea of sadness in it. I 
 prefer that good old Saxon word, "good-by," to leave with 
 you, which is "God-speed," or "God blessi you/' Members of 
 this Constitutional Convention of 1902, men from the hills 
 and from the cities, "Good-by." We may meet again to- 
 morrow, or if not to-morrow, or to-morrow, yet in some 
 brighter and better clime we shall surely meet again. 
 
 Mr. Jordan of Concord Mr. Chairman, I would ask if you 
 would confer a favor upon me, to allow me to shake hands 
 with that good, venerable, odd man. His words have re- 
 minded me of the words of another, "Love one another as 1 
 have loved you.' 7 That man brought to my mind the words 
 that were uttered back in ancient days, and those words are 
 still true, according to my belief. It is a pleasure to touch the 
 hand of such a man as this. 
 
 Mr. Xorris of Portsmouth; I rise to second the resolution 
 of the distinguished gentleman, from Manchester. I desire to 
 bear testimony to the strict impartiality, the uniform cour- 
 tesy and the great ability with which the President of this 
 Convention has fulfilled the duties of his office. 
 
 The resolution was unanimously adopted by a rising vote. 
 
 The President, having resumed the chair, addressed the 
 Convention as follows: 
 
 I cannot fail to be deeply moved by this expression of your 
 approbation and good will. I know I shall be pardoned if I 
 especially voice that feeling of affection which for so many 
 years I have entertained for my old friend, the venerable 
 mover of this resolution, and to express my gratification that 
 that friendship was so securely fixed that it could not be dis- 
 turbed or interrupted by any combination of circumstances. 
 
 I wish I might find fitting words to express the appreciation 
 
806 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 which I have for the kindly courtesy and the friendly coopera- 
 tion received from each and all of yotu. It has been my pur- 
 pose to administer the will of the Convention your will 
 with fairness and justice to all. I cannot hope that I have al- 
 together succeeded, but your friendly expressions inspire in 
 me the hope that you believe the effort has been made. 
 
 The high character of the men composing this Convention, 
 the eminent ability with which the debates have been con- 
 ducted, the uniform courtesy shown in the discussion, and the 
 sincere attempt to arrive at right results, will make this Con- 
 vention well and favorably remembered by the people, and 
 will be a dear memory to each and every member. 
 
 One of the problems with which you have been dealing has 
 presented the greatest difficulties and its correct solution de- 
 manded concessions on all sides. You have yielded some- 
 thing of your personal views that the general good of the state 
 might be advanced. All controversy here, however vigorous 
 and sharp, has been free from any bitterness of partisan feel- 
 ing. Yooi have reached a conclusion which has preserved so 
 far as now practicable the just rights of all, and when the 
 people shall soberly and reflectively review your work and the 
 difficulties surrounding it, I am sure they will say on the 
 whole that the work was well done. 
 
 Again, gentlemen; again, my friends, allow me to thank 
 yooi, one and all, for the generous and friendly courtesy which 
 you have shown to your President from the beginning. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I call for the regular order, Mr. 
 President. 
 
 The President The regular order is the resolution offered 
 by the gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Leach, in Committee 
 of the Whole, as a substitute for the resolution offered by the 
 gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, with reference ta 
 free passes. I would say that the records show that those mat- 
 ters are now in the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord That is not exactly as I under- 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 807 
 
 stand the situation . The resolution, or motion, of the gentle- 
 man from Franklin was made in Committee of the Whole, and 
 the Committee of the Whole undertook to deal with it. There 
 was no quorum, and the committee rose, and last evening I 
 asked unanimoius consent that the Convention, at 12 o'clock 
 to-day, in Convention, should vote by yeas and nays on the 
 proposition of the gentleman from Franklin, which I under- 
 stand is a substitute for mine. 
 
 The President The chair will state that the memorandum 
 of the secretary is that the gentleman from Concord asked 
 unanimous consent that the resolution of the gentleman from 
 Franklin, Mr. Leach, on free passes be voted upon at 12 
 o'clock by a yea and nay vote. But the resolution of the gen- 
 tleman from Franklin is in Committee of the Whole, and the 
 motion to go into a Committee of the Whole, or a motion to 
 take that resolution from the Committee of the Whole, would 
 seem to be the parliamentary way of reaching it. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord There cannot be any misunder- 
 standing as to my request or of what the Convention con- 
 sented to last evening. If it had been necessary in order to> 
 make the positive order of the Convention effective to have- 
 the resolution taken from tihe Committee of the Whole and. 
 laid before the Convention, that fact should have been stated 
 yesterday evening. Now I do not care how we get at this 
 question. If the distinguished parliamentarians who have 
 recently been in consultation on the subject have evolved a 
 method by which the positive vote of the Convention can be; 
 carried o<ut, I am content. 
 
 The President The chair will receive any motion, but the 
 chair rules advisedly that the resolution) of the gentleman 
 from Franklin, Mr. Leach, and the resolution of the gentle- 
 man from Concord, Mr. Chandler, are now in the Committee 
 of the Whole, and the Convention cannot vote upon those 
 matters without a vote to bring them from the Committee of 
 the Whole before the Convention, or without going into a 
 Committee of the Whole to consider them. 
 
808 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I move that the resolution of 
 the gentleman from Franklin, Mr. Leach, be withdrawn from 
 the Committee of the Whole in order that the order of the 
 Convention made last evening be carried out. 
 
 The President The chair will rule that both resolutions 
 are in the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord If I had known the chair was 
 going to 1 make that statement I should have included in my 
 motion all the resolutions with reference to the free pass ques- 
 tion. 
 
 'The President The gentleman from Concord moves that 
 his resolution on free passes, and the resolution of the gentle- 
 man, from Franklin, Mr. Leach, which was offered as a substi- 
 tute, be recalled from the Committee of the Whole and laid 
 before the Convention for action. 
 
 Mr. Leach of Franklin It seems to me it involves recalling 
 two other proposed amendments also. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord I ask leave to include all the 
 resolutions concerning the matter. 
 
 The President The question is upon the withdrawal of all 
 the resolutions from the Committee of the Whole. 
 
 The resolutions are ordered withdrawn. 
 
 The question is upon the adoption of the resolution offered 
 by Mr. Leach of Franklin: 
 
 "Resolved, That the committee report to the Convention in 
 favor of the indefinite postponement of all proposed amend- 
 ments relating to free passes, with the recommendation that 
 the legislature consider the subject and enact such legislation, 
 If any, as in their opinion the public good may require." 
 
 In accordance with the vote of the Convention Thursday 
 evening the yeas and nays were ordered taken. 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 809 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the affirmative: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Flanders of Brentwood, Sanders, 
 Gillispie, Abbott of Derry, Morrill, Follansby, Wetherell, 
 Leddy, Hooke, Sanborn of Hampstead, Chase of Kingston, 
 Pillsbury, Walker of Newmarket, Battles, Evans, Kelsey of 
 Nottingham, Peaslee, Howard, Norris, Healey, Wheeler, 
 Locke of Seabrook. 
 
 STEAFFORD COUNTY. Locke of Barrington, Leighton, 
 Nealley, Morang, Folsom, Nute of Dover, Willson of Farm- 
 ington, Webb, Moore, Furbush, Meader, Springfield, Gelinas, 
 Cochrane, Edgerly, Locke of Somersworth, Hall of Stratford. 
 
 BELKAP COUNTY. Bryar, Jewett, Gorrell, Thompson of 
 Laconia, Smith of New Hampton, Knox, Fellows. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Colman, Spencer, Hobson, Gibson, 
 Morrill of Conway, Harmon, Merrow, Murch, Meserve, Brown 
 of Ossipee, Dorr, Page of Tamworth, Morrison of Tufton- 
 borough, Sanborn of Wakefield, Clow, Hersey. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. Stone of Andover, Frame, Dudley 
 of Concord, Virgin, Lyford, Mitchell of Concord, Foster, 
 Kimball of Concord, Walker of Concord, Howe, Whittier, In- 
 galls, Casey, Ford of Danbury, Caldwell, Dolbeer, Sanborn of 
 Franklin, Stone of Franklin, Leach, Towne, Wilson of Hill, 
 Head, Clough of London, Todd, Wyatt, Miller, Webster, 
 Thompson of Warner, Lang. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Woodbury of Bedford, Kimball 
 of Bennington, Whitaker of Deering, Peavey, Bacon, Fogg, 
 Powers of Hollis, Marsh, Tarbell, Lambert, Wilkinson, Briggs, 
 Cross, Hunt> Dodge of Manchester, Boutwell, Little, Rose, 
 Jones, Robinson, Tremblay, Lord, Farrington, Harvey, Pre- 
 court, Irwin, Quirin Joseph, Allen, Clement of Manchester, 
 Littlefield, Powers of Manchester, McElroy, Richer, Plante, 
 Guerin, Hall of Manchester, Paige of Manchester, Whitaker of 
 Mason, Gordon, Raymond, Hamblett, Spring, Everett, Flood, 
 Wason, Woodbury of Nashua, Proctor, Runnells, Shedd, 
 
810 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Mather, Slattery, McGlynn, Morrison of Peterborough, Scott, 
 Richardson, Hadley, Simons, Bales, Chapman. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Cooke, Learned, Blake, Farwell, 
 Stearns, Annett, Taft, Pressler, Wright, Foskett, Hall of 
 Keene, Newell, Woodward, Buckminster, Clement of Surry, 
 Day, Stone of Troy, Spaulding, Goodnow, Davis. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Brooks, Tenney, Colby, Hanson of 
 Goshen, Burpee, Holmes, Noyes, Barton, Penniman, Brown 
 of Springfield. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. Bucklin, Dearborn of Ashland, Morrill 
 of Bridgewater, Chase of Bristol, Richardson of Canaan, 
 Avery, Cumings, Walker of Graf ton, Kidder, Ward, Westgate, 
 Sloane, Jewell of Hebron, Flanders, Glazier, Dewey, Hibbard, 
 Morris, Green of Littleton, Melvin, French of Orange, Lam- 
 prey of Orford, Craig of Rumney. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Wight of Berlin, Moffett, Murray, Miles, 
 Young of Clarksville, Titus, Britton, Wight of Dummer, 
 Evans, Crawford, Kent, Phipps, McKellips, Watson, Ripley, 
 Hinman, Aldrich of Whitefield, Dodge of Whitefield. 
 
 The following gentlemen voted in the negative: 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Conley, Sanborn of Auburn, 
 Eaton, Kimball of Danville, Kelsey of Deerfield, Towle, 
 Weare, Shaw, Pollard, de Rochemont, Gate, Emery S. W., 
 Paul, Ham, Cullen, Sawyer of Rye, Cole, Jewell of South 
 Hampton, Wingate, Clark of Windham. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. Morrison of Dover, Roberts, Hanson 
 of Dover, Hall of Dover, Murphy, Gunnison, Nutter of Rol- 
 linsford, Leary, Roy, Morin. 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. Colbath, Clark of Center Harbor, 
 Cogswell, Pulsifer of Laconia, Busiel, Lewis, Smith of Mere- 
 dith, Rogers. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. Nickerson, Dearborn of Eaton. 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 811 
 
 MERRI3JACK COUNTY. Blodgett of Allenstown, Buxton, 
 Baker, French of Bradford, Foote, Hollis, Mies, Lamprey of 
 Concord, Chandler, Jordan, Wilkins, Putnam, Messer, Chick- 
 ering, Green of Pittsfield, Sawyer of Salisbury. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Hubbard, Fessenden, Colby, 
 Paige of Goffstown, Clyde, Abbott of Manchester, Green of 
 Manchester, Starr, Horan, Glancy, Sullivan, Griffin, Jennings, 
 Hildreth of Manchester, McAllister, Greager, Provost, Boivin, 
 Trinity, Eotch, Worcester, Clough of Nashua, Harriman, Le- 
 doux, Desmarais, Seavey. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. Amidon, Buckley, Osgood, Cass, Mc- 
 Clure. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Stockwell, Eossiter, Bartlett, Newton. 
 
 GRAFT ON COUNTY. Carbee, Ashley, Parker of Franconia, 
 Colby of Hanover, Drake, Warden, Eussell, Wentworth. 
 
 Coos COUNTY. Boudreau, Thurston. 
 
 And 221 gentleman having voted in the affirmative and 101 
 gentlemen having voted in the negative, the motion to substi- 
 tute the resolution of Mr. Leach prevailed. 
 
 Mr. Baker of Bow offered the following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be extended 
 to its officers, employes, and others acting in connection with 
 it, for the faithful and efficient manner in which they have- 
 performed their various duties/' 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord The Committee on the Time 
 and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments 
 Agreed to by the Convention are in doubt concerning two or 
 three matters which need to be examined. We submit to the 
 pleasure of the Convention the question whether we shall 
 retire now and endeavor to make the report immediately, or 
 the Convention, adjourn for one hour. 
 
$12 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The President Will the gentleman from Concord state for 
 the convenience of the Convention whether there would be 
 any suggestion in the report, of the committee requiring a 
 quorum to> act upon. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord There might be. For instance, 
 the form of ballot is under consideration. The question is, 
 whether yes and no shall be printed and the voter required to 
 erase yea or no, or whether the yes and no shall be printed 
 with the squares opposite and the voter make a cross in one or 
 the other of the squares, in accordance with the present 
 method of voting. There are several questions of that kind on 
 which the Convention might not be willing to accept the judg- 
 ment of the committee. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Jones of Manchester, the Convention 
 took a recess; until 1:45 o'clock in tlhe afternoon. 
 
 Upon reassembling, the President in the chair, Mr. Chand- 
 ler of Concord, from the Committee on Time and Mode of 
 Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed to by the 
 "Convention, made the following report: 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord Mr. President and Gentlemen 
 of the Convention: The amendments to the Constitution 
 which have been considered by the Committee on Time and 
 Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed 
 to by the Convention are ten. The amendment presented by 
 the gentleman from Plymouth, Mr. Russell, and adopted in 
 one vote, has been divided into two parts. The provision re- 
 lating to the examination of candidates for military office is 
 one part, and the provision with reference to the commissary- 
 general is another. 
 
 Your committee, Mr. President, has examined the text of 
 ;all of these amendments witih great care. We have made no 
 suggestions except in one case where one word has been in- 
 serted. Otherwise they are as adopted by the Convention, 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 813- 
 
 and I hand these ten amendments to the secretary, asking 
 that they be adopted as the correct text of the amendments. 
 
 The committee have instructed me to report the following 
 order to he adopted by the Convention, which, as it has been 
 changed by me recently by direction of the committee, I will 
 read myself, with the permission of the Convention. 
 
 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIEE. 
 
 In the Year of Our Lord One thousand Xine hundred and 
 Two. 
 
 In the Convention of delegates assembled at Concord on 
 the first Tuesday of December, in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand nine hundred and two, for the purpose of revising 
 the Constitution of this state, in pursuance of an act of the 
 legislature passed March 21, 1901, 
 
 "I. Resolved: That the alterations and amendments pro- 
 posed to the Constitution shall be submitted to the qualified 
 voters of the state, at meetings which shall be? duly called and 
 held in the several towns, wards of cities, and other places in 
 the state on the second Tuesday of March, 1903, to be by said 
 voters actedi upon at said meetings, -or any adjournments 
 thereof within the same week. 
 
 "II. Resolved: That the selectmen of the several towns, 
 wards, and places in the state be and are hereby directed to 
 insert, in their warrants calling the said meetings, an article 
 to the following effect: 'To take the sense of the qualified 
 voters whether the alterations and amendments of the Con- 
 stitution proposed by the Constitutional Convention shall be 
 approved/ 
 
 "III. Resolved: That the sense of the qualified voters shall 
 be taken by ballot upon each of the following questions sub- 
 mitted to them by this Convention: 
 
 "1. Do you approve of requiring every person in order to 
 
JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 be a voter or eligible to office to be able to read the Constitu- 
 tion in the English language and to write, the requirement 
 not to apply toi any person who now has the right to vote nor 
 to any person who shall be sixty years of age or upwards on 
 January 1, 1904; as proposed in the amendment to the Con- 
 stitution? 
 
 "2. Do you approve of the requirement that captains and 
 subalterns in the militia of the state shall before their nomi- 
 nation and appointment be examined and found duly quali- 
 fied by an examining board appointed by the governor; as 
 proposed in the amendment to the Constitution? 
 
 "3. Do you approve of striking out the words 'the com- 
 missary-general' from the requirement that the secretary of 
 state and the state treasurer and the commissary-general, 
 shall be chosen by the legislature; as proposed in the 
 amendment to the Constitution? 
 
 "4. Do you approve of empowering the legislature to im- 
 pose taxes not only upon polls and estates but also upon other 
 classes of property, including franchises and property when 
 passing by will or inheritance; as proposed in the amend- 
 ment to the Constitution? 
 
 "5. Do you approve of allowing the legislature to give 
 police courts jurisdiction to try and determine, subject to the 
 respondent's right of appeal and trial by jury, criminal cases 
 wherein the punishment is less than imprisonment in the 
 state's prison; as proposed in the amendment to the Consti- 
 tution? 
 
 "6. Do you approve of amending the Bill of Eights by 
 striking out the word 'evangelical' before the word 'princi- 
 ples' and inserting the word 'Christian' and striking out the 
 word 'Protestant' before the words 'teachers of piety, religion, 
 and morality,' and striking out the word 'towns' in two places 
 where the legislature is empowered to authorize 'towns, par- 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 815 
 
 ishes, and religious societies' to support and maintain teachers 
 of religion and morality; and striking out the words 'and 
 every denomination of Christians' and inserting the words 'all 
 religious sects and denominations' where equal protection of 
 the law is assured; as proposed in the amendment to the 
 Constitution? 
 
 "7. Do you approve of striking out the word 'male' before 
 the word 'inhabitant' in the clause which provides that every 
 male inhabitant twenty-one years of age (with certain excep- 
 tions) shall have a right to vote; which clause is supplemented 
 by the existing provision that every such person shall be con- 
 sidered an inhabitant for the purpose of electing and being 
 elected to office; as proposed in the amendment to the Con- 
 stitution? 
 
 "8. Do you approve of granting to the general court all 
 just powers possessed by the state to enact laws to prevent the 
 operations within the state of all persons and associations, 
 trusts and corporations who endeavor to raise the price of any 
 article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in 
 the trades and industries through combination, conspiracy, 
 monopoly, or any other unfair means; as proposed in the 
 amendment to the Constitution? 
 
 "9. Do you approve of amending the provision as to rep- 
 resentation in the house of representatives by making 800 in- 
 habitants necessary to the election of, one representative and 
 2,400 inhabitants necessary for two representatives and 1,600 
 necessary for each additional representative; with the proviso 
 that a town, ward, or place- having less than 800 inhabitants 
 may send a representative a proportionate part of the time; or 
 that such towns, wards, and places when contiguous may 
 unite to elect a representative if each town so decides by 
 major vote; as proposed in the amendment to the Constitu- 
 tion? 
 
 "10. Do you approve of giving the legislature authority to 
 establish more than one place of public meeting within the 
 
816 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 limits of each! town or ward in the state for the casting of 
 votes and the election of officers under the Constitution, and 
 for that purpose to divide any town or ward into voting pre- 
 cincts; as proposed in the amendment to the Constitution? 
 
 "TV. Resolved: That the results of the votes on the said 
 questions shall be recorded and copied and the copies sealed 
 up, directed and returned by the town clerks to the secretary 
 of state, on or before the fourth Tuesday of March, 1903, and 
 said .clerks shall be subject to the same penalties as are by law 
 prescribed for neglect to return the votes for governor, and 
 th,e returns shall be by the secretary of state seasonably laid 
 before the governor and council. 
 
 "V. Resolved: That the secretary of state is. hereby di- 
 rected to furnish to the town clerks of the different towns, 
 wards, and places suitable blanks for the return of the votes 
 on said questions. 
 
 "VI. Resolved: That the secretary of state be directed to 
 procure toi be printed one hundred and twenty thousand 
 copies of such parts of the Constitution as are altered and 
 amended by this Convention together with the alterations 
 and amendments, and the same number of copies of the ques- 
 tions to be proposed to the qualified voters, and the same 
 number of these resolutions, and to cause such copies to be 
 distributed immediately to the, town clerks of the respective 
 towns, wards, and places in the state, for the use of the qual- 
 ified voters, in numbers proportionate as near as may be to the 
 numbers of the legal voters in the said respective towns, 
 wards, and places; and it is made the duty of said clerks im- 
 mediately to distribute such copies among said voters. 
 
 "VII. Resolved: That the secretary of state be also re- 
 quired to furnish not less than 120,000 printed ballots con- 
 taining said questions to be thus voted upon, and to distribute 
 the same to the town clerks as provided in the preceding reso- 
 lution, a reasonable time previous to said meetings, to be by 
 them seasonably distributed at said meetings. 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 817 
 
 "Upon the said "ballots containing the questions to be voted 
 upon and tinder each question thereon shall be printed the 
 word 'Yes' at the left hand with a square near it and at the 
 right hand the word 'No', with a square near it, and the voter 
 desiring to vote 'Yes' upon any one of said questions shall 
 make a cross in the square near the word 'Yes/' and if he de- 
 sires to vote 'No,' he shall make a cross in the square near the 
 word 'No'; and he shall do this as to each question upon 
 which he desires to vote. All ballots cast where no cross is 
 made in a square under any question shall not be counted as 
 to such question. 
 
 "The secretary of state shall cause to be printed at the bot- 
 tom of each ballot, distributed to the town clerks, a note in 
 plain anid conspicuous type as follows: 
 
 " 'Every voter whoi wishes to vote 'Yes' will make a cross 
 in the square near the word 'Yes.' If he wishes to vote 'No' 
 he will make a cross in the square near the word 'No.' If 
 he make no cross in either square Ms ballot will not be 
 counted. Be sure and vote on all the questions submitted.' 
 
 "VIII. Resolved: That the governor and council, prior to 
 the second Tuesday of April, 1903, shall open and count said 
 votes; and make a record thereof; and the governor shall 
 forthwith issue his proclamation announcing the result of the 
 vote on each of said questions submitted to the people. 
 
 "IX. Resolved: That such of the proposed amendments as 
 shall be approved by the requisite number of votes, shall take 
 effect and be in force at the times hereinafter mentioned, to 
 wit: The amendment relative to representation in the house 
 of representatives at the date when the legislature in session 
 at its adoption or next in session thereafter shall adjourn and 
 the other amendments when their adoption is proclaimed by 
 the governor. 
 
 "X. Resolved: That these resolutions, signed by the presi- 
 dent of this convention and attested by the secretary, shall be 
 published once in all the weekly newspapers of the state 
 
 52 
 
818 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 authorized to publish, the public laws and in the daily news- 
 papers; and that the journal of the convention, including the 
 debates in full, shall be printed and the original journal to- 
 gether with all the files of the convention shall be deposited 
 in the office of the secretary of state/ 5 
 
 The President Unless otherwise ordered, this report will 
 be accepted, and the question is upon the adoption of the reso- 
 lution submitted by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Everett! of Nashua Do I understand that this word 
 "No" is to be printed at the left? 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord The word tff Yes" is to be at the 
 left, and the word "No" at the right. 
 
 Mr. Everett of Nashua I should say that would be satis- 
 factory. What is the date that these amendments are to take 
 effect? 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord All the amendments but one 
 will take effect immediately after their adoption in April or 
 May next. Many of them, as the delegates will realize, give 
 authority to the legislature to act. They take effect imme- 
 diately, and the legislature in session at the time they take 
 effect will act under them. 
 
 With reference to the matter of representation, that re- 
 quires action, of course, by the legislature, so we make that 
 to take effect whenever the Igislature that may be in session 
 when the amendments are adopted shall adjourn, or whenever 
 the next legislature that may meet shall adjourn, giving the 
 legislature in either case an opportunity to apply the new 
 principles laid down in the constitutional amendment to the 
 towns and cities of the state. The other amendments go into 
 effect simultaneously with their adoption. 
 
 Mr. Everett of Nashua; The explanation, although rather 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 819 
 
 long, is not clear to me. What I want to understand is, 
 whether the coming legislature will put the amendments into 
 effect. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord- I think the committee thought 
 the next legislature would either adjourn to or be in session 
 on the second Tuesday of March next. If it were in session, 
 and this amendment with reference to representation had 
 been defeated, they would go home. If they found it was 
 adopted, they would undoubtedly either wait and enact some 
 measure to carry the amendment into practice, or would ad- 
 journ for a short time and come back. 
 
 Mr. Everett of Nashua Why not make this matter clear 
 and have a date specified when this matter shall be acted 
 upon? 
 
 Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry It seems to me that the 
 .gentlemen have both lost sight of the fact that the resolu- 
 tion submitted by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Chandler, 
 has a provision that the returns must be made by the town 
 clerk by the fourth Tuesday of March, so it would hardly be 
 possible or probable for the next legislature to put it into 
 effect. 
 
 Mr. Everett of Nashua That is my point. Why not say 
 here in what legislature it shall take effect? 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord The gentleman from Nashua, 
 early in the session, joined in a discussion and talked to the 
 Convention when it did not wish to hear him. I do not wish 
 to talk to this Convention if it be disinclined to hear me, any 
 more than the gentleman from Nashua. But I see that if I 
 am to make myself clear I must do more or less talking. 
 
 It .is true, as the gentleman from Londonderry has said, 
 that the returns are not necessarily to be made until the 
 fourth Tuesday of March, but the legislature will know upon 
 the night of the second Tuesday of March whether the amend- 
 
820 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 merits are adopted, as a matter of fact, and they can act ac- 
 cordingly. I have said that the amendment relating to repre- 
 sentation will take effect at the adjournment of the legislature 
 which may be then in session or if none is in session, at the 
 adjournment of the next legislature. 
 
 Mr. Rogers of Tilton It struck me that these votes might 
 be counted by the governor and council at an earlier date than' 
 the fourth Tuesday of March, and that there might be a pro- 
 vision that the amendment should take effect at the adjourn- 
 ment of the next legislature. Then the governor could keep 
 the legislature in session until they had an opportunity to act 
 upon the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Chandler of Concord We have cut down the time for 
 making the return two weeks, and that is about as short a 
 time as would be judicious. Of course the governor and coun- 
 cil can count as soon as they please. They are instructed to- 
 do it prior to a certain date, but they can do it earlier if they 
 choose. 
 
 Mr. Kent of Lancaster I merely wish to make this sugges- 
 tion, that if the amendment in regard to the reduction of the 
 legislature takes effect at the adjournment of this incoming 
 legislature, as it reduces the number of members about sev- 
 enty-five, the next legislature thereafter would be so much 
 smaller, and it would save an additional expenditure of about 
 $15,000. 
 
 The President The question is upon the adoption of the 
 resolution submitted by the committee. 
 
 On a viva voce votte the affirmative prevailed and the reso- 
 lution was declared adopted. 
 
 Mr. Sullivan of Manchester presented the following, which- 
 was unanimously adopted: 
 
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1902. 821 
 
 "Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be and are 
 hereby extended to the several representatives of the press 
 for the able and accurate reports of the daily proceedings of 
 the Convention and for their courteous treatment of the 
 members." 
 
 Mr. Edgerly of Somersworth moved that the Convention 
 .adjourn, to meet at the call of the President, or, in the event 
 of his death, at the call of the governor of the state. 
 
 And it was so voted. 
 
 T. H. MADIGAN", JR., SECRETARY. 
 A true record. 
 Attest: 
 
 T. H. MADIGAN, JR., SECRETARY. 
 

APPENDIX A. 
 
 Tables and Information Ordered Printed by 
 Vote of the Convention. 
 

APPENDIX A. 
 
 TABLE SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT OF PETERBOROUGH. 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 1900. 
 
 REPKESENTATIVES. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 a 
 i ( 
 
 c<f 
 
 % 
 
 d 
 
 q 
 
 i 
 
 co" 
 *o 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 Atkinson 
 
 442 
 
 
 
 
 Auburn 
 
 682 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Brentwood 
 
 957 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Candia. ... 
 
 1 057 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Chester. 
 
 861 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Danville 
 
 615 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Deerfield 
 
 1,162 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Derry 
 
 3 583 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 East Kingston 
 
 496 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,611 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Exeter. 
 
 4,922 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Fremont . 
 
 749 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Greenland 
 
 607 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hampstead 
 
 823 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hampton 
 
 1 209 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hampton Falls 
 
 560 
 
 
 
 
 Kensington 
 
 524 
 
 
 
 
 Kingston 
 
 1,132 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Londonderry . . 
 
 1 408 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Newcastle 
 
 581 
 
 
 
 
 
 647 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ne wington 
 
 390 
 
 
 
 
 Newmarket.. 
 
 2 892 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Newton. 
 
 924 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 North Hampton 
 
 812 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 North wood 
 
 1,304 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Nottingham. 
 
 638 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Plaistow 
 
 1,027 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 10,637 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 2,641 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 ... 
 
 3,105 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 WardS 
 
 1 843 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1,391 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 "Ward 5 
 
 1,654 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Raymond ... .... 
 
 1,100 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Rye 
 
 1 142 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 2,041 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Sandown 
 
 400 
 
 
 
 
 Seabrook 
 
 1,497 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 " 1 
 
 South Hampton. 
 
 297 
 
 
 
 
 Strath am 
 
 718 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Windham 
 
 641 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 39 
 
 34 
 
826 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 T-T 
 <4H 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 q 
 
 i 
 
 Inc. of 2,000. 
 
 Inc. of 3,000. 
 
 Barrington 
 
 1 208 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Dover 
 
 13,207 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 2 387 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 3 018 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 2' 384 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 3 581 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1,567 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Durham ... 
 
 996 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Farmington 
 
 2 265 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Lee . 
 
 545 
 
 
 
 
 Madbury .... 
 
 336 
 
 
 
 
 Middleton. 
 
 300 
 
 
 
 
 Milton 
 
 1 625 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 New Durham 
 
 625 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Rochester 
 
 8,466 
 
 
 
 
 Wardl 
 
 1 131 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1,222 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 3. ... 
 
 1 510 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1,901 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 964 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 1 738 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Rollinsf ord 
 
 1,701 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 7 023 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 1,285 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1 167 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1,104 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 2,183 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 5 . . 
 
 1 284 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Strafford 
 
 1,040 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 25 
 
 23 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 82T 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 s 
 
 t) 
 
 a 
 i i 
 
 Inc. of 2,000. 
 
 co~ 
 *o 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 
 IH 
 
 Alton 
 
 1,500 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Barnstead 
 
 1 072 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Belmont 
 
 1 294 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Center Harbor 
 
 422 
 
 
 
 
 Gilford 
 
 661 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 100 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Laconia 
 
 8 042 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 417 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1 465 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1 073 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 465 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 "Ward 5 
 
 1 485 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 2,137 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Meredith 
 
 1 713 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 New Hampton 
 
 852 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Sanbornton. 
 
 944 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Tilton 
 
 1 926 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
828 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 r-T 
 <H 
 
 O 
 
 c5 
 a 
 i 
 
 99 
 
 w 
 O 
 
 d 
 q 
 
 M 
 
 oS 
 
 <H 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 HH 
 
 Albany . 
 
 210 
 
 
 
 
 Bartlett 
 
 1,013 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Brookfield 
 
 296 
 
 
 
 
 'Chatham 
 
 269 
 
 
 
 
 Con way 
 
 3,154 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Eaton .... 
 
 365 
 
 
 
 
 
 600 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Freedom 
 
 594 
 
 
 
 
 Hart's Location 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 
 Jackson 
 
 622 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Madison. 
 
 529 
 
 
 
 
 Moultonborough 
 
 901 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ossipee . . . . 
 
 1,479 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Sandwich . 
 
 1 077 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Tamworth 
 
 1,050 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Tuftonborough 
 
 663 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Wakefield 
 
 1 645 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Wolfeborough 
 
 2 390 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 829 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 d 
 
 .2 
 
 (B 
 
 "3 
 ft 
 
 & 
 
 c^ 
 
 T-T 
 
 *o 
 
 d 
 d 
 
 M 
 
 $f 
 
 (4-4 
 
 
 
 6 
 a 
 h- 1 
 
 of 
 
 <M 
 
 
 
 c5 
 
 a 
 i i 
 
 Allenstown 
 
 1,496 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Andover 
 
 1 179 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Boscawen... . 
 
 1 455 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Bow. .. 
 
 fi17 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Bradford 
 
 805 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Canterbury 
 
 821 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Chichester 
 
 821 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 Concord 
 
 19 632 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 1 911 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 .... 
 
 753 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1 04.0 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 Q 44 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 2 609 
 
 2 
 
 > 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 6 ... 
 
 3 390 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 3 178 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 1 212 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 1 892 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Danbury 
 
 AK4. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Dumbarton 
 
 551 
 
 
 
 
 Epsom 
 
 771 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Franklin 
 
 5 846 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 1 572 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 2 365 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 WardS 
 
 1 909 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Henniker 
 
 1 505 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Hill 
 
 fi03 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 Hooksett 
 
 1 665 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 Hopkinton . . 
 
 1 652 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 Loudon 
 
 960 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 Newbury 
 
 4.94. 
 
 
 
 
 New London ' 
 
 768 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 North field . 
 
 i 227 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Pembroke 
 
 Q 1QQ 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 
 Pittsfi eld 
 
 2 129 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 Salisbury. . . 
 
 604 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Sutton 
 
 776 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Warner 
 
 1 358 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Webster 
 
 496 
 
 
 
 
 Wilmot . .... . . 
 
 653 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 39 
 
 35 
 
330 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 i-T 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 d 
 a 
 
 HH 
 
 c<f 
 
 
 8 
 
 H- 1 
 
 Inc. of 3,000. 
 
 Amherst 
 
 1 231 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Antrim . . 
 
 1 366 
 
 I 
 
 
 1 
 
 Bedford 
 
 1,148 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Bennington . . 
 
 667 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Brookline 
 
 606 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 486 
 
 
 
 
 Francestown 
 
 693 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 2,528 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 Greenfield 
 
 605 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Greenville 
 
 1 608 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hancock 
 
 642 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hillsborough. 
 
 2 254 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hollis . . 
 
 910 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Hudson 
 
 1,261 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Litchfield 
 
 243 
 
 
 
 
 
 686 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Manchester 
 
 56 987 
 
 
 
 
 Wardl 
 
 3 625 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 5,501 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 7 320 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 6 922 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 9,094 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 4 880 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 1 757 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 5 508 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 7 986 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 10 
 
 4,394 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Mason 
 
 358 
 
 
 
 
 Merriniack . 
 
 1 234 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Milford 
 
 3,739 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Mont "V"ernon ... 
 
 453 
 
 
 
 
 Nashua 
 
 23 898 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 2,384 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 2 274 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 3 476 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 570 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 5 ... 
 
 1 651 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 1,440 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 3 477 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 3 082 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 4,544 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 New Boston. . . . . 
 
 1 002 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 New Ipswich . . 
 
 911 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Pelham 
 
 875 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Peterborough ... 
 
 2 527 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Sharon . . 
 
 122 
 
 
 
 
 Temple 
 
 313 
 
 
 
 
 \Veare ... 
 
 1,553 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Wilton 
 
 1,696 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Windsor 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 96 
 
 67 
 
 56 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 831 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 r-T 
 4-l 
 O 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 <N" 
 
 
 
 c5 
 
 a 
 t i 
 
 CO 
 W 
 
 
 
 c5 
 
 
 
 Alstead , . . . 
 
 799 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Chesterfield 
 
 981 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Dublin 
 
 620 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Fitz william 
 
 987 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Gilsum ' . 
 
 590 
 
 
 
 
 Harrisville. 
 
 791 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1,933 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 Jaffrey 
 
 1 891 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 Keene . . 
 
 9 165 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 2 488 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1,896 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1 926 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 384 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward5 
 
 1 471 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1,524 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Marlow 
 
 488 
 
 
 
 
 Nelson 
 
 295 
 
 
 
 
 Richmond 
 
 459 
 
 
 
 
 Rindge. . 
 
 855 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Roxbury 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 Stoddard 
 
 367 
 
 
 
 
 Sullivan / 
 
 287 
 
 
 
 
 Surry 
 
 250 
 
 
 
 
 Troy .. .... ... 
 
 1 527 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Walpole 
 
 2 693 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 
 875 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Winchester 
 
 2 274 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 19 
 
 18 
 
832 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 VM 
 
 
 c5 
 a 
 i i 
 
 c<f 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 "S 
 
 o 
 
 fl 
 ( i 
 
 
 594 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 473 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 6,498 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 
 962 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 372 
 
 
 
 
 
 345 
 
 
 
 
 GTctntlitini 
 
 374 
 
 
 
 
 
 339 
 
 
 
 
 liGinpstcr 
 
 391 
 
 
 
 
 
 3,126 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Plainfield 
 
 1,114 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Snrin Afield. 
 
 439 
 
 
 
 
 
 946 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 TTnifv 
 
 572 
 
 
 
 
 ^Vn <;1i i n ffton 
 
 464 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 833 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 5 
 
 o 
 a 
 i ( 
 
 c<f 
 * 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 Inc. of 3,000. 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 630 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ashland 
 
 1 289 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Bath 
 
 1 006 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Benton 
 
 209 
 
 
 
 
 Bethlehem 
 
 1 261 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Bridgewater 
 
 244 
 
 
 
 
 Bristol 
 
 1 600 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Campton 
 
 '999 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Canaan 
 
 1 444 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 308 
 
 
 
 
 Easton 
 
 249 
 
 
 
 
 Ellsworth 
 
 107 
 
 
 
 
 Enfield 
 
 1 845 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Franconia 
 
 655 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Graf ton 
 
 748 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Groton 
 
 346 
 
 
 
 
 Hanover .... 
 
 1 884 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Haverhill . 
 
 3 414 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Hebron 
 
 214 
 
 
 
 
 Holderness 
 
 662 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Landaff 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 
 Lebanon 
 
 4 965 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 .Lincoln 
 
 541 
 
 
 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 2,221 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Littleton .... 
 
 4 066 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 Livermore 
 
 191 
 
 
 
 
 Lyman 
 
 426 
 
 
 
 
 Lyme 
 
 1,080 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Monroe . .... 
 
 545 
 
 
 
 
 Orange 
 
 213 
 
 
 
 
 Orf ord 
 
 890 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Piermont 
 
 637 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Plymouth . .... 
 
 1 972 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Rumney 
 
 837 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Thornton 
 
 552 
 
 
 
 
 Warren 
 
 799 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Waterville . . . . 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 
 Wentworth 
 
 617 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 628 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 28 
 
 26 
 
 53 
 
834 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 coos COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population. 
 
 r-T 
 V 
 
 d 
 q 
 
 t i 
 
 S" 
 
 >4-i 
 o 
 
 c5 
 
 a 
 i_i 
 
 Inc. of 3,000. 
 
 Atkinson and Gilmanton Academy Grant 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bean's Grant 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dean's Purchase 
 
 
 
 
 
 Berlin 
 
 8 886 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 1 
 
 3 076 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 3 324 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 2 486 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 "Cambridge 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 Carroll 
 
 710 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Chandler's Purchase 
 
 
 
 
 
 Clarksville 
 
 307 
 
 
 
 
 Colebrook ... .... 
 
 1 876 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 690 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Crawford's Purchase 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 Cutt's Grant 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dalton 
 
 592 
 
 
 
 
 Dartmouth College Grant 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 Dix's Grant 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dixville 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 Durnmer 
 
 349 
 
 
 
 
 Errol 
 
 305 
 
 
 
 
 Ervin's Location 
 
 
 
 
 
 "Gibbs 1 Purchase 
 
 
 
 
 
 'Gorham 
 
 1,797 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Oreen's Grant 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 Hadley's Grant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 080 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Kilkenny ... 
 
 47 
 
 
 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 3,190 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Low & Burbank's Grant 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^Martin's Location 
 
 
 
 
 
 Milan 
 
 1,135 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Millsfield 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 ^"orthumberland 
 
 1 797 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Odell . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pinkham's Grant .. .... 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 Pillsbury 
 
 687 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ^Randolph 
 
 137 
 
 
 
 
 Sargent's Purchase 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shelburne 
 
 283 
 
 
 
 
 Stark 
 
 733 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1,150 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Stratford 
 
 968 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Success 
 
 220 
 
 
 
 
 Thompson & Meserve's Purchase . . 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 *Wentworth' s Location 
 
 58 
 
 
 
 
 Whiteneld . . 
 
 2,157 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 19 
 
 16 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 835 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 Population. 
 
 r-T 
 g 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 Inc. of 2,000. 
 
 CO*" 
 
 "o 
 
 6 
 a 
 
 i i 
 
 Rockingham 
 
 51,118 
 
 44 
 
 39 
 
 34 
 
 Strafford 
 
 39 337 
 
 32 
 
 25 
 
 23 
 
 Belknap ... 
 
 19 526 
 
 16 
 
 14 
 
 14 
 
 Carroll 
 
 16 895 
 
 14 
 
 12 
 
 11 
 
 Merrimack 
 
 52,430 
 
 48 
 
 39 
 
 35 
 
 Hillsborough 
 
 112 640 
 
 96 
 
 67 
 
 56 
 
 CliGsliirs . . 
 
 31 321 
 
 25 
 
 19 
 
 18 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 18 009 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 Graf ton 
 
 40,844 
 
 35 
 
 28 
 
 26 
 
 Coos 
 
 29468 
 
 25 
 
 19 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 411,588 
 
 347 
 46 
 
 271 
 46 
 
 240 
 46 
 
 
 
 393 
 
 317 
 
 286 
 
 Representatives from towns 46, pro-rated. 
 
836 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 TABLE SUBMITTED BY MR. NEWELL OF KEENE. 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 be 
 a 
 
 "> a" 
 
 
 
 02 c$ 
 
 11 
 
 SJ. 
 
 O <^> 
 & 
 
 o s 
 'Z 5 
 ,55 
 
 Z.% 
 
 o <o 
 ft* 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants. 
 
 Atkinson 
 
 
 442 
 
 
 Auburn 
 
 
 682 
 
 
 Brentwood 
 
 957 
 
 
 1 
 
 Candia 
 
 1,057 
 
 
 1 
 
 Chester 
 
 861 
 
 
 1 
 
 Danville 
 
 
 615 
 
 
 Deerfield 
 
 1 162 
 
 
 1 
 
 Derry . . 
 
 3 583 
 
 
 2 
 
 East Kingston 
 
 
 496 
 
 
 Eppiner . . 
 
 1 641 
 
 
 1 
 
 Exeter 
 
 4 922 
 
 
 3 
 
 Fremont 
 
 
 749 
 
 
 Greenland . 
 
 
 607 
 
 
 Hampstead 
 
 823 
 
 
 1 
 
 Hampton 
 
 1 209 
 
 
 1 
 
 Hampton Falls 
 
 
 560 
 
 
 Kensington 
 
 
 524 
 
 
 Kingston.. . 
 
 1 132 
 
 
 1 
 
 Londonderry 
 
 1 408 
 
 
 1 
 
 Newcastle 
 
 
 581 
 
 
 Newfields . 
 
 
 647 
 
 
 Newington 
 
 
 390 
 
 
 Newmarket . ... . 
 
 2 892 
 
 
 2 
 
 Newton 
 
 924 
 
 
 1 
 
 North Hampton 
 
 812 
 
 
 1 
 
 Northwood 
 
 1 304 
 
 
 1 
 
 Notti ngh am 
 
 
 638 
 
 
 Plaistow 
 
 1 027 
 
 
 1 
 
 Portsmouth, 6: 
 Ward 1 
 
 2 644 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 3 105 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1 391 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 843 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1 654 
 
 
 1 
 
 Raymond 
 
 1,100 
 
 
 1 
 
 Rye 
 
 1 142 
 
 
 1 
 
 Salem 
 
 2 041 
 
 
 1 
 
 Sand own 
 
 
 400 
 
 
 Seabrook 
 
 1 497 
 
 
 1 
 
 South Hampton 
 
 
 297 
 
 
 Stratham 
 
 
 718 
 
 
 Windham.. 
 
 
 641 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8,987 
 
 30 
 
 8,987 divided by 800 equals 11 187-800 plus 30 equals 41 187-800. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 837 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than 800 population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants. 
 
 Barrington 
 
 1 208 
 
 
 1 
 
 Dover, 8: 
 Ward 1. 
 
 2 387 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 3 018 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 2 384 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4. . 
 
 3 851 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1 567 
 
 
 I 
 
 Durham 
 
 996 
 
 
 1 
 
 Farmington. ... 
 
 2 265 
 
 
 1 
 
 Lee 
 
 
 545 
 
 
 Madbury 
 
 
 336 
 
 
 Middleton 
 
 
 300 
 
 
 Milton. . . 
 
 1 625 
 
 
 I 
 
 New Durham 
 
 
 625 
 
 
 Rochester, 6: 
 Ward 1 
 
 1 131 
 
 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1 122 
 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1 510 
 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1,901 
 
 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 964 
 
 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 1 738 
 
 
 
 Rollinsford 
 
 1,701 
 
 
 
 Somersworth, 5: 
 Ward 1 
 
 1,285 
 
 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1 167 
 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1,104 
 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 2,183 
 
 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1 284 
 
 
 1 
 
 Strafford 
 
 1 040 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1,806 
 
 24 
 
 1,806 divided by 800 equals 2 206-800 plus 24 equals 26 206-800. 
 
838 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 CARKOLL COUNTY. 
 
 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than 800 population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants, 
 
 Albany ... . . .... 
 
 
 210 
 
 
 Bartlett 
 
 1 013 
 
 
 1 
 
 Brookfield 
 
 
 296 
 
 
 Chatham . ..... 
 
 
 269 
 
 
 Conway 
 
 3 154 
 
 
 2 
 
 Eaton 
 
 
 365 
 
 
 Effingham 
 
 
 600 
 
 
 Freedom 
 
 
 594 
 
 
 Hart's Location 
 
 
 38 
 
 
 Jackson 
 
 
 622 
 
 
 Madison 
 
 
 529 
 
 
 Moultonborough 
 
 1,479 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ossipee 
 
 1 479 
 
 
 1 
 
 Sandwich . . 
 
 1,077 
 
 
 1 
 
 Tarn worth 
 
 1 050 
 
 
 1 
 
 Tuftonborough 
 
 
 663 
 
 
 Wakefield .... 
 
 1,645 
 
 
 1 
 
 \Volfeborough 
 
 2 390 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4,186 
 
 9 
 
 4,186 divided by 800 equals 5 186-800 plus 9 equals 14 186-800. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 839 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than 800 population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants. 
 
 Alton 
 
 1 500 
 
 
 1 
 
 Barnstead 
 
 1 072 
 
 
 1 
 
 Belmont. . . . . 
 
 1 294 
 
 
 1 
 
 Center Harbor 
 
 
 422 
 
 
 Gilford 
 
 
 661 
 
 
 Gilmanton 
 
 1,100 
 
 
 1 
 
 Laconia, 6: 
 Ward 1 
 
 
 417 
 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1 465 
 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1,073 
 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 465 
 
 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1 485 
 
 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 2 137 
 
 
 
 Meredith 
 
 1,713 
 
 
 
 New Hampton 
 
 852 
 
 
 
 Sanbornton 
 
 944 
 
 
 1 
 
 Tilton 
 
 1,926 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1,500 
 
 13 
 
 1,500 divided by 800 equals 1 7-8 plus 12 equals 14 7-8. 
 
840 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than 800 population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants. 
 
 Allenstown . . 
 
 1 496 
 
 
 1 
 
 Andover 
 
 1 179 
 
 
 1 
 
 Boscawen 
 
 1 455 
 
 
 1 
 
 Bow 
 
 
 617 
 
 
 Bradford 
 
 805 
 
 
 1 
 
 Canterbury ... 
 
 821 
 
 
 1 
 
 Chichester 
 
 
 598 
 
 
 Concord, 12: 
 Ward 1 . 
 
 1 911 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 753 
 
 
 I 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1,043 
 
 
 I 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 3 644 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 2,609 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 3 390 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 3 178 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 1,212 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 1 892 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 654 
 
 
 Dumbarton 
 
 
 551 
 
 
 Epsom 
 
 771 
 
 
 I 
 
 Franklin, 3: 
 Ward 1 . 
 
 1 572 
 
 
 I 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 2 365 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1,909 
 
 
 
 Henniker . 
 
 1 507 
 
 
 
 Hill 
 
 
 603 
 
 
 Hooksett 
 
 1,655 
 
 
 
 Hopkinton 
 
 1 652 
 
 
 
 Loudon 
 
 960 
 
 
 
 Newbury . . 
 
 
 424 
 
 
 New London 
 
 768 
 
 
 1 
 
 Northfield 
 
 1,227 
 
 
 1 
 
 Pembroke 
 
 3 183 
 
 
 2 
 
 Pittsfield 
 
 2 129 
 
 
 1 
 
 Salisbury 
 
 
 604 
 
 
 Sutton 
 
 776 
 
 
 1 
 
 Warner 
 
 1 358 
 
 
 1 
 
 Wilmot 
 
 
 653 
 
 
 Webster 
 
 
 496 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,200 
 
 32 . 
 
 5,200 divided by 800 equals 6 1-2 plus 32 equals 31 1-2. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 841 
 
 HILLSBOKOUGH COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than SCO population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants. 
 
 Amherst 
 
 1 231 
 
 
 i 
 
 Antri m 
 
 1 366 
 
 
 1 
 
 Bedford 
 
 1 148 
 
 
 1 
 
 Bennington 
 
 
 667 
 
 
 Brookline 
 
 
 606 
 
 
 Deering 
 
 
 486 
 
 
 Francestown ... . . 
 
 
 693 
 
 
 Goffstown 
 
 2 528 
 
 
 \ 
 
 Greenfield 
 
 
 605 
 
 
 Greenville 
 
 1 608 
 
 
 I 
 
 Hancock 
 
 
 642 
 
 
 Hillsborough 
 
 2 254 
 
 
 1 
 
 Hollis 
 
 910 
 
 
 1 
 
 Hudson 
 
 1 261 
 
 
 I 
 
 Litchfield 
 
 
 243 
 
 
 Lyndeborough 
 
 
 686 
 
 
 Manchester, 31: 
 Ward 1 .... 
 
 3 625 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 5 501 
 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 7,320 
 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 4 .. 
 
 6 922 
 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 9,094 
 
 
 5 
 
 Ward 6 
 
 4,880 
 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 1,757 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 5 508 
 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 7,986 
 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 10 
 
 4,394 
 
 
 2 
 
 Mason 
 
 
 358 
 
 
 Merrimack 
 
 1 234 
 
 
 1 
 
 Milford 
 
 3 739 
 
 
 2 
 
 Mont "Vernon 
 
 
 453 
 
 
 Nashua, 13: 
 Ward 1 . . 
 
 2 384 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 2 274 
 
 
 I 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 3,476 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1,570 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 5 . . 
 
 1 651 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 3 477 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 8 
 
 3 082 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 4,544 
 
 
 2 
 
 New Boston 
 
 1,002 
 
 
 1 
 
 New Ipswich 
 
 911 
 
 
 1 
 
 Pelham 
 
 875 
 
 
 1 
 
 Peterborough 
 
 2 527 
 
 
 1 
 
 Sharon 
 
 
 122 
 
 
 Temple 
 
 
 313 
 
 
 Weare 
 
 1 553 
 
 
 1 
 
 Wilton 
 
 1 696 
 
 
 1 
 
 Windsor 
 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 12 
 
 61 
 
 5,912 divided by 800 equals 7 312-800 plus 61 equals 68 312-800. 
 
842 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than 800 population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants, 
 
 Alstead 
 
 799 
 
 
 1 
 
 Chesterfield 
 
 981 
 
 
 1 
 
 Dublin 
 
 
 620 
 
 
 Fitzwilliam 
 
 987 
 
 
 1 
 
 Grilsum 
 
 
 590 
 
 
 Harrisville 
 
 791 
 
 
 1 
 
 Hinsdale 
 
 1 933 
 
 
 1 
 
 Jaffrey 
 
 1 871 
 
 
 1 
 
 Keener 
 Ward 1 ... 
 
 2 488 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 1,896 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 1,926 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 384 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 5 
 
 1,471 
 
 
 1 
 
 Marlborough 
 
 1 524 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 488 
 
 
 Nelson 
 
 
 295 
 
 
 Rich mond 
 
 
 459 
 
 
 Rindge 
 
 855 
 
 
 1 
 
 Roxbury 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 Stoddard 
 
 
 367 
 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 
 2&7 
 
 
 Surrv 
 
 
 250 
 
 
 
 1 570 
 
 
 1 
 
 Troy 
 
 1,527 
 
 
 1 
 
 Walpole 
 
 2 693 
 
 
 1 
 
 Westmoreland 
 
 875 
 
 
 1 
 
 Winchester 
 
 2,274 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3,456 
 
 18 
 
 3,456 divided by 800 equals 4 256-800 plus 18 equals 22 256-800. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 843 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than 800 population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants, 
 
 Acworth 
 
 
 594 
 
 
 Charlestown 
 
 1 473 
 
 
 1 
 
 Claremont 
 
 6 498 
 
 
 3 
 
 Cornish 
 
 962 
 
 
 I 
 
 Croydon 
 
 
 372 
 
 
 G-oshen 
 
 
 345 
 
 
 Grantham 
 
 
 374 
 
 
 Lanedon . . 
 
 
 339 
 
 
 Lempster 
 
 
 391 
 
 
 Newport 
 
 3 126 
 
 
 2 
 
 Plainfield . 
 
 1 114 
 
 
 1 
 
 Springfield 
 
 
 439 
 
 
 Sunapee 
 
 946 
 
 
 1 
 
 Unity 
 
 
 572 
 
 
 Washington 
 
 
 464 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3,890 
 
 9 
 
 3,890 divided by 800 equals 4 69-80 plus 9 equals 13 69-80. 
 
844 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than 800 population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants. 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 
 630 
 
 
 Ashland ... 
 
 1 289 
 
 
 1 
 
 Bath 
 
 1 006 
 
 
 1 
 
 Benton 
 
 
 209 
 
 
 Bethlehem . 
 
 1 261 
 
 
 1 
 
 Bridge water 
 
 
 244 
 
 
 Bristol 
 
 1 600 
 
 
 1 
 
 Campton 
 
 999 
 
 
 1 
 
 Canaan 
 
 1,444 
 
 
 1 
 
 Dorchester . . . 
 
 
 308 
 
 
 Easton 
 
 
 249 
 
 
 Ellsworth 
 
 
 107 
 
 
 Enfield.. 
 
 1 845 
 
 
 1 
 
 Franconia 
 
 
 655 
 
 
 Graf ton 
 
 
 748 
 
 
 "Groton 
 
 
 346 
 
 
 Hanover .... 
 
 1,884 
 
 
 1 
 
 Haverhill. . 
 
 3 414 
 
 
 2 
 
 Hebron 
 
 
 214 
 
 
 Holderness .... . . 
 
 
 662 
 
 
 Landaff . 
 
 
 500 
 
 
 Lebanon .... 
 
 4,965 
 
 
 3 
 
 Lincoln . . . 
 
 
 541 
 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 2 221 
 
 
 1 
 
 Littleton 
 
 4,066 
 
 
 2 
 
 Livermore 
 
 
 191 
 
 
 Lyman 
 
 
 426 
 
 
 Lyme . . 
 
 1 080 
 
 
 1 
 
 Monroe 
 
 
 545 
 
 
 Orange 
 
 
 213 
 
 
 Orford ...... 
 
 890 
 
 
 1 
 
 Piermont 
 
 890 
 
 637 
 
 
 Plymouth 
 
 1,972 
 
 
 1 
 
 Rumnev ... 
 
 837 
 
 
 1 
 
 Thornton 
 
 
 552 
 
 
 Warren 
 
 799 
 
 
 1 
 
 Waterville 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 ^TeHtworth 
 
 
 617 
 
 
 \Voodstock 
 
 
 628 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9,272 
 
 21 
 
 
 9,272 divided by 800 equals 11 552-800 plus 21 equals 32 452-800. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 coos COUNTY. 
 
 845 
 
 TOWNS. 
 
 Population of towns and 
 wards having one or more 
 representatives upon the 
 basis of 800 for the first 
 and 2,000 for each addi- 
 tional representative. 
 
 Population of towns having 
 less than 800 population. 
 
 Number of representatives 
 from each town and ward 
 having more than 800 in- 
 habitants. 
 
 Berlin : 
 Ward 1. . 
 
 3 076 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 3,324 
 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 2,486 
 
 
 1 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 Carroll . ... 
 
 
 710 
 
 
 Clarksville 
 
 
 307 
 
 
 Colebrook 
 
 1,876 
 
 
 1 
 
 Columbia 
 
 
 690 
 
 
 Crawford's Purchase 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 Dalton 
 
 
 592 
 
 
 Dartmouth College Grant. . 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 Dixville 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 Dummer 
 
 
 349 
 
 
 Errol 
 
 
 305 
 
 
 Gorham 
 
 1,797 
 
 
 1 
 
 Green's Grant .... 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 1 080 
 
 
 1 
 
 Kilkenny 
 
 
 47 
 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 3,190 
 
 
 2 
 
 Milan 
 
 1 135 
 
 
 1 
 
 Millsfield 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 1,977 
 
 
 1 
 
 Pinkham's Grant . .... 
 
 > 
 
 4 
 
 
 Piftsburg 
 
 
 687 
 
 
 
 
 137 
 
 
 Shelburne 
 
 
 283 
 
 
 Stark 
 
 
 733 
 
 
 Stewartstown 
 
 1,150 
 
 
 1 
 
 Stratford 
 
 968 
 
 
 1 
 
 Success 
 
 
 220 
 
 
 Thompson's and Meserve's Pur- 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 W^entworth's Location 
 
 
 58 
 
 
 Whitefield 
 
 2 157 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,252 
 
 15 
 
 5,252 divided by 800 equals 6 452-800 plus 15 equals 21 452-800. 
 
846 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 SUMMAKY. 
 
 
 O> O, c3 
 
 
 > o a 
 
 
 "08 <) G 
 
 
 rH -^ rrt 
 
 
 S T3 
 MM e3 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 ^'S | ^ 
 
 
 ^ o S 
 
 
 Z P-rt 
 
 
 |SJ| 
 
 Rockingh am 
 
 41 187-800 
 
 Strafford 
 
 26 103-400 
 
 IBelknap 
 
 14 7- 8 
 
 Carroll. . 
 
 14 93-400 
 
 Merrimack ... 
 
 13 1- 2 
 
 Hillsborough 
 
 8 39-100 
 
 Cheshire 
 
 22 8- 25 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 13 69- 80 
 
 Graf ton 
 
 32 133-200 
 
 Coos 
 
 21 113-200 
 
 
 
 Total for the state 
 
 293 641-800 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A. 847 
 
 TABLE SUBMITTED BY MR. LEACH OF FRANKLIN. 
 
 Tabulation under the Leach amendment, based on a house of rep- 
 resentatives limited to three hundred members, and a population for 
 each representative of thirteen hundred and seventy under present 
 census, with surplus population given to small towns, and the town 
 system preserved. 
 
 Upon the basis of thirteen hundred and seventy for each repre- 
 sentative the following towns and wards would be entitled as fol- 
 lows, viz. : 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. 
 
 Derry 2 
 
 Epping 1 
 
 Exeter 3 
 
 Londonderry 1 
 
 Newmarket 2 
 
 Portsmouth: 
 
 Wardl 1 
 
 Ward 2 2 
 
 Ward 3 3 
 
 Ward 4 1 
 
 Ward 5 1 
 
 Salem 1 
 
 Seabrook 1 
 
 Total 17 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. 
 
 Dover: 
 
 Ward 1 1 
 
 Ward 2 ' 2 
 
 Ward 3 1 
 
 Ward 4 1 
 
 Farmington 1 
 
 Milton 1 
 
 Rochester: 
 
 Ward 3 1 
 
 Ward 4 2 
 
 Ward 5 1 
 
 Ward 6 1 
 
 Rollinsford 1 
 
 So me rs worth : 
 
 Ward 4 1 
 
 Total.. . 14 
 
848 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. 
 
 Alton 1 
 
 Laconia: 
 
 Ward 2 1 
 
 Ward 4 1 
 
 Ward 5 1 
 
 Ward 6 1 
 
 Meredith 1 
 
 Tilton 1 
 
 Total 7 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. 
 
 Conway 2 
 
 Ossipee 1 
 
 Wakefield 1 
 
 Wolf eborough 1 
 
 Total. . . 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. 
 
 Allenstown 1 
 
 Boscawen 1 
 
 Concord : 
 
 Ward 1 1 
 
 Ward 4 2 
 
 Ward 5 1 
 
 Ward 6 2 
 
 Ward 7 2 
 
 Ward 9 1 
 
 Franklin: 
 
 Ward 1 1 
 
 Ward 2 1 
 
 Ward 3 1 
 
 Henniker , 1 
 
 Hooksett 1 
 
 Hopkinton 1 
 
 Pembroke 2 
 
 Pittsfi eld 1 
 
 Total 21 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. 
 
 Goff stown 1 
 
 Greenville 1 
 
 Hillsborough 1 
 
APPENDIX A. 849 
 
 Manchester : 
 
 Ward 1 2 
 
 Ward 2 4 
 
 Ward 3 5 
 
 Ward 4 . 5 
 
 Ward 5 6 
 
 Ward 6 3 
 
 Ward 7 1 
 
 Ward 8 4 
 
 Ward 9 5 
 
 Ward 10 3 
 
 Milford 2 
 
 Nashua: 
 
 Ward 1... 1 
 
 Ward 2 1 
 
 Ward 3 2 
 
 Ward 4 1 
 
 Ward 5 1 
 
 Ward 6 1 
 
 Ward 7 2 
 
 Ward 8 2 
 
 Ward 9 3 
 
 Peterborough 1 
 
 Weare 1 
 
 Wilton.. 1 
 
 Total. 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. 
 
 Hinsdale 1 
 
 Jaffrey 1 
 
 Keener 
 
 Ward 1 1 
 
 Ward 2 1 
 
 Ward 3 1 
 
 Ward 4 1 
 
 Ward 5 1 
 
 S wanzey 1 
 
 Troy 1 
 
 Walpole 1 
 
 Winchester 1 
 
 Total 11 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. 
 
 Charlestown 1 
 
 Claremont 4 
 
 Newport 2 
 
 Total ~t 
 
 54 
 
850 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. 
 
 Bristol 1 
 
 Canaan 1 
 
 Enfield 1 
 
 Hanover 1 
 
 Haverhill 2 
 
 Lebanon 3 
 
 Lisbon 1 
 
 Littleton 2 
 
 Plymouth 1 
 
 Total 13 
 
 COOS COUNTY. 
 Berlin: 
 
 Ward 1 1 
 
 Ward 2 2 
 
 Ward 3 1 
 
 Colebrook 1 
 
 Gorham 1 
 
 Lancaster 2 
 
 Northumberland 1 
 
 Whitefield 1 
 
 Total 11 
 
 Total number entitled under this basis, 165. 
 Total population of these towns and wards, 282,115. 
 Actual ratio 1680 of population for each representative. 
 Population of the remaining towns, 129,473. 
 Number members not taken by first basis, 135. 
 
 Number remaining towns and wards with population over 850 63 
 
 Number remaining towns with population over 700 17 
 
 Number remaining towns with population 600 or more 30 
 
 Allowing one member to each town with population over 600 
 
 requires 110 
 
 Number of members not yet allotted 25 
 
 Number remaining towns with population over 500 14 
 
 Number remaining towns with population over 400 13 
 
 Number remaining towns with population over 300 , . 14 
 
 Number remaining towns with population over 200 10 
 
 Number remaining towns with population over 100 2 
 
 Number remaining towns and grants with total population 415. . . 12 
 
 None of the above towns with population of less than 600 can now 
 send a representative each session, and under the proposed plan all 
 having a population above 300 could send every other session or once 
 in four years, or according to the proportion their population entitles 
 them to, as the legislature may prescribe. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 851 
 
 TABLE SUBMITTED BY MR. BARTON OF NEWPORT. 
 
 Table showing the loss each town and county will suffer by the 
 amendment to Part II, Art. 9, of the Constitution by changing the 
 mean increase from 1,200 to 2,000 inhabitants: 
 
 Deny 
 
 Exeter 
 
 Portsmouth 
 
 Ward 2. 
 
 Ward3. 
 Salem 
 
 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 2 
 
 1 5 
 
 Dover 
 
 Ward 1 . . . . 
 
 Ward 2 
 
 Ward 3 . . . . 
 
 Ward 4.... 
 Farmington. . . 
 Rochester 
 
 Ward 4.... 
 Somersworth 
 
 Ward 4.. 
 
 STRAFFORD COUNTY. 
 
 Laconia 
 
 Ward 6. 
 Tiltou . . 
 
 BELKNAP COUNTY. 
 
 1 7 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 Conway. ...... 
 
 Wolfeborough 
 
 CARROLL COUNTY. 
 
 1 
 1 2 
 
 MERRIMACK COUNTY. 
 
 Concord 
 Ward 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 Ward 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 6 . . 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 7 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ward 9 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 Franklin 
 Ward 2 
 
 \ 
 
 
 Ward 3 
 
 . i 
 
 2 
 
 Pembroke 
 
 
 1 
 
 Pittsfield.. 
 
 
 1 9 
 
852 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. 
 
 Goff stown 1 
 
 Hillsborough 1 
 
 Manchester 
 
 Ward 1 1 
 
 Ward 2 2 
 
 Ward 3 2 
 
 Ward 4 2 
 
 Ward 5 3 
 
 Ward 6 1 
 
 Ward 8 2 
 
 Ward 9 3 
 
 Ward 10 218 
 
 Milford 1 
 
 Nashua 
 
 Wardl 1 
 
 Ward 2 1 
 
 Ward 3 1 
 
 Ward 7 1 
 
 Ward 8 1 
 
 Ward 9 27 
 
 Peterborough 129 
 
 CHESHIRE COUNTY. 
 
 Hinsdale 1 
 
 Jaif rey 1 
 
 Keene 
 
 Ward 1 1 
 
 Ward 2 1 
 
 Ward 3 1 3 
 
 Winchester 16 
 
 SULLIVAN COUNTY. 
 
 Clarempnt 2 
 
 Newport 13 
 
 GRAFTON COUNTY. 
 
 Enfield 1 
 
 Hanover 1 
 
 Haverhill 
 
 Lebanon 1 
 
 Lisbon 
 
 Littleton 1 
 
 Plymouth 17 
 
 
APPENDIX A. 853 
 
 coos COUNTY. 
 
 Berlin 
 
 Ward 1 1 
 
 Ward 2 1 
 
 Ward 3 1 
 
 Colebrook 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 Whitefield 
 
 Total loss 76 
 
 Membership of next bouse 393 
 
 76 
 Size of bouse reduced 317 
 
 Of wbicb 46 represent class towns. 
 
 Should the pro-rated towns be based on 800 instead of 600 the class 
 towns will increase from 69 to 111, and of the large towns Walpole, 
 Ward 5 of Concord, and Ward 1 of Portsmouth will each lose one. 
 
 Ill class towns on 800 basis 
 69 class towns on 600 basis 
 
 42 
 
 3 loss among large towns and cities on 800 basis in excess of 
 on 600 basis. 
 
 45 total loss among all towns and cities on 800 basis in excess 
 
 of on 600 basis. 
 271 constant on 600 basis 
 4o 
 
 226 constant on 800 basis 
 
 Two thirds of class towns are constantly represented; 2-3 of 
 
 111 are 74. 
 
 74 Number of class towns constantly represented. 
 300 Size of house pro-rating on 800 and increasing by a mean of 
 
 2,000 population. 
 
854 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 TABLE SUBMITTED BY MR. WOODBURY OF WOODSTOCK. 
 
 COUNTIES. 
 
 Proposed. 
 
 Present. 
 
 Concession. 
 
 Rockingham 
 
 34 
 
 48 
 
 14 
 
 Straff ord 
 
 23 
 
 33 
 
 10 
 
 Belknap 
 
 14 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 Carroll 
 
 17 
 
 19 
 
 2 
 
 Merrimack 
 
 39 
 
 46 
 
 7 
 
 Hillsborough 
 
 52 
 
 95 
 
 43 
 
 Cheshire 
 
 18 
 
 33 
 
 15 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 13 
 
 16 
 
 3 
 
 Graf ton . . 
 
 30 
 
 40 
 
 10 
 
 Coos 
 
 22 
 
 31 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 Totals . . 
 
 262 
 
 377 
 
 115 
 
 
 
 
 
 CITIES. Proposed. 
 
 Portsmouth 6 
 
 Dover 5 
 
 Rochester , 6 
 
 Somersworth , 5 
 
 Laconia 4 
 
 Concord 10 
 
 Franklin 3 
 
 Manchester 17 
 
 Nashua 10 
 
 Keene 5 
 
 Berlin. . . 3 
 
 LARGE TOWNS. 
 
 74 
 
 Proposed. 
 ,. 3 
 
 Exeter 
 
 Claremont 2 
 
 Lebanon 2 
 
 Littleton 2 
 
 Lancaster 2 
 
 10 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 855 
 
 SUNDRY INFORMATION AS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL STATE CONSTITUTIONS FOR 
 
 THEIR OWN AMENDMENT. 
 
 Compiled by Mr. Baker of Bow. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 Amendments 
 are submitted 
 by 
 
 When present 
 constitution 
 was adopted. 
 
 Number of 
 amendments 
 since ratified. 
 
 Constitutional requirements of 
 the several states as to 
 amendments. 
 
 New Hampshire 
 Alabama 
 
 Convention. 
 
 1793 
 1901 
 
 16 
 None 
 
 Amendments may be submitted 
 by constitutional convention. 
 Must be ratified by two thirds 
 of voters voting. 
 Three fifths of each house may 
 
 
 
 1874 
 
 6 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Majority of both houses may 
 
 California 
 
 '< 
 
 1879 
 1876 
 
 5 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of voters voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of the members 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 " 
 
 1818 
 1897 
 
 40 
 
 elected to each house may sub- 
 mit amendments. Majority of 
 voters voting ratifies. 
 Majority of house may submit 
 amendments which when rati- 
 fied by two thirds of the next 
 legislature and majority of 
 
 When two thirds of senate and 
 
 Florida 
 Georgia 
 
 
 
 1885 
 1877 
 
 11 
 
 g 
 
 house of two successive legis- 
 latures pass amendments they 
 become valid without ratifica- 
 tion. 
 Three fifths of each house may 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 
 Idaho 
 
 
 1889 
 
 4 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of legislature may 
 
 Illinois 
 
 
 1870 
 
 5 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 ratifies. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 
 Indiana . . . 
 
 
 1851 
 
 4 
 
 submit call for convention to 
 the people or may submit 
 amendments directly. Major- 
 ity ratifies. 
 Majority of both houses may 
 
 Iowa 
 
 
 1857 
 
 11 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of electors ratifies. 
 Majority of both houses of two 
 
 Kansas 
 
 
 1859 
 
 
 successive legislatures may 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of qualified voters ratifies. 
 Two thirds of both houses may 
 
 
 
 1891 
 
 None . 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of electors voting ratifies. 
 Three fifths of both houses may 
 
 
 
 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of voters voting ratifies. 
 
856 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 Amen d m e n t s 
 are submitted 
 by 
 
 When present 
 const! t u t i o n 
 was adopted. 
 
 Number of 
 amendments 
 since ratified. 
 
 Constitutional requirements of 
 the several states as to 
 amendments. 
 
 
 
 1898 
 
 
 
 Maine 
 
 
 1819 
 
 g 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 
 
 
 Revis- 
 ed 1875 
 1867 
 
 15 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 
 Massachusetts- 
 
 Convention 
 to 1821; 
 then leg- 
 islature.... 
 
 Legislature 
 
 1780 
 1850 
 
 36* 
 
 propose amendments. Majority 
 of votes cast ratifies. 
 Majority of senate and two thirds 
 of house of two successive leg- 
 islatures may submit amend- 
 ments. Majority of people vot- 
 ing ratifies. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 
 
 
 lOCI? 
 
 qc 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 
 1890 
 
 
 convention. Amendments may 
 be submitted by majoriy of both 
 houses. Majority of electors 
 voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 
 Missouri 
 
 
 1875 
 
 3 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of electors voting ratifies. 
 Majority of each house may sub- 
 
 
 
 1889 
 
 1 
 
 mit amendments. Ratification 
 by majority of qualified elec- 
 tors. 
 Two thirds of each house mav 
 
 Nebraska 
 Nevada 
 
 
 
 1875 
 1864 
 
 2 
 g 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Three fifths of members elected 
 to each house may submit 
 amendments. Majority of peo- 
 ple voting ratifies. 
 Majority of both houses of two 
 
 New Jersey 
 New York 
 
 M 
 
 1875 
 1894 
 
 None., 
 g 
 
 successive legislatures may 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 A majority of two successive leg- 
 islatures ratified by majority of 
 legal voters voting. 
 Majority of both houses of two 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 
 
 
 successive legislatures may 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Three fifths of each house may 
 
 North Dakota.. 
 Ohio 
 
 ' 
 
 1889 
 1851 
 
 4 
 g 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Majority of house and senate 
 of two successive legislatures 
 may submit amendments. 
 Majority of people voting rati- 
 fies. 
 Three fifths of members elected 
 
 
 
 
 
 to each house may submit 
 amendments. Majority of peo- 
 ple voting ratifies. 
 
 Nine by convention others by legislature. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 857 
 
 STATE. 
 
 Amend m e n t s 
 are submitted 
 by 
 
 ||| 
 
 0>q=! 
 
 *8-g 
 
 ja a ** 
 
 Constituttonal requirements of 
 the several states as to 
 amendments. 
 
 Oregon 
 Pennsylvania... 
 Rhode Island... 
 
 South Carolina. 
 South Dakota . . 
 
 Legislature. 
 
 1857 
 1873 
 1843 
 
 1895 
 
 1889 
 1870 
 
 I 
 None.. 
 11 
 
 None.. 
 2 
 
 A majority of two successive 
 legislatures ratified by major- 
 ity of people voting. 
 A majority of two successive 
 legislatures ratified by major- 
 ity of legal voters voting. 
 A majority of both houses of two 
 successive legislatures ratified 
 by three fifths of the voters 
 voting. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 submit amendments. They 
 must be ratified by a majority 
 of the people and of the next 
 legislature. 
 A majority of both houses may 
 submit amendments. Ratified 
 by majority of people voting. 
 Majority of first legislature may 
 
 Texas 
 
 
 1875 
 
 4 
 
 submit amendments, which if 
 approved by two thirds of next 
 legislature are submitted to 
 people. Majority of votes rat- 
 ifies. 
 Two thirds of legislature may 
 
 Utah 
 
 
 1895 
 
 None 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of people voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of both houses may 
 
 Vermont 
 Virginia 
 
 Convention 
 to 1870; 
 then leg- 
 islature . . . 
 
 1793 
 1902 
 
 28f 
 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of voters voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of senate and major- 
 ity of house and majority of 
 both houses of next legislature 
 may submit amendments. Ma- 
 jority of voters voting ratifies. 
 
 Washington 
 West Virginia.. 
 
 Wisconsin 
 Wyoming 
 
 (t 
 
 1889 
 1872 
 
 1848 
 1889 
 
 None.. 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 legislatures ratified by major- 
 ity of people voting. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of voters voting ratifies. 
 Two thirds of each house may 
 submit amendments. Majority 
 of qualified voters necessary 
 to ratify. 
 A majority of two successive 
 legislatures ratified by major- 
 ity of people voting. 
 
 
 
 
 
 submit amendments. Major- 
 ity of electors ratifies. 
 
 t Twenty-six by convention two by legislature. 
 
 NOTE. Nearly all the states have a constitutional provision by which con- 
 ventions may be called for a general revision of their constitutions. Ordinary 
 amendments are submitted by the several legislatures. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 I. Tabulation of Votes. 
 
 II. Proclamation by His Excellency, Governor 
 Nahum J. Bachelder. 
 
 III. Constitution as Amended. 
 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED 
 
 VOTERS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 
 
 MARCH 10, 1903. 
 
 Questions submitted to the qualified voters of New Hamp- 
 shire, March 10, 1903: 
 
 1. Do you approve of requiring every person in order to be 
 a voter or eligible to office to be able to read the constitution 
 in the English language and to write, the requirement not to 
 apply to any person who now has the right to vote nor to 
 any person who shall be sixty years of age or upwards on 
 January 1, 1904; as proposed in the amendment to the 
 Constitution? 
 
 2. Do you approve of the requirement that captains and 
 subalterns in the militia of the state shall before their nom- 
 ination and appointment be examined and found duly quali- 
 fied by an examining board appointed by the governor; as 
 proposed in the amendment to the Constitution? 
 
 3. Do you approve of striking out the words "the commis- 
 sary-general" from the requirement that the secretary of state 
 and the state treasurer and the commissary-general, shall 
 be chosen by the legislature; as proposed in the amend- 
 ment to the Constitution? 
 
 4. Do you approve of empowering the legislature to 
 impose taxes not only ttpoin polls and estates but also upon 
 other classes of property, including franchises and property 
 when passing by will or inheritance; as proposed in the 
 amendment to the Constitution? 
 
 ."). Do. you approve of allowing the legislature to give 
 police courts jurisdiction to try and determine, subject to 
 
862 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 the respondent's right of appeal and trial by jury, criminal 
 cases wherein the punishment is less than imprisonment in 
 the state prison; as proposed in the amendment to the Con- 
 stitution? 
 
 6. Do you approve of amending the Bill of Eights by 
 striking out the word "evangelical" before the word "princi- 
 ples" and inserting the word "Christian" and striking out 
 the word' "Protestant" before the words "teachers of piety, 
 religion and morality" and striking out thei word "towns" 
 in two places where the legislature is empowered to author- 
 ize "towns, parishes and religious societies" to suppport 
 and maintain teachers of religion and morality; and striking 
 out the words "and every denomination of Christians" and 
 inserting the words "all religious sects and denominations" 
 where equal protection of the law is assured; as proposed in 
 the amendment to the Constitution? 
 
 7. Do you approve of striking out the word "male" before 
 the word "inhabitant" in the clause which provides that 
 every male inhabitant: twenty-one years of age (with certain 
 exceptions) shall have a right to vote; which clause is sup- 
 plemented by the existing provision that every such person 
 shall be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of electing 
 and being elected to office; as proposed in the amendment 
 to the Constitution? 
 
 8. Do you approve of granting to the general court all just 
 powers possessed by the state to enact laws to prevent the 
 operations within the state of all persons and associations, 
 trusts and corporations who endeavor to raise the price of 
 any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competi- 
 tion in the trades and industries through combination, con- 
 spiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; as proposed 
 in the amendment to the Constitution? 
 
 9. Do you approve of amending the provision as to repre- 
 sentation in the house of representatives by making 800 
 inhabitants necessary to the election of one representative 
 
APPENDIX B. 863 
 
 and 2,400 inhabitants necessary for two representatives and 
 1,600 necessary for each additional representative; with the 
 proviso that a town, ward or place having less than 800 in- 
 habitants may send a representative a proportionate part 
 of the time; or that such towns, w^ards, and places when 
 contiguous may unite to elect a representative if each town 
 so decides by major vote; as proposed in the amendment 
 to the Constitution? 
 
 10. Do you approve of giving the legislature authority to 
 establish more than one place of public meeting within the 
 limits of each town or ward in the state for the casting of 
 votes and the election of officers under the Constitution, and 
 for that purpose to divide any town or ward into voting pre- 
 cincts; as proposed in the amendment to the Constitution? 
 
864 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 ,-( CO i-< 
 
 o t~ ^ oi c os o e<i <** o T* to o 
 i-i i-i I-H eo r-t >H I-H c<i w c<i >-i 
 
 oo 7<J TJ< t^ e<i 
 
 8 :S "2 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 865 
 
 -- rf< IN 00 * lO SO OS 00 O llO 
 <** TJI rH <N rn <N C^ rr CO I OJ 
 
 t^ J>(N (N t~ (N ^ O rH CO ICO 
 
 co eo IN r-i in < rt fr< T-I os 
 
 t^COtOOJ^iOCO 
 < rH t>- C^ rH rH (N CO 
 
 a : 
 
866 JOUIINAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 
 
 
 
 iHt>"OtO"^l 
 
 oot-ooooi 
 
 >l>-' 'lOOOi'^' Cir^t^GO^^ 
 
 -* * ^ * * ^w eo 10 cc ic i 
 
 e*i 10 i r* 
 i-*<=> -r 
 
 t^^oooiooM(Ne<ioc^mooiooTt<O'-ii 
 
 <N 00 O M CO I> ITS rH rt t-i CO 00 CO -H <N 1 
 
 <N 00 ^ 
 
 
 WWZ ::::: 
 
 j^IS-a-ali t? 
 
 si 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 867 
 
 
 
 O O -J< lO iM | 
 
 
 
 G? 
 
 
 
 133 j 8 
 
 OIM <T*a>o<-' 
 pjos^^-^^w^i 
 
 'S^^S 05 
 
 
 i-i o eo T}< te> t 
 
 :d : 
 ,3 S -S : * 
 
 Ifelo 
 
868 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 
 
 O? 
 
 
 
 IN rH ^H CO 
 
 i co co ic c oo i 
 
 C^^C^C ; lOO' <lCO>T-*I>l^-t>- IQO^CO 
 CO rH r-l -- tH CO CO r-t (N iH -* l 1C <N 00 CO 
 
 00 CO 00 1C TJI 1C (N TJI . O5 * (N CN CO O 00 t~O I r- 
 rH 1C i-H rH 1C rjt C<1 CO CO TT rH CO 1C CO CO 1C t~ (N 
 
 ) 1C I CO 
 105 I * 
 
 W pj ,_, ^H O5 O CD CO " rH Tfl O ^ O CO 1C 
 T-I CO r-l TH <N -I * -CO-* (N 1C <* (M CO r* 
 
 I ^ rH rH 1C C<1 1C J 
 
 rH(NCl 
 rHCOrH 
 
 0000^-*t-rH(MrHlCfO^lCDO3TflOl 
 I 1 (N rH rH rH ^ CO (M <N rH CO 1C 1C < 
 
 rH CO (M rH CNI <M rH rH ( 
 
 il 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 869 
 
 lOlOCOOO?O' 
 
 OOOOO'-lS'-i! 
 
 'S<^Hl>OrJ<r-(-* 
 
 |as3S5! ig 
 
 I W~ 
 
 - 
 
 ! I I IH <M co * m t- oo os I ! ;>- | e < 'co ; 
 
 i f i'g'g'S'S'g'S'g'g'g ! i i'S'S'S i 
 
 * 
 
 si s a 
 
 I 
 
 I! 
 
870 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 
 
 PQ 
 
 CO 
 
 
 I 
 
 OP 
 
 fc 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ioocoe3ioiOQCO5t-iiHe^ 
 
 COOCOi-l!-!rHeOt-.-N,-<rH 
 
 
 ~* (M IO i-H rH 
 
 C^l O5 00 CO CO Ci O rHOOCDOr-*lOO5C^OOlOOiCOCO^OO^Oir-(OOlOr-*OSCO 
 (N CO rt CO rH C^l 10 CO CO IN <* r-l CO rH OS JO (N 00 O >O CO IO O CM r-t <N rH r- 
 
 2<x> t^ Tt< eo rj< eo eo rn * oo * 10 CM to to o rH Tjt T-H eo c <* * 
 C^rH(N rH rH CO -* CO rH IN (N r-H> O rJH rH O5 rH IM rH O 
 
 r-i^coc 
 COlOrH 
 
 CNCO^'OOl^flOOJrH 
 
 i'g'g'S'g'S'S'E'S'g'S 
 
 :fScSo3o3G3cflc3o3c3c8 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 S^r^ 
 
 i'| 
 
 ! 0>S O 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 ss5$S3$gS ? <;238*' is 
 
 t~-(M^Hior^oatooiO5inoot 
 
 03 <M * <N r-l CO 10 to 00 TJ< r-l (N 00 
 
 CCOOSCOi-lr-KN-^t^tOCntOCOrHr-IOOK 
 <NOOOOiaT*t-C<l<000<NiraiN r-l r-H SO 
 
 T-3 IN 06 * ic to *> 
 
 I 
 
 871 
 
872 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 00 i 
 
 
 
 
 ssig 
 
 OOOOOOiOO5 
 <N IM <M CO (M <N 
 
 CO * 10 CO 
 
 I O ^ I-H * ^H S ^5 T?< I-H CO ' 
 
 Sco 1-1 co co o rf t- co co 1-1 OJ ^ co co . 10 o t- o t> -f -H* o o ri co ico 
 rH iH . CN r-1 S1 . CO >-H T< <N CM i-l r-1 i-l i-H i-l <M CM lO iH CO G> 
 
 Ot~COO5OOO5HT<O'S<-T<OO 
 rr CO CO C t- 50 CO 10 t- 10 CO i 
 
 >H 
 
 ^ 
 
 ! O 
 
 ^" rtrH " 
 
 
 
 w OJ3 o 
 
 ^SE'l&fU ^ 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 873 
 
 a? 
 
 S i" 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 -*iMcocor^m'*<i-it 
 
 (Nrt (M CD CO <N 00 < 
 
 
 tftiSStf :* 5 
 
 fllililifllftjl I 
 
 i- - ^ ^ 
 
 
 . 
 
874 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 
 
 
 > eo cc o < 
 
 niM-KN 
 
 IrHt^-COrH^T (i (lOOCOT-HCS' 
 
 E 8 SE38SSS< 
 
 'TfiO5OO3O5C^lO5C<IO 
 i rl <N tN rH rl iH 
 
 (N O5 U5 00 
 
 00<M5^-^-i>lOOTC^CD2 
 
 * i i *coi ic^ o^ T-"^ 
 
 .j^. ^ H 
 
 : ti : '3 j :Ss3 Jfl^* 
 
 ^j as < E 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 875 
 
 coe^--ioocoot~ 
 
 <O iH CO i-H O4 i-l 
 
 00 I-H O O OO O CT> (M CO (M 100 
 
 rH Tt< 50 ^H Tf CO CO >0<N rH 
 
 wllililii i 
 
 sllillissl f- 
 
876 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 > 
 
 1O O Gi CO CO O t>- O LO **< CO l> IO CO Tjl I?j CO i-H IO r-i 00 Tt< rH \ v* 
 <N 10 ^ <N IM OS IM IM rH rH CO -H 10 * l> C<3 rH rH TjN I> t~ 
 
 -HlOWN'-'!-l<NO'- 
 
 00 <N 00 CO <N r-i CO ^- ?q 
 
 N CO 1>--^ O rH 
 
 Q? 
 
 I 
 
 s<iooi--ma5ictoo>j>oooooooiOr-ie^c^Tj<oeo 
 
 t- Th (0 CO r-l t- rH r-. ,-, rl CO l> CO t> CO <N CO CO IO CO 
 
 irte<oioocoTj<in<M 
 
 r-l rH tO rH rH rH rH 
 
 rH rH CO rH 
 
 Scoaie<iiociaso5rHoot~ioc<icot>iot~ 
 OCOCOr-iCOlM (N 00 00 OS CD l> CO (N rH 
 
 t- CO 05 * C^ 5 CO TH C Tj< 00 CO OS ^ 1C CO rH CM SO IO 
 CO^OirHrHCOrH rHrH CO rH 
 
 i-H OJ OS CO CO CO T* CO <M CN O Oi C* t~ O TT ?5 CO TJ< t-^ T)< lO I 
 
 2 ^ 
 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 87T 
 
 2 S 2 ? 
 
 ioo>r>t><Nr-i 
 
 I I-l I-H CO I-l 
 
 ) Oi ,"?! l 
 I J> <N T 
 
 1-1 tH <M -^ T- rH iH 
 
 OOt>-lOOC^tOOOiOTf<lJ 
 
 Cil>lOT-lr-IO'_>(MTJ< 
 
 e^rn Tfoi>eoioo 
 
 -Trn" r-J CO T-T 
 
 <^I T-l T-l iH CO 1C rH r^ijfrH' 
 
 
 -7 TH" TjT s <N" rn TO i-T 
 
 i|sl!iiii g 
 
 Q3 cesjq 3^0 
 
PROCLAMATION. 
 
 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, 
 
 Concord, March 26, 1903. 
 
 Be it known, that I, Nahum J. Bachelder, governor of 
 the state of New Hampshire, in obedience to the request of 
 the Constitutional Convention of said state, holden in De- 
 cember, 1902, do hereby proclaim to the people of this state 
 that the Constitution of the state is amended as provided for 
 in the first, second, fourth, and eighth propositions or ques- 
 tions submitted by said Constitutional Convention to the 
 qualified voters of the state at meetings held in the several 
 towns, city wards, and places in this state on the second 
 Tuesday of March, 1903. 
 
 All the alterations and amendments in said Constitution 
 covered by said several propositions or questions have been 
 adopted, and the Constitution is thus amended by the 
 suffrages of more than two thirds of the legal voters present 
 at said meetings, and voting upon said questions. 
 
 I further proclaim to the people of this state that the 
 Constitution of the state is not amended, as provided for in 
 the third, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth propositions 
 or questions submitted by said Convention to the qualified 
 voters of the state at meetings held in the several towns, city 
 wards, and places in this state on the second Tuesday of 
 March, 1903, as neither of these last-mentioned propositions 
 or questions, nor the amendments in the Constitution cov- 
 ered by the same, were adopted by the suffrages of two thirds 
 of the legal voters present at said meetings and voting upon 
 said questions. 
 
 [SEAL.] Given under my hand and the seal of said state, 
 at the council chamber, this twenty-sixth day 
 of March, A. D. 1903, and of the Independ- 
 ence of the United States of America, the 
 one hundred and twenty-seventh. 
 
 NAHUM J. BACHELDER. 
 By the Governor, 
 
 EDWARD N. PEARSON, Secretary of State. 
 
CONSTITUTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 PART FIRST. BILL OF 
 
 RIGHTS. 
 Article 
 
 1. Equality of men; origin and ! 
 object of government. 
 
 2. Natural rights. 
 
 3. Society; its organization and ] 
 purposes. 
 
 4. Rights of conscience unalien- | 
 able. 
 
 5. Religious freedom recognized. ; 
 
 6. Public worship of the Deity 
 to be encouraged; right of , 
 electing religious teachers; | 
 free toleration; existing con- 
 tracts not affected. 
 
 7. State sovereignty. 
 
 S. Accountability of magistrates j 
 and officers to the people. 
 
 9. No hereditary office or place. 
 
 10. Right of revolution. 
 
 11. Elections and elective fran- 
 chise. 
 
 12. Protection and taxation recip- 
 rocal; private property for 
 public u?e. 
 
 13. Conscientiously scrupulous 
 not compellable to bear arms. 
 
 14. Legal remedies to be free, 
 complete, and prompt. 
 
 15. Accused entitled to full and 
 substantial statement of 
 charge; not obliged to furnish 
 evidence against himself; 
 may produce proofs and be 
 fully heard, etc. 
 
 16. No person to be again tried 
 after an acquittal; trial by 
 jury in capital cases. 
 
 17. Criminal trials in county, ex- 
 cept in general insurrection. 
 
 18. Penalties to be proportional 
 to offenses; true design of 
 punishment. 
 
 19. Searches and seizures regu- 
 lated. 
 
 20. Trial by jury in civil cases; 
 exceptions. 
 
 21. Only qualified persons to 
 serve as jurors, and to be 
 fully compensated. 
 
 22. Liberty of the press. 
 
 23. Retrospective laws prohibited. 
 
 24. Militia. 
 
 Article 
 
 25. Standing armies. 
 
 26. Military subject to civil 
 power. 
 
 27. Quartering of soldiers. 
 
 28. Taxes to be levied only by 
 the people or legislature. 
 
 29. Suspension of laws by legis- 
 lature only. 
 
 30. Freedom of speech. 
 
 31. Meetings of legislature, for 
 what purpose. 
 
 32. Rights of assembly, instruc- 
 tion, and petition. 
 
 33. Excessive bail, fines, and pun- 
 ishments prohibited. 
 
 34. Martial law limited. 
 
 35. The judiciary; tenure of office. 
 3G. Pensions. 
 
 37. The legislative, executive, and 
 judicial departments to be 
 kept separate. 
 
 38. Social virtues inculcated. 
 
 PART SECOND. FORM OF 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 1. Name of body politic. 
 
 2. Legislature, how constituted. 
 
 3. General court, when to meet 
 and dissolve. 
 
 4. Power of general court to es- 
 tablish courts. 
 
 5. To make laws, elect officers, 
 define their powers and 
 duties, impose fines and 
 assess taxes. 
 
 6. Valuation of estates. 
 
 7. Members of legislature not to 
 take fees or act as counsel. 
 
 8. Legislature to sit with open 
 doors. 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTA- 
 TIVES. 
 
 9. Representatives elected bien- 
 nially; ratio of representation. 
 
 10. Small towns may elect a pro- 
 portionate part of time where 
 they cannot be classed. 
 
 11. Biennial election of represent- 
 atives in November. 
 
880 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Article 
 
 12. Qualifications of electors. 
 
 13. Representatives, how elected,, 
 and qualifications of. 
 
 14. Compensation of legislature. 
 
 15. Vacancies in house, how filled. 
 
 16. House to impeach before the 
 senate. 
 
 17. Money bills to originate in 
 house. 
 
 18. Power of adjournment lim- 
 ited. 
 
 19. Quorum, what constitutes. 
 
 20. Privileges of members of the 
 legislature. 
 
 21. House to elect speaker and 
 officers, settle rules of pro- 
 ceeding, and punish miscon- 
 duct. 
 
 22. Senate and executive have 
 like powers; imprisonment 
 limited. 
 
 23. Journal and laws to be pub- 
 lished; yeas and nays, and 
 protests. 
 
 SENATE. 
 
 24. Senate, how constituted; ten- 
 ure of office. 
 
 25. Senatorial districts, how con- 
 stituted. 
 
 26. Election of senators. 
 
 27. Senators, how and by whom 
 chosen; right of suffrage. 
 
 28. Qualification of senators. 
 
 29. Inhabitant defined. 
 
 30. Inhabitants of incorporated 
 places; their rights, etc. 
 
 31. Biennial meetings, how 
 warned, governed and con- 
 ducted; return of votes. 
 
 32. Governor and council to can- 
 
 vass returns of votes for sen- 
 ators and notify the persons 
 elected. 
 
 33. Vacancies in senate, how 
 filled. 
 
 34. Senate judges of their own 
 elections. 
 
 35. Adjournments limited except 
 in impeachment cases. 
 
 36. Senate to elect their own offi- 
 cers; quorum. 
 
 37. Senate to try impeachments; 
 mode of proceeding. 
 
 38. Judgment on impeachments 
 limited. 
 
 39. Chief justice to preside on im- 
 peachment of governor. 
 
 EXECUTIVE POWER GOVER- 
 NOR. 
 
 40. Title of governor. 
 
 41. Election of governor; return 
 of votes; electors; if no 
 choice, legislature to elect one 
 of two highest candidates; 
 qualifications for governor. 
 
 42. In case of disagreement, gov- 
 ernor to adjourn or prorogue 
 legislature; if infectious dis- 
 temper or other causes exist, 
 may convene them elsewhere. 
 
 Article 
 
 43. Veto of governor to bills, pro- 
 visions as to. 
 
 44. Resolves to be treated like 
 bills. 
 
 45. Governor and council to nom- 
 inate and appoint officers; 
 nomination three days before 
 appointment. 
 
 46. Governor and council have 
 negative on each other. 
 
 47. Field officers to recommend, 
 and governor to appoint com- 
 pany officers. 
 
 48. President of senate to act as 
 
 governor when office vacant. 
 
 49. Governor to prorogue or ad- 
 journ legislature and call ex- 
 tra sessions. 
 
 50. Power and duties of governor 
 as commander-in-chief; lim- 
 itation. 
 
 51. Pardoning power. 
 
 52. Militia officers, removal of. 
 
 53. Staff and non-commissioned 
 officers, by whom appointed. 
 
 54. Division of militia into bri- 
 gades, regiments, and com- 
 panies. 
 
 55. Money drawn from treasury 
 only by warrant of governor 
 pursuant to law. 
 
 56. Account of military stores, 
 etc., to be rendered quarterly. 
 
 57. Compensation of governor 
 and council. 
 
 58. Salaries of judges. 
 
 COUNCIL. 
 
 59. Councilors, mode of election, 
 etc. 
 
 60. Vacancies, how filled, if no 
 choice. 
 
 61 Occurring afterward, new 
 election; governor to convene; 
 duties. 
 
 62. Impeachment of councilors. 
 
 63. Secretary to record proceed- 
 ings of council. 
 
 64. Councilor districts provided 
 for. 
 
 65. Elections by legislature may 
 be adjourned from day to 
 day; order thereof. 
 
 SECRETARY, TREASURER, 
 
 COMMISSARY-GENERAL, 
 
 ETC. 
 
 66. Election of secretary, treas- 
 urer, and commissary-general. 
 
 67. State records, where kept; 
 duty of secretary. 
 
 68. Deputy secretary. 
 
 69. Secretary to give bond. 
 
 COUNTY TREASURERS, ETC. 
 
 70. County treasurers and regis- 
 ters of prolate, solicitors. 
 
 sheriffs. and 
 deeds elected. 
 
 registers 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 881 
 
 Article 
 
 71. Counties may be divided into 
 districts for registering deeds. 
 
 JUDICIARY 
 
 72. Tenure of office to be ex- 
 pressed in commissions; 
 judges to hold office during 
 good behavior, etc., remova- 
 ble by address. 
 
 73. Judges to give opinions, when. 
 
 74. Justices of the peace commis- 
 sioned for five years. 
 
 75. Divorces and appeals where 
 tried. 
 
 76. Jurisdiction of justices in 
 civil causes. 
 
 77. Judges and sheriffs, when dis- 
 qualified by age. 
 
 78. Judges and justices not to act 
 as counsel. 
 
 79. Jurisdiction and terms of pro- 
 bate court. 
 
 80. Judges and registers of pro- 
 bate not to act as counsel. 
 
 CLERK OF COURTS. 
 
 81. Clerks of courts, by whom 
 appointed. 
 
 ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITER- 
 ATURE, ETC. 
 
 82. Encouragement of literature, 
 etc. 
 
 OATHS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS, 
 EXCLUSIONS FROM OFFICE, 
 ETC. 
 
 Article 
 
 83. Oath of civil officers. 
 
 84. Before whom taken. 
 
 85. Form of commission. 
 8fi. Form of writs. 
 
 87. Form of indictments, etc. 
 
 88. Suicides and deodands. 
 
 89. Existing laws to continue in 
 force, if not repugnant to 
 constitution. 
 
 90. Habeas Corpus. 
 
 91. Enacting style of statutes. 
 
 92. Governor and judges pro- 
 hibited from holding other 
 offices. 
 
 93. Incompatability of offices; 
 only two offices of profit to 
 be holden at same time. 
 
 94. Incompatability of certain 
 offices. 
 
 95. Bribery and corruption dis- 
 qualify for office. 
 
 96. Value of money, how com- 
 puted. 
 
 97. Constitution, when to take 
 effect. 
 
 98. Revision of constitution pro- 
 vided for. 
 
 99. Question on revision to be 
 taken every seven years. 
 
 100. Enrollment of constitution. 
 
 PAET FIRST. 
 
 BILL OF RIGHTS. 
 
 Article 1. All men are born equally free and independent; 
 therefore all government of right originates from the people, 
 is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good. 
 
 Art. 2. All men have certain natural, essential, and inher- 
 ent rights; among which are the enjoying and defending life 
 and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; 
 and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. 
 
 Art. 3. When men enter into a state of society they sur- 
 render up some of their natural rights to that society in 
 order to insure the protection of others; and without such an 
 equivalent the surrender is void. 
 
 Art. 4. Among the natural rights, some* are in their very 
 nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or 
 56 
 
882 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 conceived for them. Of this kind are the RIGHTS OF CON- 
 SCIENCE. 
 
 Art. 5. Every individual has a natural and unalienable 
 right to worship God according to the dictates of his own 
 conscience and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, mo- 
 lested, restrained in his person, liberty, or estate for wor- 
 shiping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the 
 dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession, 
 sentiments^ or persuasion provided he doth not disturb the 
 public peace, or disturb others in their religious worship. 
 
 Art. 6. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evan- 
 gelical principles, will give the best and greatest security 
 to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the 
 strongest obligations to due subjection, and as the knowledge 
 of these is most likely to be propagated through a society 
 by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY and 
 of public instruction in morality and religion, therefore, 
 to promote these important purposes, the people of this 
 state have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, 
 the legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several 
 towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within 
 this state to make adequate provision, at their own expense, 
 for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teach- 
 ers of piety, religion, and morality. Provided, notwithstand- 
 ing, that the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or 
 religious societies shall at all times have the exclusive right 
 of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with, 
 them for their support and maintenance. And no person 
 of any one particular religious sect or denomination shall 
 ever be compelled to pay toward the support of the teacher 
 or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or denomination. 
 And every denomination of Christians, demeaning them- 
 selves quietly and as good subjects of the state, shall be 
 equally under the protection of the law; and no subordina- 
 tion of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever 
 be established by law. And nothing herein shall be under- 
 
APPENDIX B. 883 
 
 stood to affect any former contracts made for the support of 
 the ministry; but all such contracts shall remain and be in 
 the same state as if this constitution ha,d not been made. 
 
 Art. 7. The people of this state have the sole and exclu- 
 sive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and 
 independent state, and do> and forever hereafter shall, exer- 
 cise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining 
 thereto which is not or may not hereafter be by them 
 expressly delegated to the United States of America in con- 
 gress assembled. 
 
 
 
 Art. 8. All power residing originally in, and being derived 
 from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of govern- 
 ment are their substitutes and agents, and at all times 
 accountable to them. 
 
 Art. 9. No office or place whatsoever in government shall 
 be hereditary, the abilities and integrity requisite in all not 
 being transmissible to posterity or relations. 
 
 Art. 10. Government being instituted for the common 
 benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and 
 not for the private interest or emolument of any one mir.. 
 family, or class of men, therefore, whenever the ends of 
 government are perverted and public liberty manifestly en- 
 dangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the 
 people may, and of right ought to, reform the old or estab- 
 lish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance 
 against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and 
 destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. 
 
 Art. 11. All elections ought to be free; and every in- 
 habitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has 
 equal right to elect and be elected into 'office; but no person 
 shall have the right to vote, or be eligible to office under the 
 constitution of this state, who shall not be able to read the 
 constitution in the English language, and to write, provided, 
 however, that this provision shall not apply to any person 
 
884 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 prevented by a physical disability from complying with its 
 requisitions, nor to any person whio now has the right to- 
 vote, nor to any person who shall be sixty years of age or 
 upwards on the first day of January, A. D. 1904. 
 
 Art. 12. Every member of the community has a right to- 
 be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and 
 property. He is, therefore, bound to contribute his share 
 in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal 
 service, when necessary, or an equivalent, but no part of a 
 man's property shall be taken from him or applied to public 
 uses without his own consent or that of the representative 
 body of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this state 
 controllable by any other laws than those to which they or 
 their representative body have given their consent. 
 
 Art. 13. No person who is conscientiously scrupulous 
 about the lawfulness of bearing arms shall be compelled 
 thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent. 
 
 Art. 14. Every subject of this state is entitled to a certain 
 remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries he 
 may receive in his person, property, or character; to obtain 
 right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase 
 it; completely and without any denial; promptly, and without 
 any delay; conformably to the laws. 
 
 Art. 15. No subject sfyall be held to answer for any crime- 
 or offense until the same is fully and plainly, substantially 
 and formally, described to him, or be compelled to accuse or 
 furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall 
 have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to 
 himself, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to- 
 be fully heard in his defense by himself and counsel. And 
 no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or de- 
 prived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of 
 the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of life, liberty, 
 or estate, but by the judgment of his peers or the laws of the 
 land. 
 
APPENDIX B. 885 
 
 Art. 16. No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an 
 acquittal, for the same crime or offense; nor shall the legis- 
 lature make any law that shall subject any person to a capital 
 punishment (excepting for the government of the army and 
 navy, and the militia in actual service) without trial by jury. 
 
 Art. 17. In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the 
 vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security of 
 the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or 
 o! reuse ought to be tried in any other county than that in 
 which it is committed, except in cases of general insurrection 
 in any particular county, when it shall appear to the judges 
 of the superior court that an impartial trial cannot be had 
 in the county where the offense may be committed, and, 
 upon their report, the legislature shall think proper to direct 
 the trial in the nearest county in which <m impartial trial 
 <cari be obtained. 
 
 Art. 18. All penalties ought to be proportioned to the 
 nature of the offense. No wise legislature will affix the same 
 punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery, and the like, which 
 they do to those of murder and treason. "Where the same 
 un distinguishing severity is exerted against all offenses, the 
 people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes 
 themselves and to commit the most flagrant with as little 
 compunction as they do the lightest offenses. For the same 
 reason, a multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and 
 unjust, the true design of all punishment being to reform, 
 not to exterminate, mankind. 
 
 Art. 19. Every subject hath a right to be secure from all 
 unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his hou-cs, 
 liis papers, and all his possessions. Therefore, all warrant* 
 to search suspected places or arrest a person for examination 
 or trial, in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to 
 this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not pre- 
 viously supported by oath or affirmation, and i.f the order, in 
 *a warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places 
 
886 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 or to arrest one or more suspected persons or to seize their 
 property, be not accompanied with a special designation of 
 the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no 
 warrant ought to be issued but in cases and with the for- 
 malities prescribed by law. 
 
 Art. 20. In all controversies concerning property and in- 
 all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in 
 which it has been heretofore otherwise used and practised, 
 and except in cases in which the value in controversy does 
 not exceed one hundred dollars and title of real estate is not 
 concerned, the parties have a right to trial by jury; and this- 
 method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in cases- 
 arising on the high seas and such as relate to mariners' wages, 
 the legislature shall think it necessary hereafter to alter it. 
 
 Art. 21. In order to reap the fullest advantage of the 
 inestimable privilege of trial by jury, great care ought to be 
 taken that none but qualified persons should be appointed 
 to serve; and such ought to be fully compensated for their 
 travel, time, and attendance. 
 
 Art. 22. The liberty of the press is essential to the security 
 of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably 
 preserved. 
 
 Art. 23. Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppres- 
 sive, and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made,, 
 either for the decision of civil causes or the punishment of 
 offenses. 
 
 Art. 24. A well-regulated militia is the proper, natural,, 
 and sure defense of a state. 
 
 Art. 25. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and 
 ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent cf tlie- 
 legislature. 
 
 Art. 26. In all cases and at all times, the military ought 
 to be. under strict subordination to, and governed by, the 
 civil power. 
 
APPENDIX B. 88T 
 
 Art. 27. No soldier, in time of peace, shall be quartered 
 in any house without the consent of the owner; and, in time 
 of war, such quarters ought not to be made but by the -jivil 
 magistrate, in a, manner ordained by the legislature. 
 
 Art. 28. No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duty shall 
 be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext what- 
 soever, without the consent of the people, or their representa- 
 tives in the legislature, or authority derived from that body. 
 
 Art. 29. The power of suspending the laws or the execu- 
 tion of them ought never to be exercised but by the legis- 
 lature, or by authority derived therefrom, to be exercised in 
 such particular cases 'only as the legislature shall expressly 
 provide for. 
 
 Art. 30. The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate 
 in either house of the legislature is so essential to the rights 
 of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action, 
 complaint, or prosecution in any other court or place v, hat- 
 soever. 
 
 Art. 31. The legislature shall assemble for the redress of 
 public grievances and for making such laws as the public 
 good may require. 
 
 Art. 32. The people have a right, in an orderly and 
 peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the com- 
 mon good, give instructions to their representatives, and to 
 request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remoTi- 
 strance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the griev- 
 ances they suffer. 
 
 Art. 33. No magistrate or court of law shall demand 
 excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict 
 cruel or unusual punishments. 
 
 Art. 34. No person can, in any case, be subject <id to law 
 martial or to any pains or penalties by virtue of that law, 
 except those employed in the army or navy, and except the 
 militia in actual service, but by authority of the legislature. 
 
888 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Art. 35. It is essential to the preservation of the rights 
 of every individual, his life, liberi^, property, and character, 
 that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws and ad- 
 ministration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be 
 tried by judges as impartial as the lot otf humanity will 
 admit. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the 
 security of the rights of the people, that the judges of the 
 supreme judicial court should hold their offices so long as 
 they behave well, subject, however, to such limitations on 
 account of age as may be provided by the Constitution of the 
 state; and that they should have honorable salaries, ascer- 
 tained and established by standing law. 
 
 Art. 36. Economy being a most essential virtue in all 
 states, especially in a young one, no pension should be 
 granted but in consideration of actual services; and such 
 pensions ought to be granted with great caution by the 
 legislature, and never for more than one year at a, time. 
 
 Art. 37. In the government of this stale, the three essen- 
 tial powers thereof to wit, the legislative, executive, and 
 judicial ought to be kept as separate from, and independent 
 of, each other as the nature of a free government will admit 
 or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds 
 the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond 
 of union and amity. 
 
 Art. 38. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of the constitution and a constant adherence to justice, 
 moderation, temperance, industry, frugality and all the social 
 virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings 
 of liberty and good government. The people ought, there- 
 fore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in 
 the choice of their officers and representatives; and they have 
 a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates an exact 
 and constant observance of them in the formation and execu- 
 tion of the laws necessary for the good administration of 
 government. 
 
APPENDIX B. 889 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Article 1. The people inhabiting the territory formerly 
 c-alled The Province of New Hampshire do hereby solemnly 
 and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into 
 a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state, by 
 the name of THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 GENERAL COURT. 
 
 Art. 2. The supreme legislative power within this state 
 shall be vested in the senate and house of representatives, 
 each of which shall have a negative on the other. 
 
 Art. 3. The senate and house shall assemble biennially, 
 on the first Wednesday of January, and at such other times 
 as they may judge necessary, and shall dissolve and be dis- 
 solved seven days next preceding the said first Wednesday 
 of January biennially, and shall be styled THE GENERAL 
 COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 Art. 4. The general court shall forever have full po/wer 
 and authority to erect and constitute judicatories and courts 
 of record or other courts, to be holden in the name of the 
 state, for the hearing, trying, and determining all manner 
 of crimes, offenses, pleas, processes, plaints, actions, causes, 
 matters and things whatsoever, arising or happening within 
 Ihis state, or between or concerning persons inhabiting, or 
 residing, or brought within the same, whether the same be 
 criminal or civil, or whether the crimes be capital or not 
 capital, and whether the said pleas be real, personal, or mixed, 
 .and for the awarding and issuing execution thereon, to which 
 courts and judicatories are hereby given and granted full 
 power amd authority, from time to time, to administer oaths 
 or affirmations for the better discovery of truth in any mat- 
 ler in controversy or depending before them. 
 
890 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Art. 5. And, further, full power and authority are hereby 
 given and granted to the said general court, from time to 
 tame, to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome 
 and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, directions, 
 and instructions, either with penalties or without, so as the 
 same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution, 
 as they may judge for the benefit and welfare of this state 
 and for the governing and ordering thereof and of the sub- 
 jects of the same, for the necessary support and defense of 
 the government thereof; and to name and settle biennially, or 
 provide by fixed laws for the naming and settling of, all civil 
 officers within this state, such officers excepted the election 
 and appointment of whom are hereafter in this form of 
 government otherwise provided for; and to set forth tfce 
 several duties, powers, and limits of the several civil and 
 military officers of this state, and the forms of such oaths or 
 affirmations as shall be respectively administered unto them 
 for the execution of their several offices and places, so as the 
 same be not repugnant or contrary to this Constitution; and 
 also to impose fines, mulcts, imprisonments, and other pun- 
 ishments; and to impose and levy proportional and reason- 
 able assessments, rates, and taxes upon all the inhabitants 
 of, and residents within, the said state, and upon all estates 
 within the same, to be issued and disposed of by warrant, 
 under the hand of the governor of this state for the time 
 being, with the aidvice and consent of the council, for the 
 public service, in the necessary defense and support of the 
 government of this state and the protection and preservation 
 of the subjects thereof, according to such acts as are or shall 
 be in force within the same. Provided, that the general 
 court shall not authorize any town to loan or give its money 
 or credit, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any corpora- 
 tion having for its object a dividend of profits, or in any way 
 aid the same by taking its stock or bonds. 
 
 Art. 6. The public charges of government or any part 
 thereof may be raised by taxation upon polls, estates, and 
 
APPENDIX B. 891 
 
 other classes of property, including franchises and property 
 when passing by will or inheritance; and there shall be a 
 valuation of the estates within the state taken anew once in 
 every five years, at least, and as much oftener as the general 
 court shall order. 
 
 Art. 7. No member of the general court shall take fees, 
 be of counsel, or act as advocate in any cause before either 
 branch of the legislature; and upon due proof thereof, such 
 member shall forfeit his seat in the legislature. 
 
 Art. 8. The dooirs of the galleries of each house of the 
 legislature shall be kept open to all persons who behave de- 
 cently, except when the welfare of the state, in the opinion of 
 either branch, shall require secrecy. 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 Art. 9. There shall be, in the legislature of the state, a 
 representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded 
 upon the principles of equality; and, in order that such repre- 
 sentation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, every 
 town, or place entitled ten town privileges, and wards of cities 
 having six hundred inhabitants by the last general census 
 of the state, taken by authority of the United States or of 
 this stata, may elect one representative; if eighteen hundred 
 such inhabitants, may elect two representatives; and so pro- 
 ceeding in that proportion, making twelve hundred such 
 inhabitants the mean increasing number for any additional 
 representative. Provided, that no town shall be divided or 
 the boundaries of the wards of any city so altered as to 
 increase the number of representatives to which such town 
 or city may be entitled by the next preceding census; and 
 provided further, that to those towns and cities which since- 
 the last census have been divided or had their boundaries 
 or ward lines changed, the general court, in session next 
 before these amendments shall take effect, shall equitably 
 apportion representation in such manner that the number 
 shall not be greater than it would have been had no such 
 division or alteration been made. 
 
392 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Art. 10. Whenever any town, place, or city ward shall 
 have less than six hundred such inhabitants, the general court 
 shall authorize such town, place, or ward to elect and send 
 to the general court a representative such proportionate part < 
 of the time as the number of its inhabitants shall bear to six 
 hundred; but the general court shall not authorize any such 
 town, place, or ward to elect and send such representative, 
 except as herein provided. 
 
 Arti 11. The members of the house of representatives shall 
 be chosen biennially, in the month of November, and shall 
 be the second branch of the legislature. 
 
 Art. 12. All persons qualified to vote in the election of 
 senators shall be entitled to vote, within the district where 
 they dwell, in the choice of representatives. 
 
 Art. 13. Every member of the house of representatives 
 shall be chosen by ballot, and, for two years, at least, next 
 preceding his election, shall have been an inhabitant of this 
 state; shall be, at the time of his election, an inhabitant of 
 the town, parish, or place he may be chosen to represent; and 
 shall cease to represent such town, parish, or place imme- 
 diately on his ceasing to be qualified as aforesaid. 
 
 Art. 14. The presiding officers of both houses of the 
 legislature shall severally receive out of the state treasury 
 as compensatiooa in full for their services, for the term 
 elected, the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, and all 
 other members thereof seasonably attending and not depart- 
 ing without license, the sum of two hundred dollars, exclu- 
 sive of mileage; provided, however, that when a special session 
 shall be called by the governor, such officers and members 
 shall receive for attendance an additional compensation of 
 three dollars per day for a period not exceeding fifteen days, 
 and the usual mileage. 
 
 Art. 15. All intermediate vacancies in the house of repre- 
 sentatives may be filled up from time to time in the same 
 manner as biennial elections are made. 
 
APPENDIX B. 89 
 
 Art. 16. The house of representatives shall be the grand 
 inquest of the state, and all impeachments made by them 
 shall be heard and tried by the senate. 
 
 Art. 17. All money bills shall originate in the house of 
 representatives, but the senate may propose or concur with 
 amendments, as on other bills. 
 
 Art. 18. The house of representatives shall have power 
 to adjourn themselves, but no longer than two days at a 
 time. 
 
 Art. 19. A majority of the members of the house of 
 representatives shall be a quorum for doing business, but, 
 when less than two thirds of the representatives elected shall 
 be present, the assent of two thirds of those members shall be 
 necessary to render their acts and proceedings valid. 
 
 Art. 20. No member of the house of representatives or 
 senate shall be arrested or held to bail on mesne process 
 during his going to, returning from, or attendance upon, the- 
 court. 
 
 Art. 21. The house of representatives shall choose their 
 own speaker, appoint their own officers, and settle the rules- 
 of proceedings in their own house, and shall be judge of the 
 returns, elections, and qualifications oif its members, ap- 
 pointed out in this Constitution. They shall have authority 
 to punish by imprisonment every person who shall be guilty 
 of disrespect to the house, in its presence, by any disorderly 
 and contemptuous behavior, or by threatening or ill-treating 
 any of its members, or by obstructing its deliberations; every 
 person guilty of a breach of its privileges in making arrests 
 for debt, or by assaulting any member during his attendance 
 at any session; in assaulting or disturbing any one of its 
 officers in the execution of any order or procedure of the 
 house; in assaulting any witness or other person ordered 
 to attend by, and during his attendance of, the house, or in 
 rescuing any person arrested by order of the house, knowing 
 them to be such. 
 
894 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Art. 22. The senate, governor,, and council shall have the 
 same powers in like cases, provided, that no imprisonment 
 by either for any offense exceed ten days. 
 
 Art. 23. The journals of the proceedings and all public 
 acts of both houses of the legislature shall be printed and 
 published immediately after every adjournment or proroga- 
 tion, and, upon motion made by any one member, the yeas 
 and nays upon any question shall be entered on the journal, 
 and any member of the senate or house of representatives 
 shall have a right, on motion made at the same time for that 
 purpose, to have his protest or dissent, with the reasons, 
 against any vote, resolve, or bill passed, entered on the 
 journal. 
 
 SENATE. 
 
 Art. 24. The senate shall consist of twenty-four members, 
 who shall hold their office for two years from the first 
 Wednesday of January next ensuing their election. 
 
 Art. 25. And, that the state may be equally represented 
 in the senate, the legislature shall, from time to time, divide 
 the state into twenty-four districts, as nearly equal as may 
 be without dividing towns and unincorporated places; and, 
 in making this division, they shall govern themselves by the 
 proportion of direct taxes paid by the said districts, and 
 timely make known to the inhabitants of the state the limits 
 of each district. 
 
 Art. 26. The freeholders and other inhabitants of each 
 district, qualified as in this constitution is provided, shall, 
 biennially, give in their votes for a senator at some meeting 
 holden in the month of November. 
 
 Art. 27. The senate shall be the first branch of the legis- 
 lature, and the senators shall be chosen in the following 
 manner, viz.: every male inhabitant of each town, and parish 
 with town privileges, and places unincorporated, in this state, 
 of twenty-one years of age and upward, excepting paupers 
 and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request, 
 
APPENDIX B. 895 
 
 shall have a right, at the biennial or other meetings of the 
 inhabitants of said towns and parishes, to be duly warned 
 and holden biennially, forever, in the month of November, 
 to vote, in the town or parish wherein he dwells, for the 
 senator in the district whereof he is a member. 
 
 Art. 28. Provided, nevertheless, that no person shall be 
 capable of being elected a senator who is not of the age of 
 thirty years, and who shall not have been an inhabitant of 
 this state for seven years immediately preceding his election; 
 and, at the time thereof, he shall be an inhabitant of the 
 district for which he shall be chosen. 
 
 Art, 29. And every person qualified as the constitution 
 provides shall be considered an inhabitant, for the purpose 
 of electing and being elected into any office or place within 
 this state, in the town, parish, and plantation where he 
 dwelleth and hath his home. 
 
 Art. 30. And the inhabitants of plantations and places 
 unincorporated, qualified as this constitution provides, who 
 are or shall be required to assess taxes upon themselves 
 towards the support of government, or shall be taxed there- 
 for, shall have the same privilege of voting for senators, in 
 the plantations, and places wherein they reside as the inhab- 
 itants of the respective towns and parishes aforesaid have. 
 And the meetings of such plantations and places, for that 
 purpose, shall be holden biennially in the month of Novem- 
 ber, at such places respectively therein as the assessors 
 thereof shall direct; which assessors shall have like authority 
 for notifying the electors, collecting and returning the votes, 
 as the selectmen, and town, clerks have in their several towns 
 by this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 31. The meetings for the choice of governor, council, 
 and senators, shall be warned by warrant from the selectmen, 
 and governed by a moderator, who shall, in the presence of 
 the selectmen (whose duty it shall be to attend), in open meet- 
 ing, receive the votes of all the inhabitants of such towns 
 
896 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 and parishes present and qualified to vote for senators; and 
 shall, in said meetings, in presence of the said selectmen and 
 of the town clerk in said meetings^ sort and count the said 
 votes, and make a public declaration thereof, with the name 
 of every person voted for and the number of votes for each 
 person; and the town clerk shall make a fair record of the 
 same, at large, in the town book, and shall make out a fair 
 attested copy thereof, to be; by him sealed up and directed 
 to the secretary of the state, with a superscription expressing 
 the purport thereof; and the said town clerk shall cause such 
 attested copy to be delivered to the sheriff of the county in 
 which said town or parish shall lie thirty days, at least, 
 before the first Wednesday of January, or to the secretary of 
 the state at least twenty days before the said first Wednesday 
 of January; and the sheriff of each county or his deputy shall 
 deliver all such certificates by him received into the secre- 
 tary's office at least twenty days before the first Wednesday of 
 January. 
 
 Art. 32. And, that there may be a due meeting of senators 
 on the first Wednesday of January, biennially, the governor 
 and a majority of the council for the time being shall, as- 
 soon as may be, examine the returned copies of such records, 
 and, fourteen days before the first Wednesday of January, 
 he shall issue his summons to such persons as appear to be 
 chosen senators by a majority of votes to attend and take 
 their seats on that day: provided, nevertheless, that, for the 
 first year, the said returned copies shall be examined by the 
 president and a majority of the council then in office; and 
 the said president shall, in like manner, notify the persons 
 elected to attend and take their seats accordingly. 
 
 Art. 33. And in case there shall not appear to be a 
 senator elected by a majority of votes for any district, the 
 deficiency shall be supplied in the following manner, viz.: 
 the members of the house of representatives and such sen- 
 ators as shall be declared elected shall take the names of the 
 two persons having the highest number of votes in the dis- 
 
APPENDIX B. 897 
 
 trict, and out of them shall elect, by joint ballot, the senator 
 wanted for such district; and, in this manner, all such va- 
 cancies shall be filled up in every district of the state; all 
 vacancies in the senate arising by death, removal out of the 
 state, or otherwise, except from failure to elect, shall be filled 
 by a new election by the people of the district, upon the 
 requisition of the governor, as soon as may be after such 
 vacancies shall happen. 
 
 Art. 34. The senate shall be final judges of the elections, 
 returns, and qualifications of their own members, as pointed 
 out in this Constitution. 
 
 Art. 35. The senate shall have power to adjourn them- 
 selves, provided such adjournments do not exceed two days 
 at a time: provided, nevertheless, that, whenever they shall 
 sit on the trial of any impeachment, they may adjourn to 
 such time and place as: they may think proper, although the 
 legislature be not assembled on such day or at such place. 
 
 Art. 36. The senate shall appoint their president and 
 other officers, and determine their own rules of proceedings. 
 And not less than thirteen members of the senate shall make 
 a quorum for doing business; and, when less than sixteen 
 senators shall be present, the assent of ten, at least, shall be 
 necessary to render their acts and proceedings valid. 
 
 Art. 37. The senate shall be a court, with full power and 
 authority to hear, try, and determine all impeachments 
 made by the house of representatives against any officer or 
 officers of the state, for bribery, corruption, malpractice, or 
 maladministration in office, with full power to issue summons 
 or compulsory process for convening witnesses before them; 
 but, previous to th# trial of any such impeachment, the 
 members of the senate shall respectively be sworn truly and 
 impartially to try and determine the charge in question ac- 
 cording to evidence. And every officer impeached for brib- 
 ery, corruption, malpractice, or maladministration in office, 
 shall be served with an attested copy of the impeachment 
 57 
 
898 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 and order of senate thereon, with such citation as the 
 senate may direct, setting forth the time and place of their 
 sitting to try the impeachment; which service shall be made 
 by the sheriff, or such other sworn officer as the senate may 
 appoint,, at least fourteen days previous to the time of trial; 
 and, such citation being duly served and returned,, the senate 
 may proceed in the hearing of the impeachment, giving the 
 person impeached, if he shall appear, full liberty of producing 
 witnesses and proofs and of making his defense by himself 
 and counsel; and may, also, upon his refusing or neglecting 
 to appear, hear the proofs in support of the impeachment, 
 and render judgment thereon, his non-appearance notwith- 
 standing; and such judgment shall have the same force and 
 effect as if the person impeached had appeared and pleaded 
 in the trial. 
 
 Art. 38. Their judgment, however, shall not extend 
 further than removal from office, disqualification to hold 
 or enjoy any place of honor, trust, or profit under this state; 
 but the party so convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable to 
 indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to 
 the laws of the land. 
 
 Art. 39. Whenever the governor shall be impeached, the 
 chief justice of the supreme judicial court shall, during the 
 trial, preside in the senate, but have no vote therein. 
 
 EXECUTIVE POWER. GOVERNOR. 
 
 Art. 40. There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, 
 who shall be styled Governor of the State of New Hamp- 
 shire, and whose title shall be His Excellency. 
 
 Art. 41. The governor shall be chosen biennially, in the 
 month of November, and the votes for governor shall be 
 received, sorted, counted, certified, and returned in the same 
 manner as the votes for senators; and the secretary shall lay 
 the same before the senate and house of representatives on 
 the first Wednesday of January, to; be by them examined; 
 
APPENDIX B. 899 
 
 and, in case of an election by a majority of votes through 
 the state, the choice shall be by them declared and published; 
 and the qualifications of electors of the governor shall be 
 the same as those for senators; and, if no person shall have 
 a majority of votes, the senate and house of representatives 
 shall, by a joint ballot, elect one of the two persons having 
 the highest number of votes, who shall be declared governor. 
 And no person shall be eligible to this office unless, at the 
 time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this 
 state for seven years next preceding, and unless he shall be 
 of the age of thirty years. 
 
 Art. 42. In case of disagreement between the two houses 
 with regard to the time or place of adjournment or proroga- 
 tion, the governor, with advice of council, shall have the 
 right to adjourn or prorogue the general court, not exceeding 
 ninety days at any one time, as he may determine the public 
 good may require; and he shall dissolve the same seven days 
 before the said first Wednesday of January. And, in case 
 of any infectious distemper prevailing in the place where the 
 said court at any time is tc convene, or any other cause 
 whereby dangers may arise to the health or lives of the mem- 
 bers from their attendance, the governor may direct the 
 session to be holden at some other, the most convenient, place 
 within the state. 
 
 Art. 43. Every bill which shall have passed both houses 
 of the general court shall, before it becomes a law, be pre- 
 sented to the governor; if he approve, he shall sign it, but 
 if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house 
 in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objec- 
 tions at large on their journal and proceed to reconsider it. 
 If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall 
 agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with such 
 objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be 
 reconsidered; and, if approved by two thirds of that house, 
 it shall become a law. But, in. all such cases, the votes of 
 both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the 
 
900 JOURNAL OP CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 names of the persons voting for or against the bill shall be 
 entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any 
 bill shall not be returned by the governor within five days 
 (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him r 
 the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed 
 it, unless the legislature, by their adjournment, prevent its- 
 return, in which case it shall not be a law. 
 
 Art. 44. Every resolve shall be presented to the governor, 
 and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by 
 him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by the- 
 senate and house of representatives, according to the rules 
 and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. 
 
 Art. 45. All judicial officers, the attorney-general, coron- 
 ers, and all officers of the navy and general and field officers 
 of the militia., shall be nominated and appointed by the 
 governor and council; and every such nomination shall be 
 made at least three days prior to such appointment; and no 
 appointment shall take place unless a majority of the council 
 agree thereto. 
 
 Art. 46. The governor and council shall have a negative 
 on each other, both in the nominations and appointments. 
 Every nomination and appointment shall be signed by the 
 governor and council, and every negative shall be also signed 
 by the governor or council who made the same. 
 
 Art. 47. The captains and subalterns in the respective 
 regiments shall be nominated and recommended by the field 
 officers to the governor, who is to issue their commissions 
 immediately on 'receipt of such recommendation; provided, 
 that no person shall be so nominated and recommended until 
 he shall have been examined and found duly qualified by an 
 examining board appointed by the governor. 
 
 Art. 48. Whenever the chair of the governor shall become 
 vacant, by reason of his death, absence from the state, or 
 otherwise, the president of the senate shall, during such 
 
APPENDIX B. 901 
 
 vacancy, have and exercise all powers and authorities, which 
 by this Constitution, the governor is vested with when per- 
 sonally present; but when the president of the senate shall 
 exercise the office of governor, he shall not hold his office 
 in the senate. Whenever the chair, both of the governor 
 and of the president of the senate, shall become vacant, by 
 reason of their death, absence from the state, or otherwise, 
 the speaker of the house shall, during such vacancies, have 
 and exercise all the powers and authorities which, by this 
 constitution, the governor is vested with when personally 
 present; but when the speaker of the house shall exercise 
 the office of governor, he shall not hold his office in the house. 
 
 Art. 49. The governor, with advice of council, shall have 
 full power and authority, in recess of the general court, to 
 prorogue the same from time to time, not exceeding ninety 
 days in any one recess of said court, and, during the sessions 
 of said court to adjourn or prorogue it to any time the two 
 houses may desire; and to call it together sooner than the 
 time to which it may be adjourned or prorogued, if the 
 welfare of the state should require the same. 
 
 Art. 50. The governor of this state, for the time being, 
 shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy and all 
 th|e military forces of the state by sea and land; and shall 
 have full power, by himself or by any chief commander or 
 other officer or officers, from time to time, to train, instruct, 
 exercise and govern the militia and navy; and, for the special 
 defense and safety of this state, to assemble in martial array 
 and put in warlike posture the inhabitants thereof, and to 
 lead and conduct them, and with them to encounter, repulse, 
 repel, resist, and pursue by force of arms, as well by sea as 
 by land, within and without the limits of this state; and also 
 to kill, slay, destroy, if necessary, and conquer by all fitting 
 ways, enterprise, and means, all and every such person and 
 persons as shall at any time hereafter, in a hostile manner, 
 attempt or enterprise the destruction, invasion, detriment, 
 or annoyance of this state; and to use and exercise over the 
 
902 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 army and navy and over the militia in actual service the 
 law martial in time of war, invasion, and, also, in rebellion 
 declared by the legislature to exist, as occasion shall neces- 
 sarily require; and surprise by all ways and means whatso- 
 ever, all and every such person or persons, with their ships, 
 arms, ammunition, and other goods, as shall, in a hostile 
 manner invade, or attempt the invading, conquering or an- 
 noying this state; and,, in fine, the governor hereby is 
 intrusted with all other powers incident to the office as cap- 
 tain-general and commander-in-chief and admiral, to be exer- 
 cised agreeably to the rules and regulations of the constitu- 
 tion and the laws of the land; provided, that the governor 
 shall not, at any time hereafter, by virtue of any power by 
 this constitution granted, or hereafter to be granted to him 
 by the legislature, transport any of the inhabitants of this 
 state or oblige them to march out of the limits of the same 
 without their free and voluntary consent or the consent of 
 the general court, nor grant commissions for exercising the 
 law martial in any case without the advice and consent of 
 the council. 
 
 Art. 51. The power of pardoning offenses, except such a,s 
 persons may be convicted of before the senate, by impeach- 
 ment of the house, shall be in the governor, by and with the- 
 advice of the council; but no charter of pardon, granted by 
 the governor, with advice of council before conviction, shall 
 avail the party pleading the same, notwithstanding any gen- 
 eral or particular expressions contained therein, descriptive 
 of the offense or offenses intended to be pardoned. 
 
 Art. 52. No officer, duly commissioned to command in the 
 militia, shall be removed from his office but by the address of 
 both houses to the governor, or by fair trial in court-martial 
 pursuant to thje laws of the state for the time being. 
 
 Art. 53. The commanding officers of the regiments shall 
 appoint their adjutants and quartermasters; the brigadiers, 
 their brigade-majors; the major-generals, their aides; t he- 
 cap tains and subalterns, their non-commissioned officers. 
 
APPENDIX B. 903 
 
 Art. 54. The division of tlie militia into brigades, regi- 
 ments, and companies, made in pursuance of the militia laws 
 now in force, shall be considered as the proper division of the 
 militia of this state, until the same shall be altered by some 
 future law. 
 
 Art. 55. No money shall be issued out of the treasury of 
 this state and disposed of (except such sums as may be ap- 
 propriated for the redemption of bills of credit or treasurer's 
 notes, or for the payment of interest arising thereon) but by 
 warrant under the hand of the governor for the time being, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the council, for the 
 necessary support and defense of this state, and for the 
 necessary protection and preservation of the inhabitants 
 thereof, agreeably to the acts and resolves of the general 
 court. 
 
 Art, 56. All public boards, the commissary-general, all 
 superintending officers of public magazines and stores be- 
 longing to this state, and all commanding officers of forts 
 and garrisons within the same, shall, once in every three 
 months, officially and without requisition, and at other times 
 when required by the governor, deliver to him an account of 
 all goods, stores, provisions, ammunition, cannon with their 
 appendages, and all small arms with their accoutrements, and 
 all other public property under their care respectively, dis- 
 tinguishing the quantity and kind of each as particularly as 
 may be, together with the condition of such forts and gar- 
 risons. And the commanding officer shall exhibit to the 
 governor, when required by him true and exact plans of 
 such forts, and of the land and sea, or harbor or harbors 
 adjacent. 
 
 Art. 57. The governor and council shall be compensated 
 for their services, from time to time, by such grants as the 
 general court shall think reasonable. 
 
 Art. 58. Permanent and honorable salaries shall be estab- 
 lished by law for the justices of the superior court. 
 
904 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 COUNCIL. 
 
 Art. 59. There shall be biennially elected by ballot five 
 councilors, for advising the governor in the executive part of 
 government. The freeholders and other inhabitants in each 
 county, qualified to vote for senators, shall, some time in the 
 month of November, give in their votes for one councilor, 
 which votes shall be received, sorted, counted, certified, and 
 returned to the secretary's office, in the same manner as the 
 votes for senators, to be by the secretary laid before the 
 senate and house of representatives on the first Wednesday 
 of January. 
 
 Art. 60. And the person having a majority of votes in 
 any county shall be considered as duly elected a councilor; 
 "but if noi person shall have a majority of votes in any 
 county, the senate and house of representatives shall take 
 the names of the two persons who have the highest num- 
 ber of votes in each county and not elected, and, out of 
 those two, shall elect, by joint ballot, the councilor wanted 
 for such county; and the qualifications for councilors shall 
 be the same as for senator. 
 
 Art. 61. If any person thus chosen a councilor shall 
 be elected governor or member of either branch of the 
 legislature, and shall accept the trust, or if any person 
 elected a councilor shall refuse to accept the office, or in 
 case of the death, resignation, or removal of any councilor 
 out of the state, the governor may issue a precept for the 
 election of a new councilor in that county where such 
 vacancy shall happen; and the choice shall be in the same 
 manner as before directed; and the governor shall have 
 full power and authority to convene the council, from 
 time to time, at his discretion; and, with them or the 
 majority of them, may and shall, from time to time, hold 
 a council for ordering and directing the affairs of this 
 state, according to the laws of the land. 
 
APPENDIX B. 905 
 
 Art. 62. The members of the council may be impeached 
 by the house and tried by the senate for bribery, corrup- 
 tion, malpractice, or maladministration. 
 
 Art. 63. The resolutions and advice of the council shall 
 be recorded by the secretary in a register, and signed by 
 all the members present agreeing thereto; and this record 
 may be called for at; any time by either house of the legis- 
 lature; and any member of the council may enter his 
 opinion contrary to the resolution of the majority, with 
 the reasons for such opinion. 
 
 Art. 64. The legislature may, if the public good shall 
 liereafter require it, divide the state into five districts, 
 as nearly equal as may be, governing themselves by the 
 number of ratable polls and proportion of public taxes, 
 each district to elect a councilor; and, in case of such 
 division, the manner of the choice shall be conformable 
 to the present mode of election in counties. 
 
 Art. 65. And, whereas the elections appointed to be 
 made by this Constitution on the first Wednesday of Jan- 
 uary biennially, by the two houses of the legislature, may 
 not be completed on that day, the said elections may be 
 adjourned from day to day until the same be completed. 
 And the order of the elections shall be as follows: The 
 vacancies in the senate, if any, shall be first filled up; the 
 governor -shall then be elected, provided there shall be no 
 choice of him by the people; and afterwards, thje two 
 houses shall proceed to fill up the vacancy, if any, in the 
 council. 
 
 SECRETARY, TREASURER, COMMISSARY-GENERAL, ETC. 
 
 Art,. 66. The secretary, treasurer, and commissary-gen- 
 <eral shall be chosen by joint ballot of the senators and 
 representatives, assembled in one room. 
 
 Art. 67. The records of the state shall be kept in the 
 office of the secretary; and he shall attend the governor 
 
906 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 and council, the senate and representatives, in person or 
 by deputy, as they may require. 
 
 Art. 68. The secretary of the state shall at all times 
 have a deputy to be by him appointed, for whose con- 
 duct in office he shall be responsible; and, in case of the 
 death, removal or inability of the secretary, his deputy 
 shall exercise all the duties of the office of secretary of 
 this state until another shall be appointed. 
 
 Art. 69. The secretary, before he enters upon the busi- 
 ness of his office, shall give bond, with sufficient sureties, 
 in a reasonable sum, for the use of the state, for the punc- 
 tual performance of his trust. 
 
 Art. 70. The county treasurers, registers of probate, 
 solicitors, sheriffs, and registers of deeds shall be elected by 
 the inhabitants of the several towns in the several counties 
 in tihe state, according to the method now practised and 
 the laws of the state; provided, nevertheless, the legislature 
 shall have authority to alter the manner of certifying the 
 votes and the mode of electing those officers, but not so 
 as to deprive the people of tile right they now have of 
 electing them. 
 
 Art. 71. And the legislature, on the application of the 
 major part of the inhabitants of any county, shall have 
 authority to divide the same into two districtis for regis- 
 tering deeds, if to them it shall appear necessary, each 
 district to elect a register of deeds; and before they enter 
 upon the business of their offices, shall be respectively 
 sworn faithfully to discharge the duties thereof, and shall 
 severally give bond, with sufficient sureties, in a reason- 
 able sum, for the use of the county, for the punctual per- 
 formance of their respective trusts. 
 
 JUDICIARY POWER. 
 
 Art. 72. The tenure that all commissioned officers shall 
 have by law in their offices shall be expressed in their re- 
 
APPENDIX B. 90T 
 
 spective commissions. All judicial officers, duly appointed, 
 commissioned, and sworn shall hold their offices during 
 good behavior, excepting those concerning whom there is 
 a different provision made in this constitution; provided, 
 nevertheless, the governor,, with consent of council, may 
 remove them upon the address of both houses of the legis- 
 lature. 
 
 Art. 73. Each branch of the legislature, as well as the 
 governor and council, shall have authority to require the 
 opinions of the justices of the superior court upon impor- 
 tant questions of law and upon solemn occasions. 
 
 Art. 74. In order that the people may not suffer from 
 the long continuance in place of any justice of the peace 
 who shall fail in discharging the important duties of his 
 office with ability and fidelity, all commissions of justices of 
 the peace shall become void at the expiration of five years 
 from their respective dates; and, upon the expiration of 
 any commission, the same may, if necessary, be renewed, 
 or another person appointed, as shall most conduce to the 
 well-being of the state. 
 
 Art. 75. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony,, 
 and all appeals from the respective judges of probate, shall 
 be heard and tried by the superior court until the legis- 
 lature shall by law make other provision. 
 
 Art. 7^6. The general court are empowered to give to 
 justices of the peace jurisdiction in civil causes, when the 
 damages demanded shall not exceed one hundred dollars, 
 and title of real estate is not concerned, but with right 
 of appeal to either party to some other court. 
 
 Art. 77. ISTo person shall hold the office of judge of any 
 court, or judge of probate, oir sheriff of any county, after 
 he has attained the age of seventy years. 
 
 Art. 78. No judge of any court or justice of the peace- 
 shall act as attorney, or be of counsel to any party, or 
 
908 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 originate any civil suit, in matters which shall come or be 
 brought before him as judge or justice of the peace. 
 
 Art. 79. All matters relating to the probate of wills 
 .and granting letters of administration shall be exercised 
 by the judges of probate in such manner as the legislature 
 liave directed or may hereafter direct; and the judges of 
 probate shall hold their courts at such place or places, on 
 such fixed days as the oonveniency of the people may re- 
 quire, and the legislature from time to time appoint. 
 
 Art. 80. No judge or register of probate shall be of 
 counsel, act as advocate, or receive any fees as advocate or 
 counsel, in any probate business which is pending or may 
 be brought into any court of probate in the county of 
 which he is judge or register. 
 
 CLERKS OF COURTS. 
 
 Art. 81. The judges of the courts (those of probate ex- 
 cepted) shall appoint their respective clerks, to hold their 
 office during pleasure; and no such clerk shall act as an attor- 
 ney or be of counsel in any cause in the court of which 
 he is a clerk, nor shall he draw any writ originating a civil 
 action. 
 
 ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITERATURE, ETC. 
 
 Art. 82. Knowledge and learning generally diffused 
 through a community being essential to the preservation 
 of a free government, and spreading the opportunities and 
 advantages of education throfugh the various parts of the 
 country being highly conducive to promote this end, it 
 shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all 
 future periods of this government, to cherish the interest 
 of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and pub- 
 lic schools; to encourage private and public institutions, 
 rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, 
 arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and natural 
 history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the 
 
APPENDIX B. 909< 
 
 principles of humanity and general benevolence, public 
 and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and 
 punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections and 
 generous sentiments, among the people; provided, neverthe- 
 less, that no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted 
 or applied for the use of the schools or institutions of any 
 religious sect or denomination. Free and fair competition 
 in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential 
 right of the people and should be protected against all 
 monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or de- 
 stroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should 
 be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capital- 
 ization, and provision, should be made for the supervision 
 and government thereof: Therefore, all just power pos- 
 sessed by the state is hereby granted to the general court 
 to enact laws to prevent the operations within the state 
 of all persons and associations, and all trusts and corpora- 
 tions, foreign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who 
 endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or 
 to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and in- 
 dustries through combination, conspiracy, monopoly, or 
 any other unfair means; to control and regulate the acts 
 of all such persons, associations, corporations, trusts, and 
 officials doing business within the state; to prevent ficti- 
 tious capitalization; and to authorize civil and criminal 
 proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein declared 
 against. 
 
 OATHS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS. EXCLUSION FROM OFFICES. 
 COMMISSIONS. WRITS. CONFIRMATION OF LAWS. HABEA& 
 CORPUS. THE ENACTING STYLE. CONTINUANCE OF OFFI- 
 CERS. PROVISION FOR A FUTURE REVISION OF THE CON- 
 STITUTION. ETC. 
 
 Art. 83. Any person chosen governor, councilor, sen- 
 ator, or representative, military or civil officer (town of- 
 ficers excepted), accepting the trust, shall, before he pro- 
 
910 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 ceeds to execute the duties of his office, make and subscribe 
 the following declarations, viz. : 
 
 I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will bear faith and trtue 
 allegiance to the state of New Hampshire, and will sup- 
 port the constitution thereof. So help me God. 
 
 I 9 A B, do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I 
 will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all 
 
 the duties incumbent on me as , according to the 
 
 best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations 
 of this constitution and the laws of the state of New 
 Hampshire. So help me God. 
 
 Any person having taken and subscribed the oath of al- 
 legiance, and the same being filed in, the secretary's office, 
 he shall not be obliged to take said oath again. 
 
 Provided) always, when any person chosen or appointed 
 as aforesaid shall be of the denomination called Quakers, 
 or shall be scrupulous of swearing and shall decline taking 
 the said oaths, such person shall take and subscribe them, 
 omitting the word "swear," and likewise the words, "So 
 help me God" subjoining instead thereof, "This I do under 
 the pains and penalties of perjury" 
 
 Art. 84. And the oaths or affirmations shall be taken 
 and subscribed by the governor, before the president of the 
 senate, in the presence of both houses of the legislature; and 
 by the senators and representatives first elected under this 
 constitution, as altered and amended, before the president 
 of the state and a majority of the council then in office, 
 and forever afterward before the governor and council for 
 the time being; and by all other officers, before such per- 
 sons and in such manner as the legislature shall from time 
 to time appoint. 
 
 Art. 85. All commissions shall be in the name of the 
 state of New Hampshire, signed by the governor, and at- 
 tested by the secretary or his deputy, and shall have the 
 great seal of the state affixed thereto. 
 
APPENDIX B. 911 
 
 Art. 86. All writs issuing out of the clerk's office in 
 any of the courts of law, shall be in the name of the state 
 of New Hampshire., shall be under the seal of the court 
 whence they issue, and bear teste of the chief, first or 
 senior justice of the court; but when such justice shall be 
 interested, then the writ shall bear test of some other 
 justice of the court to which the same shall be returnable; 
 and be signed by the clerk of such court. 
 
 Art. 87. All indictments, presentments, and informa- 
 tions shall conclude, "against the peace and dignity of the 
 state." 
 
 Art. 88. The estate of such persons as may destroy 
 their own lives shall not for that offense be forfeited, but 
 descend or ascend in the same manner as if such persons 
 had died in a natural way. Nor shall any article which 
 shall accidentally occasion the death of any person be 
 henceforth deemed a deodand, or in any wise forfeited on 
 account of such misfortune. 
 
 Art. 89. All the laws which have heretofore been 
 adopted, used, and approved in the province, colony, or 
 state of New Hampshire, and usually practised on in the 
 courts of law, shall remain and be in full force until al- 
 tered and repealed by the legislature, such parts thereof 
 only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties 
 contained in this Constitution; provided, that nothing 
 herein contained, when compared with the twenty-third 
 article in the bill of rights, shall be construed to affect the 
 laws already made respecting the persons or estates of ab- 
 sentees. 
 
 Art. 90. The privilege and benefit of the habeas corpus 
 shall be enjoyed in this state, in the most free, easy, cheap, 
 expeditious, and ample manner, and shall not be suspended 
 by the legislature except upon the most urgent and press- 
 ing occasions, and for a time not exceeding three months. 
 
 Art. 91. The enacting style in making and passing acts, 
 
912 JOURNAL OF .CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 statutes, and laws shall be, Be it enacted ~by the senate and 
 house of representatives in general court convened. 
 
 Art. 92. No governor or judge of the supreme judicial 
 court shall hold any office or place under the authority of 
 this state, except such as by this constitution they are 
 admitted to hold, saving that the judges of the said court may 
 hold the offices of justices of the peace throughout the 
 state; nor shall they hold any place or office or receive any 
 pension or salary, from any other state, government, or 
 power whatever. 
 
 Art. 93. No person shall be capable of exercising at the 
 same time more than one of the following offices in this 
 state, viz.: judge of probate, sheriff, register of deeds; and 
 never more than two offices of profit, which may be held 
 by appointment of the governor, or governor and council, 
 or senate and house of representatives, or superior or in- 
 ferior courts, military offices and offices of justices of the- 
 peace excepted. 
 
 Art. 94. No person holding the office of judge of any 
 court (except special judges), secretary, treasurer of the 
 state, attorney-general, commissary-general, military officers 
 receiving pay from the continent or this state (ex- 
 cepting officers of the militia occasionally called forth on 
 an emergency), register of deeds, sheriffs, or officers of the 
 customs, including naval officers, collectors of excise and 
 state and continental taxes hereafter appointed, and not 
 having settled their accounts with the respective officers 
 witth whom it is their duty to settle such accounts, mem- 
 bers of congress, or any person holding any office under 
 the United States, shall at the same time hold the office of 
 governor, or have a seats in the senate or house of repre- 
 sentatives or council; but his being chosen and appointed 
 to and accepting the same shall operate as a resignation 
 of his seat in the chair, senate^ or house of representatives, 
 or council, and the place so vacated shall be filled up. No 
 
APPENDIX B. 913 
 
 member of the council shall have a seat in the senate or 
 house of representatives. 
 
 Art. 95. Xo person shall ever be admitted to hold a 
 seat in the legislature, or any office of trust or importance 
 under this government, who in the due course of law, has 
 been, convicted of bribery or corruption in obtaining an 
 election or appointment. 
 
 Art. 96. In all cases where sums of money are men- 
 tioned in this constitution, the value thereof shall be com- 
 puted in silver at six shillings and eight pence per ounce. 
 
 Art. 97. To the end that there may be no failure of 
 justice or danger to the state by the alterations and 
 amendments made in the constitution, the general court 
 is hereby fully authorized and directed to fix the time 
 when the alterations and amendments shall take effect,, 
 and make the necessar}^ arrangements accordingly. 
 
 Art. 98. It shall be the duty of the selectmen and as- 
 sessors of the several towns and places in this state, in 
 warning the first annual meetings for the choice of sen- 
 ators, after the expiration of seven years from the adop- 
 tion of this constitution as amended, to insert expressly 
 in the warrant this purpose among the others for the meet- 
 ing, to wit: to take the sense of the qualified voters on the 
 subject of a revision of the constitution; and the meeting 
 being warned accordingly, and not otherwise, the moder- 
 ator shall take the sense of the qualified voters present as 
 to the necessity of a revision; and a return of the number 
 of votes for and against such necessity shall be made by 
 the clerks, sealed up and directed to the general court at 
 their then next session; and if it: shall appear to the general 
 court; by such return that the sense of the people of the 
 state has been taken, and that in the opinion of a majority 
 of the qualified voters in the state present and voting at 
 said meetings, there is a necessity for a revision of the 
 constitution, it shall be the duty of the general court *o 
 58 
 
914 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 call a convention for that purpose; otherwise the general 
 court shall direct the sense of the people to be taken, and 
 then proceed in the manner before mentioned; the dele- 
 gates toi be chosen in the same manner and proportioned 
 as the representatives to the general court; provided, that 
 no alteration shall be made in this constitution before the 
 same shall be laid before the towns and unincorporated 
 places and approved by two thirds of the qualified voters 
 present and voting on the subject. 
 
 Art. 99. And the same method of taking the sense of 
 the people as to a revision of the Constitution, and calling 
 a convention for that purpose, shall be observed afterward, 
 at the expiration of every seven years. 
 
 Art. 100. This form of government shall be enrolled 
 on parchment and deposited in the secretary's office, and 
 be a part, of the laws of the land, and printed copies there- 
 of sh^all be prefixed to the books containing the laws of 
 this state in all future editions thereof. 
 
INDEX 
 
INDEX OF NAMES OF PLACES. 
 
 Acworth 15, 91, 174, 329, 331 
 
 Albany 11 
 
 Alexandria 16, 777 
 
 Allensto wn 11 
 
 Alstead 14 
 
 Alton 10, 19, 249, 778 
 
 Amherst 12, 373, 410, 524, 689, 770 
 
 Andover 6, 11, 162, 264, 376, 420, 449, 534, 538 
 
 549, 550, 599, 622, 681, 717, 735, 797 
 
 Antrim 12, 204, 522 
 
 Ashland 16 
 
 Atkinson 8 
 
 Auburn 8, 493 
 
 Barnstead 10, 90, 448, 606 
 
 Harrington 9, 19 
 
 Bath 7, 16 
 
 Bartlett 11, 92 
 
 Bedford 12, 90, 289, 377, 378, 498, 670, 703 
 
 Belmont 10 
 
 Bennington, , 12, 552 
 
 Benton 16 
 
 Berlin 17, 21, 91, 92, 360, 371, 499, 519, 520, 523, 548, 665, 768 
 
 Bethlehem 16 
 
 Boscawen 11, 90, 609, 651, 709, 802 
 
 Bow 11, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 72, 74, 80 
 
 81, 92, 96, 99, 103, 129, 142, 156, 157, 182, 183, 188 
 194, 197, 198, 199, 203, 243, 244, 248, 266, 331, 336 
 337, 361, 399, 416, 480, 481, 482, 483, 490, 494, 511 
 513, 516, 517, 526, 527, 528, 601, 605, 606, 614, 615 
 616, 623, 627, 628, 629, 678, 683, 718, 719, 764, 792 
 
 813, 857 
 
 Bradford 11 
 
 Brentwood 8 
 
 Bridgewater 16 
 
 Bristol 16, 19, 79, 89, 92, 420, 432, 671, 725 
 
 Brookfield 11, 91 
 
 Brookline 12 
 
 Oampton 16 
 
 Canaan 16, 91 
 
918 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Candia 8 
 
 Canterbury 11 
 
 Carroll 17 
 
 Center Harbor 10, 207 
 
 Charlestown 15 
 
 Chatham 11 
 
 Chester 8 
 
 Chesterfield 14 
 
 Chichester 11 
 
 Claremont 15, 20, 23, 24, 90, 91, 371, 717, 771 
 
 Clarksville 17 
 
 Colebrook 7, 17, 20, 93, 163, 548, 684, 776 
 
 Columbia 17 
 
 Concord 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 
 
 36, 37, 40, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 89, 90, 91 
 92, 93, 98, 101, 102, 105, 124, 131, 133, 136, 140, 141, 157 
 168, 170, 171, 172, 176, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187 
 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 202, 203 
 206, 207, 208, 223, 230, 239, 246, 250, 265, 267, 268 
 269, 272, 273, 274, 294, 295, 296, 301, 315, 331, 337 
 338, 358, 359, 360, 361, 371, 372, 378, 392, 395, 397 
 400, 417, 433, 436, 449, 452, 456, 457, 459, 460, 461 
 462, 470, 471, 473, 475, 487, 488, 489, 490, 494, 498 
 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 518, 519, 520, 521, 524, 526 
 527, 543, 550, 553, 581, 587, 588, 591, 592, 593, 594 
 595, 597, 598, 599, 600, 603, 605, 606, 607, 608, 625 
 626, 627, 630, 632, 638, 650, 655, 659, 662, 666, 670 
 677, 681, 682, 683, 684, 690, 700, 702, 709, 711, 712 
 714, 717, 727, 741, 745, 749, 750, 751, 754, 757, 763 
 764, 765, 766, 768, 780, 782, 783, 784, 792, 798, 804 
 807, 808, 809, 810, 813, 814, 820, 821, 822 
 
 Conway 6, 11, 20, 207 
 
 Cornish 15, 18, 173, 203, 770 
 
 Croydon 15, 207 
 
 Dalton 17 
 
 Danbury . 12 
 
 Danville 8 
 
 Deerfield 8 
 
 Deering 13- 
 
 Derry 8, 92, 141, 454, 550, 734 
 
 Dorchester 16, 288, 771 
 
 Dover 6, 9, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 92, 207, 483- 
 
 Dublin 14 
 
 Dummer 17 
 
 Dunbarton 12 
 
 Durham.. 1O 
 
INDEX. 919 
 
 East Kingston 8 
 
 Easton 16 
 
 Eaton 11, 92, 178, 684, 784 
 
 Effingham 11, 247, 344, 445, 728 
 
 Ellsworth 16 
 
 Enfield 16, 466 
 
 Epping 8 
 
 Epsom 12 
 
 Errol 17 
 
 Exeter 6, 8, 20, 21, 30, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93. 250, 275, 337, 358 
 
 381, 390, 391, 394,. 397, 400, 409, 450, 451, 475, 488 
 514, 515, 624, 627, 637, 743, 792, 797 
 
 Farmington 10 
 
 Fitzwilliam 7, 20, 31, 266 
 
 Francestown 13 
 
 Franeonia 16, 91 
 
 Franklin 3, 12, 19, 31, 90, 91, 92, 130, 165, 168, 169, 170, 179 
 
 264, 274, 349, 419, 447, 448, 449, 452, 457, 529, 536 
 538, 601, 688, 695, 716, 752, 754, 810, 849 
 
 Freedom 11, 19, 21 
 
 Fremont 8 
 
 Gilford 10 
 
 Gilmanton 10, 31, 92, 372, 778 
 
 Gilsum 14, 21 
 
 Goffstown 13 
 
 Gorham 7, 17, 90 
 
 Goshen 15 
 
 Grafton 16 
 
 Grantham 15, 207 
 
 Greenfield 13, 91, 528 
 
 Greenland 8 
 
 Greenville 13 
 
 Groton 16, 37 
 
 Hampstead 8 
 
 Hampton 8 
 
 Hampton Falls 8 
 
 Hancock 13 
 
 Hanover! 16, 91, 238, 333, 336, 596, 782 
 
 Harrisville 14 
 
 Hart's Location 11 
 
 Haverhill 16, 18, 91, 92, 96, 97, 348, 447, 455, 461, 467, 551, 722 
 
 Hebron 16 
 
 Henniker 12, 142, 773 
 
 Hill 12 
 
 Hillsborough 13, 32, 38, 91, 92, 141, 296, 395, 542, 731 
 
 Hinsdale 14 
 
920 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Holderness 16, 142 
 
 Hollis 13, 778 
 
 Hooksett 12 
 
 Hopkinton 12 
 
 Hudson 13, 204, 240, 422, 607, 609, 784 
 
 Jackson 11 
 
 Jaffrey 14, 91 
 
 Jefferson 17 
 
 Keene 7, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 30, 90, 91, 92, 180, 203 
 
 207, 241, 335, 451, 521, 680, 751, 763, 838 
 
 Kensington 9, 30, 404, 593 
 
 Kingston 9, 90 
 
 Laconia 6, 8, 10, 19, 20, 21, 23, 31, 83, 90, 91, 92, 207, 268 
 
 295, 305, 527, 528, 678, 680, 704, 709, 782, 796 
 
 Lancaster 3, 17, 30, 31, 37, 73, 88, 90, 129, 142, 155, 156 
 
 157, 199, 323, 362, 398, 406, 440, 462, 522, 547 
 583, 608, 660, 679, 684, 719, 768, 769, 799, 822 
 
 Landaff 16, 207 
 
 Langdon 7, 15 
 
 Lebanon 16, 93 
 
 Lee 10 
 
 Lempster 15 
 
 Lincoln 16 
 
 Lisbon 16, 20, 90, 95, 487, 519, 544, 616, 675 
 
 Litchfield 13 
 
 Littleton 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 72, 73, 75, 79, 82, 85, 90, 92, 94, 103 
 
 131, 133, 142, 177, 192, 194, 297, 397, 398, 449, 450 
 453, 457, 458, 461, 472, 473, 476, 481, 482, 483, 489 
 490, 510, 512, 522, 554, 613, 615, 616, 619, 709, 711 
 
 715, 737, 739 
 
 Londonderry 9, 18, 19, 22, 201, 202, 322, 359, 360, 468, 4S2, 484, 491 
 
 493, 533, 538, 539, 591, 592, 696, 702, 738, 740, 821 
 
 Loudon 12, 19 
 
 Lyman 16 
 
 Lyme 16, 207 
 
 Lyndeborough 13 
 
 Madbury 10 
 
 Madison 11 
 
 Manchester 3, 6, 7, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 40, 78, 82, 84, 86, 89 
 
 90, 91, 92, 105, 129, 141, 142, 178, 179, 181, 182, 196 
 206, 207, 242, 243, 286, 296, 297, 298, 304, 332, 338, 352 
 360, 361, 362, 372, 375, 391, 394, 400, 411, 420, 437, 451 
 453, 455, 458, 459, 485, 489, 491, 515, 517, 524, 525, 526 
 592, 599, 601, 602, 608, 613, 621, 629, 634, 650, 651, 663 
 671, 673, 684, 691, 698, 709, 715, 717, 718, 729, 749, 750 
 751, 762, 763, 779, 781, 782, 797, 799, 805, 814, 822 
 
INDEX. 921 
 
 Marlborough 15, 20 
 
 Marlow 15, 769 
 
 Mason 13 
 
 Meredith 10 
 
 Merrimack 14 
 
 Middleton 10 
 
 Milan 17 
 
 Milford 14, 92, 140, 207, 240, 499 
 
 Milton 10 
 
 Monroe 16 
 
 Mont Vernon 14 
 
 Moultonborough 11 
 
 Nashua 7, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 91, 92, 130, 170, 264 
 
 265, 294, 387, 444, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 488 
 
 511, 512, 513, 545, 593, 615, 629, 658, 668, 679, 680, 681 
 
 683, 709, 722, 730, 772, 799, 804, 820, 821 
 
 Nelson 15, 125, 139, 190, 300, 474, 618 
 
 Newbury 12 
 
 Newcastle 9 
 
 Newfields 9, 777 
 
 Newington 9 
 
 Newmarket 9, 207 
 
 Newport 7, 15, 21, 86, 90, 91, 93, 126, 206 
 
 414, 417, 451, 540, 731, 853 
 
 Newton 9 
 
 New Boston 14 
 
 New Durham 10, 359 
 
 New Hampton 8, 10, 23, 92, 169, 445 
 
 New Ipswich 14 
 
 New London 12, 22 
 
 Northfield 12 
 
 Northumberland 17, 207 
 
 North wood 9 
 
 North Hampton 9, 141, 385 
 
 Nottingham 9 
 
 Orange 16 
 
 Orford 16 
 
 Ossipee 11, 19 
 
 Pelham 14 
 
 Pembroke 12, 90, 207, 514, 682 
 
 Peterborough 14, 98, 151, 177, 284, 286, 430, 442 
 
 447, 455, 650, 720, 774, 799, 827 
 
 Piermont 16 
 
 Pittsburg 17, 405 
 
 Pittsfield 12, 499 
 
922 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Plainfield 15, 288, 784- 
 
 Plaistow D 
 
 Plymouth 16, 20, 21, 92, 241, 292, 609, 610, 630 
 
 Portsmouth 6, 9, 19, 20, 23, 30, 90, 91, 92, 97, 141, 207, 249, 250 
 
 292, 396, 446, 516, 518, 522, 523, 541, 554, 588, 596- 
 597, 607, 626, 672, 684, 699, 714, 719, 752, 807 
 
 Kandolph 17 
 
 Raymond 9, 90 
 
 Richmond 15 
 
 Rindge 15 
 
 Rochester 10, 20, 90, 91 
 
 Rollinsford 6, 10, 142 
 
 Roxbury 15, 772 
 
 Rumney 16 
 
 Rye 9 
 
 Salem 9, 775 
 
 Salisbury 12 
 
 Sanbornton 11 
 
 Sandown 9 
 
 Sandwich 6, 11 
 
 Seabrook 9 
 
 Sharon 14 
 
 Shelburne 17, 91 
 
 Somersworth 10, 31, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 92, 159, 237, 396, 510, 537 
 
 602, 669, 701, 702, 733, 763, 764, 765, 772, 804, 823 
 
 South Hampton 9- 
 
 Springfield l.> 
 
 Stark 17, 142, 420 
 
 Stewartstown ; 17, 22, 207 
 
 Stoddard 15 
 
 Strafford 10 
 
 Stratford .' 17 
 
 Stratham 9, 71, 75, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 98, 190 
 
 200, 265, 275, 410, 411, 510, 756 
 
 Sullivan 15, 91 
 
 Sunapee 15, 93, 521, 522, 770 
 
 Surry 15 
 
 Sutton 12 
 
 Swanzey 15 
 
 Tamworth 11 
 
 Temple 7, 14, 90, 172, 452, 455, 729, 756- 
 
 Thornton . . 16 
 
 Tilton 11, 21, 78, 90, 91, 129, 268, 335, 407, 409 
 
 430, 452, 468, 599, 600, 609, 798, 822 
 
 Troy 15, 90 
 
 Tuftonborough 11 
 
INDEX. 923 
 
 Unity 15 
 
 Wakefield 7, 8, 11, 31, 89, 90, 267, 784 
 
 Walpole 15, 92 
 
 Warner 12, 35, 93, 95, 336, 460, 461, 462, 468 
 
 Warren 17, 31 
 
 Washington 15, 20 
 
 Waterville 17 
 
 Weare 14 
 
 Webster 12 
 
 Wentworth 7, 17, 92, 295, 361, 447, 724 
 
 Westmoreland 15 
 
 Whitefield 17, 20, 297, 621 
 
 Wilmot 12 
 
 Wilton 14, 18, 21, 90, 709 
 
 Winchester 15, 92, 207 
 
 Windham 9, 776 
 
 Windsor 14 
 
 Wolfeborough 11, 90, 207 
 
 Woodstock 17, 33, 91, 103, 338, 523, 735, 856 
 
INDEX OF NAMES OF PERSONS. 
 
 Abbott, Charles W 8, 141, 499, 550, 588, 638, 674, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Abbott, Jacob J 13, 499, 589, 674, 707, 747, 8ia 
 
 Adams, Edward H 9, 91, 499 
 
 Aldrich, David M. .17, 20, 297, 492, 499, 590, 621, 640, 674, 709, 747, 812 
 
 Aldrich, Edgar 16, 18, 19, 30, 72, 73, 75, 79, 82, 85, 90, 94, 103 
 
 131, 133, 142, 177, 192, 194, 297, 397, 398, 449 
 450, 453, 457, 458, 461, 472, 473, 476, 481, 482 
 483, 489, 490, 493, 499, 510, 512, 522, 554, 590 
 613, 615, 616, 619, 674, 679, 707, 709, 711, 715 
 
 737, 739, 748 
 
 Allen, George W 22, 800, 802 
 
 Allen, Henry W 13, 492, 499, 639, 674, 708, 748, 811 
 
 Amidon, George F 14, 492, 499, 675, 708, 746, 813 
 
 Annett, Albert 14, 91, 492, 499, 590, 640, 674, 708, 748, 812 
 
 Ashley, Herbert H 16, 288, 492, 499, 590, 640, 675, 709, 747, 771, 813 
 
 Avery, Bert H 16, 499, 590, 640, 675, 709, 747, 812 
 
 Bacon, Stephen H 13, 492, 499, 589, 639, 674, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Baker, Henry M 11, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 72 
 
 74, 80, 81, 92, 96, 99, 103, 129, 140, 142, 156 
 157, 182, 183, 188, 194, 197, 198, 199, 203 
 243, 244, 248, 266, 331, 336, 337, 361, 399 
 416, 480, 481, 482, 483, 490, 492, 494, 498 
 499, 511, 513, 516, 517, 526, 527, 528, 589 
 590, 601, 605, 606, 614, 615, 616, 623, 627 
 628, 629, 639, 640, 675, 678, 683, 708, 718 
 719, 746, 764, 792, 812, 813, 857 
 
 Bales, George E 14, 18, 21, 90, 499, 590, 639, 707, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Bartlett, George H 15, 93, 492, 499, 521, 522, 552, 590 
 
 640, 674, 709, 746, 770, 813 
 
 Barton, Jesse M 7, 15, 21, 86, 91, 126, 206, 414, 416, 417 
 
 451, 499, 590, 674, 707, 731, 746, 812, 853 
 
 Battles, Daniel F 9, 499, 589, 673, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Blackwell, Henry B 336 
 
 Blackwell, Lucy Stone 336 
 
 Blair, Henry W 691, 694 
 
 Blake, Amos J 7, 14, 20, 31, 266, 499 
 
 Blanchard, Edwin F 14, 499, 639, 675, 707, 746 
 
926 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Blanchard, Harvey Augustus. . .17, 405, 492, 499, 590, 640, 674, 709, 747 
 
 Blodgett, Frank E 11, 499, 640, .675, 706, 747, 813 
 
 Blodgett, Isaac N 3, 12, 31, 91, 460, 500, 601, 639 
 
 Boivin, Joseph A 13, 500, 590, 640, 675, 748, 813 
 
 Boudreau, James A 17, 493, 500, 590, 640, 674, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Boutwell, Henry W 13, 500, 639, 707, 747, 811 
 
 Bowles, Marshall A 16, 500, 747 
 
 Bradley, Arthur C 15, 90, 500, 640, 707, 748 
 
 Briggs, James F 3, 13, 31, 89, 90, 206, 297, 331, 361, 492, 500, 525 
 
 526, 589, 613, 640, 663, 675, 679, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Brigham, Geo. H 22, 800, 802 
 
 Britton, A. H. & Co 801 
 
 Britton, Frank 17, 492, 500, 709, 747, 812 
 
 Brockway, Willie D 15, 20, 493, 500, 590, 707, 746 
 
 Brooks, Lyman 15, 492, 500, 590, 640, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Brown, Joseph L 15,* 500, 675, 707, 746, 812 
 
 Brown, Levi W 11, 19, 491, 500, 589, 639, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Bryar, Fred E 10, 500, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Buckley, Fred A 14, 493, 500, 590, 640, 675, 707. 748, 813 
 
 Bucklin, Alpheus S 16, 493, 500, 590, 674, 707, 746, 777, 812 
 
 Buckminster, Charles W. ...15, 492, 500, 590, 639, 674, 708, 746, 772, 612 
 
 Buckshorn, Louis H 521, 801 
 
 Burley, Harrison G 9, 500, 638, 708, 746 
 
 Burpee, Moses P 15, 207, 500, 590, 640, 674, 707, 746, 812 
 
 Busiel, John T 10, 90, 305, 500, 640, 708, 747, 812 
 
 Buxton, Willis G 11, 90, 493, 500, 589, 609, 639, 651 
 
 675, 706, 709, 746, 802, 813 
 
 Caldwell, Horace 12, 500, 589, 639, 673, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Carbee, Henry C 7, 16, 492, 500, 590, 640, 675, 709, 746, 813 
 
 Carter, Solon A 396, 801 
 
 Casey, Michael 12, 433, 493, 500, 581, 589, 639, 675, 707, 747, 811 
 
 Cass, Lewis R 15, 500, 590, 639, 674, 708, 746, 813 
 
 Gate, Charles F 9, 491, 500, 589, 638, 673, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Catt, Carrie Chapman 336 
 
 Chamberlin, Horatio G 10, 359, 491, 500, 638, 673, 706, 746 
 
 Chandler, William E 12, 26, 28, 29, 31, 35, 37, 75, 77, 92, 101, 102 
 
 136, 140, 176, 181, 191, 194, 196, 197, 198 
 202, 203, 208, 223, 230, 239, 250, 265, 267 
 268, 338, 358, 372, 392, 395, 436, 449, 452 
 456, 457, 459, 460, 461, 462, 473, 492, 494 
 500, 515, 526, 527, 553, 587, 588, 589, 591 
 592, 594, 595, 597, 603, 605, 606, 607, 608 
 625, 627, 630, 638, 640, 675, 677, 681, 682 
 683, 684, 708, 709, 711, 717, 727, 749, 750 
 751, 754, 763, 765, 766, 768, 780, 782, 798 
 804, 808, 809, 810, 813, 814, 820, 82.1, 822 
 
INDEX. 927 
 
 Chapman, Joseph C 14, 493, 500, 590, 674, 707, 746, 812 
 
 Chase, Amos C 9, 90, 491, 500, 589, 638, 673, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Chase, Ira A 16, 19, 79, 89, 92, 420, 432, 493, 500, 590 
 
 640, 671, 674, 707, 725, 748, 812 
 
 Chase, Mary N 35, 336 
 
 Chase, William M 208 
 
 Chesley, Daniel 10, 500, 589, 706, 746 
 
 Chickering, Jacob E 12, 493, 500, 589^ 707, 747, 813 
 
 Clark, Allan C 10, 207, 500, 589, 639, 674, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Clark, Arthur E 801 
 
 Clark, George H 9, 491, 500, 589, 638, 673, 708, 746, 776, 812 
 
 Clement, Frank O 13, 178, 207, 296, 391, 493, 500, 590, 60S 
 
 639, 675, 707, 748, 781, 782, 799, 811 
 
 Clement, Stephen H 15, 492, 500, 675, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Clough, Jeremiah A 12, 19, 493, 500, 589, 746, 811 
 
 Clough, Joseph L 14, 452, 453, 492, 501, 590, 593 
 
 639, 674, 708, 748, 770, 813 
 
 Clow, Stephen W 11, 90, 491, 501, 589, 639, 747, 811 
 
 Clyde, George W. .13, 204, 240, 422, 492, 501, 589, 607, 609, 640, 784, 813 
 Cochrane, George E 10, 20, 90, 492, 501, 589, 638 
 
 646, 650, 674, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Coffin, J. E 801 
 
 Cogswell, Thomas 10, 31, 92, 372, 491, 501, 639, 708, 746, 778, 812 
 
 Colbath, Horace N 10, 90, 448, 491, 501, 589, 606 
 
 646, 650, 674, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Colby, George W 13, 501, 589, 639, 675, 708, 747, 813 
 
 Colby, Ira G 15, 20, 90, 501, 640, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Colby, James F 16, 91, 238, 333, 336, 493, 501 
 
 590, 596, 707, 748, 782, 813 
 
 Cole, Wallace W 9, 501, 589, 640, 674, 708, 747, 775, 812 
 
 Collins, Clinton 15, 20, 501 
 
 Collins, John S 14, 21, 501, 639, 707, 748 
 
 Colman, Dudley C 11, 91, 501, 589, 639, 673, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Concord Monitor 801 
 
 Conley, Elmer E 8, 501, 674, 706, 745, 812 
 
 Cooke, Charles H 14, 501, 639, 675, 708, 748, 812 
 
 Cooper, James M 801 
 
 Corey, Guy E 9, 23, 141, 501 
 
 Craig, Charles C 16, 493, 501, 590, 640, 675, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Craig, Rockwell F 15, 501, 590, 639, 675, 708, 746, 769 
 
 Crawford, George W 17, 492, 501, 590, 640, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Cross, David 13, 18, 30, 40, 86, 90, 124, 140, 437, 440, 493, 501 
 
 517, 589, 621, 640, 644, 674, 707, 715, 747 
 
 749, 750, 779, 805, 811 
 
 Cullen, William A. A 9, 446, 491, 501, 518, 589, 596, 597, 607 
 
 626, 638, 708, 714, 747, 812 
 Cumings, Henry 16, 466, 492, 501, 590, 640, 674, 709, 748, 812 
 
928 JOUBNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Daley, Daniel J 17, 91, 360, 371, 493, 499, 501, 519, 520 
 
 548, 590, 640, 665, 674, 707, 747, 768 
 
 Davis, Carlos C 15, 207, 501, 639, 675, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Day, Auburn J 15, 501, 639, 675, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Dearborn, Henry C 16, 501, 640, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Dearborn, Luther E 11, 92, 178, 501, 589, 639, 648 
 
 675, 708, 746, 784, 812 
 
 Demerritt, George H 10, 19, 249, 491, 501, 589, 640, 708, 746, 768 
 
 Desmarais, Leon 14, 492, 501, 590, 640, 675, 708, 748, 813 
 
 Dewey, Jesse E 16, 492, 501, 510, 640, 674, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Dickson, John H., Jr 801 
 
 Dodge, James E 6, 13, 501, 589, 639, 675, 707, 747, 800, 811 
 
 Dodge, Lendall 14, 492, 501, 590, 639, 708, 746 
 
 Dodge, William F 17, 501, 590, 640, 674, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Dolbeer, John H 12, 492, 501, 589, 639, 673, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Dole, Charles A 16, 93, 501 
 
 Dorr, Henry F 6, 11, 492, 501, 589, 675, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Downes, George E 13, 492, 501, 589, 639, 708, 746 
 
 Drake, Charles B 16, 493, 502, 590, 640, 675, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Dresser, John 16, 502, 590, 640, 675, 707, 748 
 
 Drew, Irving W 17, 90, 362, 406, 502, 522 
 
 Dudley, David F 11, 91, 371, 400, 471, 492, 502, 589 
 
 639, 675, 708, 784, 792, 811 
 Dudley, Jason H 7, 17, 20, 163, 502 
 
 Barley, Thomas, Jr 14, 502, 590, 639, 675, 707, 748 
 
 Eastman, E. C. & Co 801 
 
 Eastman, Edwin G 8, 20, 91, 250, 275, 390, 391, 394 
 
 397, 400, 409, 488, 491, 502, 514 
 515, 627, 637, 638, 707, 743, 746 
 
 Eaton, George E 8, 502, 588, 638, 674, 707, 745, 812 
 
 Edgerly, James A 10, 31, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 92, 159, 237, 396 
 
 491, 502, 510, 537, 589, 602, 640 
 669, 673, 701, 702, 708, 733, 747 
 763, 764, 765, 772, 804, 811, 823 
 
 Emery, Samuel W 9, 396, 502, 541, 638, 672, 673 
 
 699, 706, 747, 752, 812 
 
 Emery, Simon P 9, 207, 502, 589, 706, 747 
 
 Emory, Warren W 15, 502, 639, 674, 707, 748 
 
 Evans, Alfred R 7, 17, 90, 502, 590, 640, 674, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Evans, David H 8, 9, 23, 141, 385, 491, 502, 589, 640, 811 
 
 Evans, Ira C., Co 801 
 
 Everett, Edward H 14, 19, 22, 40, 502, 804, 811, 820, 821 
 
 Fairbanks, George E. . . .15, 18, 173, 203, 492, 502, 590, 640, 709, 746, 770 
 
 Farrington, Henry A 13, 332, 492, 502, 589, 639, 640, 674, 708 
 
 709, 746, 747, 811 
 
INDEX. 929 
 
 Farwell, Frank C 14, 493, 502, 590, 675, 707, 812 
 
 Fellows, William B 11, 21, 91, 129, 407, 409, 410, 452, 468, 492 
 
 502, 589, 640, 673, 706, 747, 798, 811 
 
 Fessenden, Orville D 12, 492, 502, 589, 639, 675, 708, 746, 813 
 
 Flanders, Ephraim G 8, 492, 502, 588, 638, 673, 706, 745, 811 
 
 Flanders, Robert L 16, 142, 502, 590, 640, 674, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Flather, William J 14, 492, 502, 590, 639, 674, 708, 748, 812 
 
 Flood, John J 14, 502, 590, 639, 674, 811 
 
 Fogg, George H 13, 493, 502, 589, 639, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Follansby, William H. C 6, 8, 91, 491, 502, 638, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Folsom, Channing 9, 483, 491, 502, 589, 638, 673, 746, 811 
 
 Foote, Charles E 11, 492, 502, 589, 639, 673, 708, 747, 813 
 
 Ford, Edward 16, 493, 502, 590, 640, 675, 747 
 
 Ford, John V 12, 493, 502, 589, 639, 673, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Ford, S. S 800 
 
 Foskett, Liberty W 15, 502, 590, 674, 708, 748, 812 
 
 Foster, William A. . . .7, 12, 21, 331, 493, 502, 589, 639, 673, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Fowler, George W .19, 801 
 
 Frame, James 11, 492, 502, 589, 640, 675, 708, 746, 811 
 
 French, John E 11, 493, 502, 639, 706, 746, 81$ 
 
 French, John H 16, 493, 502, 590, 640, 675, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Frink, John S. H 8, 30, 502, 638- 
 
 Fuller, Arthur O 8, 21, 30, 85, 90, 93, 358, 381, 450, 451, 475, 492' 
 
 502, 588, 624, 640, 673, 707, 747, 792, 79T 
 Furbush, George P 10, 503, 638, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Gardner, T. A 800, 802' 
 
 Gelinas, Gaspard A 10, 503, 589, 638, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Gerrish, Fred E 10, 503, 638, 706, 746 
 
 Gibson, James L 6, 11, 491, 503, 589, 639, 673, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Gillispie, Charles F 8, 503, 588, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Gilman, Samuel J 11, 491, 503, 589, 639, 675, 708, 746 
 
 Gilmore, George C .7, 13, 23, 92, 179, 332, 394, 411, 503, 524 
 
 639, 671, 673, 675, 708, 717, 718, 747 
 
 Glancy, William F 13, 21, 503, 589, 639, 675, 748, 813: 
 
 Glazier, Yan B 16, 207, 503, 640, 674, 709, 747, 812 
 
 Goodnow, Edwin J 15, 492, 503, 590, 639, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Goodwin, Andrew J 11, 503, 589, 675, 708, 746 
 
 Gordon, Francis A 14, 503, 590, 639, 675, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Gorrell, Horace W 10, 491, 503, 640, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Greager, Herman 7, 13, 87, 492, 503, 590, 639, 674, 709, 748, 813 
 
 Green, George H 17, 493, 503, 590, 640, 674, 707, 747 
 
 Green, Henry F 16, 20, 92, 503, 590, 640, 674, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Green, Oliver B 13, 493, 503, 589, 639, 675, 707, 747, 813 
 
 Greene, Frank P 12, 492, 503, 589, 639, 708, 746, 813 
 
 Griffin, Dennis F 13, 493, 503, 589, 639, 675, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Grover, Horace T 9, 503- 
 
 59 
 
930 JOUKNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Guerin, Moise 13, 503, 590, 640, 707, 748, 811 
 
 Gunnison, William T 10, 91, 492, 503, 589, 638, 706, 747, 812 
 
 Hadley, Herbert O 7, 14, 90, 172, 452, 455, 492, 503, 646, 650 
 
 729, 746, 756, 812 
 
 Hall, Angelo 35 
 
 Hall, Dwight , 9, 503, 589, 708, 747, 812 
 
 Hall, Frank H 10, 492, 503, 589, 638, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Hall, James M 18, 493, 503, 590, 639, 675, 707, 748, 811 
 
 Hall, William C 15, 493, 503, 590, 639, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Hallinan, Stephen L 14, 503, 707, 748 
 
 Ham, Samuel F 9, 250, 492, 503, 589, 638, 674, 706, 747, 812 
 
 Hamblett, Chas. J 14, 19, 20, 91, 130, 170, 294, 387, 492, 503, 511 
 
 512, 513, 615, 639, 668, 674, 679 
 680, 683, 708, 709, 746, 772, 811 
 
 Hanson, Burnham 9, 503, 589, 590, 638, 706, 747, 812 
 
 Hanson, Frank L 15, 492, 503, 590, 640, 709, 746, 812 
 
 Harbor, Felix G., et als 7, 21, 87 
 
 Harmon, Horace W 11, 247, 344, 445, 491, 503, 589, 639, 673, 708 
 
 728, 746, 811 
 
 Harriman, Walter C 14, 503, 590, 639, 658, 674, 707, 746, 813 
 
 Harriman, Walter H 24, 800, 802 
 
 Hartley, William H 7, 503, 590, 707 
 
 Harvey, Warren 13, 89, 492, 503, 589, 639, 674, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Head, Eugene S 12, 503, 673, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Healey, James M 9, 90, 504, 638, 646, 650, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Henry, James E 16, 504, 707 
 
 Hersey, Fred E 11, 207, 504, 639, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Hibbard, Clarence E 16, 504, 590, 640, 674, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Hildreth, Eugene E 13, 504, 589, 813 
 
 Hildreth, Henry A 16, 504, 590, 709, 748 
 
 Hill, Bushrod W 13, 493, 504, 589, 639, 675, 707, 747 
 
 Hinman, Havilah B 17, 493, 504, 590, 640, 675, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Hobson, Sewell M 11, 207, 492, 504, 589, 639, 673, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Hollis, Abijah 11, 92, 206, 492, 504, 589, 639, 675, 708, 747, 813 
 
 Holman, Samuel W 13, 32, 38, 92, 141, 504, 639, 708 
 
 Holmes, Herbert A 7, 15, 493, 504, 590, 640, 675, 707, 746, 812 
 
 Hooke, Lincoln F 8, 491, 504, 588, 638, 673, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Horan, Timothy E 13, 504, 589, 639, 675, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Howard, Alfred F 9, 20, 90, 491, 504, 516, 589, 638, 644^ 673, 708 
 
 719, 747, 811 
 
 Howe, Oewitt C 12, 92, 141, 207, 493, 504, 543, 590, 626, 639, 659 
 
 675, 707, 712, 747, 763, 811 
 
 Hubbard, Eugene C 12, 373, 410, 492, 504, 524, 589, 639, 675 
 
 689, 708, 746, 770, 813 
 Hunt, Nathan P 13, 92, 504, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Ide, Daniel 15, 207, 492, 504, 590, 640, 709, 746 
 
INDEX. 931 
 
 Ingalls, Horace L 12, 492, 504, 589, 640, 673, 708, 747, 800, 811 
 
 Irwin, Fred T 13, 504, 590, 639, 675, 708, 748, 811 
 
 Jackson, Harry B 22, 24, 800, 802 
 
 Jackson, James R 19 
 
 Jennings, Henry 13, 504, 589, 639, 675, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Jewell, Benjamin R 9, 491, 504, 589, 640, 674, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Jewell, Edward M 16, 493, 504, 590, 640, 674, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Jewett, Stephen S 6, 8, 10, 20, 21, 23, 83, 90, 268, 295, 504, 527 
 
 528, 589, 639. 644, 673, 678, 680 
 704, 706, 709, 747, 782, 796, 811 
 
 Johnson, George W 31, 800, 802 
 
 Johnson, Thomas F 17, 20, 93, 504, 548, 590, 640, 684, 707, 747, 776 
 
 Jones, Edwin F 13, 18, 78, 92, 181, 182, 196, 286, 352, 420 
 
 458, 459, 489, 491, 493, 504, 525 
 
 589, 592, 634, 639, 650, 674, 707 
 
 709, 718, 747, 751, 797, 811, 814 
 
 Jordan, John 12, 504, 639, 675, 707, 746, 728, 813 
 
 Keeler, J. E 801 
 
 Kelsey, James H 9, 491, 504, 638, 673, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Kelsey, John M 8, 491, 504, 638, 673, 706, 746, 812 
 
 Kent, Henry O I*, 17, 30, 31, 37, 73, 88, 129, 142, 155, 156, 157, 199 
 
 323, 398, 440, 462, 491, 492, 504, 522 
 547, 583, 590, 608, 640, 660, 674, 679 
 684, 707, 719, 768, 769, 799, 812, 822 
 
 Kidder, Daniel 16, 37, 504, 590, 640, 675, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Kimball, Benjamin A 6, 12, 31, 90, 504, 589, 639, 673, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Kimball, Charles H 12, 492, 504, 552, 589, 639, 674, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Kimball, Eugene F 8, 491, 504, 588, 638, 674, 707, 745, 812 
 
 Kiniry, William H 15, 504, 639, 674, 708, 748 
 
 Knight, Carl E 14, 140, 207, 499, 504, 639, 675, 708, 748 
 
 Knowles, Charles H 8, 505, 588, 638, 706, 745 
 
 Knox, James'E 11, 505, 589, 640, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Lambert, Elliot C 13, 178, 453, 493, 505, 515, 589, 674, 707, 747, 811 
 
 Lamprey, George W 16, 505, 590, 640, 674, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Lamprey, Maitland C 6, 12, 18, 32, 98, 141, 142, 157, 171, 172, 207 
 
 294, 295, 296, 301, 358, 4 17, 470 
 487, 488, 489, 492, 505, 553, 589 
 632, 640, 673, 700, 708, 747, 813 
 
 Lang, Frank A 12, 493, 498, 505, 589, 639, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Laplante, Louis M 17, 91, 493, 505, 644, 748 
 
 Law, John K 22, 800, 802 
 
 Leach, Edward G 12, 19, 92, 130, 165, 168, 169, 170, 179, 264, 274 
 
 349, 447, 448, 449, 452, 457, 493 
 505, 529, 538, 589, 639, 673, 695 
 707, 747, 752, 754, 810, 811, 849 
 
932 JOURNAL or CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Learned, Henry D 14, 493, 505, 590, 639, 674, 707, 812 
 
 Leary, Michael J 10, 492, 505, 638, 673, 706, 747, 812 
 
 Leddy, John .8, 491, 505, 588, 638, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Ledoux, Henri T 14, 264, 265, 505, 590, 640, 675, 707, 748, 799, 81* 
 
 Leighton, Fred 801 
 
 Leighton, George 1 9, 18, 207, 505, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Lewis, Edwin C 6, 10, 19, 31, 92, 505, 639, 708, 747, 812 
 
 Libby, Joseph 10, 492, 505, 638, 706, 746 
 
 Little, Cyrus H 13, 18, 20, 23, 89, 91, 141, 182, 196, 297, 298, 338 
 
 360, 362, 371, 372, 400, 419, 420, 492 
 505, 589, 601, 602, 603, 629, 640, 651 
 674, 684, 691, 708, 747, 763, 805, 811 
 
 Littlefield, John C 13, 505, 590, 639, 675, 748, 811 
 
 Locke, Alphonso B 9, 19, 505, 673, 811 
 
 Locke, James A 10, 505, 638, 811 
 
 Locke, John W 9, 491, 505, 589, 638, 708, 811 
 
 Lockhart, Burton W 22, 800, 802 
 
 Lord, Harry T 13, 22, 82, 84, 141, 142, 455, 493, 505, 639, 675 
 
 707, 729, 747, 811 
 
 Lovejoy, W. W 22, 800, 802 
 
 Lowry, J. W 800 
 
 Lyford, James O 11, 29, 32, 36, 40, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86 
 
 90, 105, 124, 131, 133, 168, 182, 183, 186, 187 
 189, 191, 195, 272, 315, 358, 359, 360, 361, 378 
 397, 489, 490, 492, 494, 505, 514, 515, 518, 519 
 520, 526, 553, 589, 591, 593, 594, 597, 640, 644 
 650, 690, 702, 708, 741, 715, 747, 764, 783, 811 
 
 Mace, F. P 801 
 
 Madden, Joseph 7, 15, 20, 30, 90, 180, 203, 335, 505, 521, 590 
 
 639, 675, 680, 746, 751, 763 
 
 Madigan, Thomas H., Jr 19, 800, 802, 823 
 
 Manchester Union 801 
 
 Marsh, Jonathan 13, 505, 589, 639, 675, 707, 746, 811 
 
 McAllister, George 1 13, 21, 129, 141, 375, 459, 505, 590, 599, 608 
 
 639, 674, 707, 748, 762, 813 
 
 McClure, Cummings B 15, 493, 505, 590, 639, 675, 707, 746, 813 
 
 McDonough, Joseph M 13, 505, 589, 707, 747 
 
 McElroy, William 13, 492, 505, 589, 590, 639, 675, 707, 708, 747 
 
 748, 811 
 
 McGlynn, Michael 14, 505, 748, 812 
 
 McKay, William J 14, 505, 590, 674, 708, 748 
 
 McKellips, George W 17, 207, 492, 505, 590, 640, 675, 709, 748, 812 
 
 McQuade, E. A 801 
 
 McQuestion, John K 13, 492, 505, 590, 708, 748 
 
 Meader, Stephen C 10, 90, 491, 505, 589, 638, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Melvin, George 16, 207, 492, 505, 590, 640, 674, 709, 747, 812 
 
INDEX. 933 
 
 Merrow, Arthur P 11, 19, 21, 491, 505, 589, 639, 675, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Meserve, Jonathan 11, 491, 505, 589, 639, 675, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Messer, George J 12, 505, 589, 639, 675, 707, 746, 813 
 
 Miles, Charles S 17, 492, 506, 590, 640, 709, 747, 812 
 
 Miller, George E 12, 207, 506, 707, 747, 811 
 
 Mitchell, Abraham M 15, 91, 174, 329, 331, 492, 506 
 
 590, 646, 650, 708, 746 
 
 Mitchell, John M 11, 90, 246, 267, 268, 269, 273, 274, 493, 506, 518 
 
 524, 550, 589, 594, 595, 598, 599, 625, 626 
 639, 644, 662, 673, 706, 714, 747, 804, 811 
 
 Moffett, John D 17, 506, 590, 640, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Moore, James D 10, 491, 506, 589, 638, 673, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Morang, Charles H 6, 9, 491, 506, 589, 638, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Morin, Oliver 10, 506, 638, 706, 747, 812 
 
 Morrell, Frank R 8, 506 
 
 Morrell, Henry H 16, 493, 506, 590, 674, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Mori-ill, James R 10, 492, 506, 589, 639, 674, 706, 746 
 
 Morrill, Joel E 11, 20, 491, 506, 589, 639, 675, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Morris, George F 16, 90, 95, 492, 506, 519, 544, 590 
 
 616, 640, 674, 675, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Morrison, Charles E 9, 506, 638, 674, 708, 709, 747, 748, 812 
 
 Morrison, John D 11, 491, 506, 589, 639, 708, 746, 748, 811, 812 
 
 Morrison, Mortier L 14, 492, 506, 590, 639, 708, 748, 812 
 
 Morrison, Susan R 801 
 
 Morse, Harry M 16, 493, 506, 590, 640, 674, 707, 748 
 
 Moulton, Charles T 9, 19, 92, 506, 708, 747 
 
 Murcb, Merville B 11, 491, 506, 589, 639, 673, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Murphy, Patrick W 9, 506, 708, 747, 812 
 
 Murray, Charles A 17, 506, 590, 640, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Nason, E. M 800 
 
 Nealley, John H 9, 207, 506, 589, 638, 673, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Nettle, Albert 13, 506, 708, 748 
 
 Newell, Hiram F...15, 92, 241, 492, 506, 590, 639, 674, 708, 748, 812, 838 
 
 Newton, Charles A 15, 492, 506, 590, 640, 709, 746, 813 
 
 Nickerson, Archie 11, 491, 506, 589, 640, G75, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Niles, Edward C 12, 78, 92, 93, 101, 182, 184, 186, 187, 190, 191 
 
 192, 475, 492, 506, 511, 512, 513, 514, 589, 600 
 603, 606, 640, 655, 666, 670, 675, 708, 757, 813 
 
 Norris, True L 6, 9, 19, 92, 249, 491, 506, 522, 523, 554, 588 
 
 589, 638, 673, 684, 708, 747, 807, 811 
 
 Noyes, Loren A 15, 492, 506, 590, 709, 746, 812 
 
 Nute, Andrew R 10, 491, 506, 589, 638, 674, 708, 746 
 
 Nute, John H 9, 92, 491, 506, 589, 638, 673, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Nutter, George W 6, 10, 142, 506, 638, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Nutter, Henry C 10, 491, 506, 589, 638, 673, 746 
 
 Osgood, George W 15, 125, 139, 190, 300, 474, 506, 590 
 
 618, 639, 647, 707, 748, 813 
 
934 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Page, Horace A 11, 491, 506, 589, 639, 746, 811 
 
 Paige, David A 13, 506, 589, 639, 675, 708, 747, 813: 
 
 Paige, Nelson W 13, 21, 459, 506, 590, 708, 748, 801, 811 
 
 Paine, William H 17, 92, 492, 507, 523, 675, 747 
 
 Park, William K., Jr 17,31, 507, 74T 
 
 Parker, Edward E. . . 7, 14, 21, 89, 91, 447, 448, 450 
 
 507, 639, 647, 681, 708, 748 
 
 Parker, Lebina H 16, 493, 507, 590, 640, 674, 707, 746 
 
 Parker, Wilbur F 16, 91, 492, 507, 590, 640, 644, 674, 709, 748, 813 
 
 Patriot Job Printing Co 801 
 
 Paul, Clarence H 9, 507, 638, 706, 747, 812 
 
 Pearson, H. C 801 
 
 Peaslee, Daniel M 9, 507, 589, 638, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Peavey, George S. ...13, 91, 493, 507, 528, 589, 639, 646, 650, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Peirce, George W 15, 92, 507 
 
 Pelren, Harry J 24, 800, 802 
 
 Penniman, Robert R 15, 288, 507, 590, 640, 675, 707, 784, 812 
 
 Perkins, Napoleon B 17, 492, 507, 590, 640, 675, 709, 748 
 
 Phaneuf , J. & Son 801 
 
 Philbrook, Charles E 17, 91, 492, 507, 590, 640, 644, 674, 709, 748 
 
 Phipps, Leonard K 17, 507, 590, 640, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Pike, Edwin B 16, 92, 348, 455, 461, 467, 492 
 
 507, 551, 590, 709, 722, 747 
 
 Pike, William T 17, 142, 420, 493, ,507, 590, 640, 675, 707, 709, 747 
 
 Pillsbury, Rosecrans W 9, 18, 19, 22, 201, 202, 322, 359, 360 
 
 468, 482, 484, 491, 492, 493, 507 
 533, 538, 539, 589, 591, 592, 696 
 702, 706, 738, 740, 747, 811, 821 
 
 Piper, M. L 800, 802 
 
 Plante, Joseph G 13, 87, 507, 707, 748, 811 
 
 Plummer, Bard B 10, 507 
 
 Pollard, Christopher A 9, 491, 507, 589, 638, 708, 746, 777, 812 
 
 Poole, Joel H 14, 492, 507, 590, 639, 674, 708, 748 
 
 Powers, Edward J 13, 492, 507, 590, 639, 674, 708, 748, 811 
 
 Powers, Marcellus J 13, 492, 507, 639, 708, 746, 778, 811 
 
 Precourt, Albert J 13, 507, 589, 639, 674, 707, 748, 811 
 
 Pressler, Adolph W 15, 18, 20, 22, 451, 507, 812 
 
 Proctor, Clayton B 14, 507, 590, 639, 674, 707, 748, 811 
 
 Provost, Frank T 13, 507, 590, 639, 674, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Pulsifer, Charles L 10, 207, 507, 640, 706, 747, 812 
 
 Pulsifer, Charles W 16, 493, 507, 590, 674, 707, 747 
 
 Putnam, George M 12, 492, 507, 589, 639, 675, 708, 746, 813 
 
 Quimby, Mary E 35 
 
 Quirin, Eugene 13, 87, 507, 590, 639, 674, 707, 748- 
 
 Quirin, Joseph 13, 91, 493, 507, 639, 644, 674, 707, 748, 811 
 
 Raymond, Charles H 14, 493, 507, 590, 639, 675, 707, 746, *11 
 
INDEX. 935 
 
 Reed, George H 89, 801 
 
 Reed, Thomas B 206 
 
 Rich, George F .17, 21, 493, 507, 590, 640, 674, 707, 748 
 
 Richards, Seth M 15, 93, 507, 540, 590 
 
 Richardson, Milton A 14, 507, 590, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Richardson, Warren B. .16, 91, 493, 507, 590, 639, 644, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Richer, Joseph 13, 87, 507, 590, 639, 707, 748, 81 1 
 
 Rideout, Henry M 11, 92, 508, 589, 639, 673, 708, 746 
 
 Riley, Philip 21 
 
 Ripley, Leon D 17, 207, 508, 748, 812 
 
 Roberts, C. L 800, 802 
 
 Roberts, William H 9, 21, 508, 589, 638, 674, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Robinson, A. H 801 
 
 Robinson, Edwin R 13, 508, 589, 639, 674, 707, 747, 811 
 
 de Rochemont, Frederic W 9, 508, 589, 638, 674, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Rogers, Charles C 11, 90, 178, 268, 335, 430, 491, 508, 559 
 
 589, 600, 609, 674, 706, 746, 812, 822 
 
 Rose, Clarence E 13, 492, 508, 589, 674, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Rossiter, George P 15, 492, 508, 590, 640, 674, 708, 748, 813 
 
 Rotch, William B 14, 92, 508, 639, 675, 708, 748, 813 
 
 Roy, Clement 10, 508, 638, 706, 747, 812 
 
 Rugg, Daniel W 15, 91, 492, 508, 639, 646, 650, 708, 746 
 
 Rumford Printing Co 801 
 
 Runnells, Frederic D 14, 492, 508, 590, 639, 674, 708, 748, 811 
 
 Russell, Frank W. .16, 92, 241, 492, 508, 590, 609, 610, 675, 709, 748, 813 
 
 Sanborn, Edward B. S 3, 12, 90, 508, 639, 640, 675, 679 
 
 707, 709, 716, 748, 811, 813 
 
 Sanborn, Henry C 8, 492, 493, 508, 588, 638, 674, 707, 745, 812 
 
 Sanborn, Jeremy L 11, 508, 589, 639, 708, 746 
 
 Sanborn, John C 8, 491, 508, 588, 638, 674, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Sanborn, John W 7, 8, 11, 31, 89, 90, 267, 492, 508, 589 
 
 639, 644, 673, 706, 747, 784, 811 
 
 Sanders, Walter R 8, 92, 454, 492, 508, 707, 734, 747, 811 
 
 Sawyer, Edward N 12, 493, 508, 639, 813 
 
 Sawyer, Horace 9, 491, 508, 589, 674, 708, 747, 812 
 
 Scott, Charles 14, 98, 151, 155, 177, 284, 286, 430, 442, 447 
 
 455, 492, 508, 590. 639, 650, 674 
 707, 720, 746, 774, 799, 812, 827 
 
 Seavey, Charles L 14, 493, 508, 590, 639, 675, 707, 746, 813 
 
 Shaw, Weare N 9, 30, 404, 491, 508, 589, 593, 674, 707, 746, 812 
 
 Shedd, Albert 14, 493, 508, 590, 639, 674, 707, 748, 811 
 
 Shurtleff, Fremont E 23, 30, 800 
 
 Shute, Calvin T 7, 17, 92, 295, 361, 447, 508, 590, 640, 674, 707, 747 
 
 Simons, George 14, 492, 508, 590, 639, 675, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Slattery, Joseph T 14, 508, 590, 639, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Sloane, Scott 16, 18, 96, 97, 192, 447, 493, 508 
 
 590, 640, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
936 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Smith, George F 10, 491, 508, 589, 639, 674, 708, 746, 812 
 
 Smith, John B 13, 91, 296, 395, 493, 508, 542, 589, 639, 707, 731, 747 
 
 Smith, Kendrick W 10, 92, 169, 445, 446, 491, 508 
 
 589, 639, 673, 708, 748, 811 
 
 Spaulding, Frank A 15, 92, 508, 590, 639, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Spencer, William 11, 508, 589, 639, 673, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Spring, John R 14, 21, 493, 508, 639, 674, 707, 709, 748, 811 
 
 Springfield, George H 10, 491, 493, 508, 673, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Starr, William J 13, 20, 242, 243, 296, 304, 451, 485, 493 
 
 508, 589, 639, 675, 698, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Stearns, Willis D 14, 509, 812 
 
 Stockwell, George T 15, 23, 24, 371, 509, 590, 640 
 
 708, 748, 717, 771, 813 
 
 Stoddard, Willard A 16, 493, 509, 747 
 
 Stone, George C 24, 800, 802 
 
 Stone, George R 12, 419, 509, 536, 589, 639, 688, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Stone, George W 6, 11, 162, 264, 376, 420, 449, 492, 509, 534 
 
 538, 549, 550, 589, 599, 622, 639 
 681, 708, 717, 735, 747, 797, 811 
 
 Stone, Melvin T 15, 90, 493, 509, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Streeter, Frank S 11, 18, 76, 77, 509 
 
 Sullivan, Michael R. . . .13, 451, 493, 509, 589, 639, 675, 707, 748, 813, 822 
 
 Taft, James S 15, 21, 91, 509, 708, 748, 812 
 
 Tarbell, Walter S 13, 493, 509, 589, 639, 675, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Tenney, Edward J 15, 20, 91, 509, 590, 640, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Thompson, Arthur 12, 35, 93, 95, 336, 460, 461, 462, 468 
 
 492, 509, 589, 640, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Thompson, Edwin P 10, 91, 492, 509, 589, 673, 706, 747, 811 
 
 Thorpe, L. Ashton 22, 800, 802 
 
 Thurston, Remember B 17, 509, 707, 747, 813 
 
 Titus, Charles C 17, 492, 509, 590, 640, 674, 709, 747, 812 
 
 Todd, Jacob H 12, 509, 589, 673, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Tonery, Michael 13, 509, 589, 707, 748 
 
 Torr, Charles W 22, 800, 802 
 
 Towle, John W 8, 492, 509, 589, 638, 746, 812 
 
 Towne, Omar A 12, 509, 589, 639, 673, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Tremblay, Joseph O 13, 509, 589, 639, 674, 707, 747, 811 
 
 Trinity, Joseph F 13, 493, 509, 590, 639, 675, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Truesdell, Edmund E 12, 90, 493, 509, 514, 639, 644, 682, 707, 747 
 
 Virgin, Fales P 11, 493, 509, 639, 673, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Walker, John 9, 207, 509, 638, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Walker, Joseph E 16, 493, 509, 590, 640, 707, 747, 812 
 
 Walker, Reuben E 12, 91, 337, 493, 509, 589, 640, 673, 707, 747, 811 
 
 Ward, Edwin D 10, 21, 31, 509, 706 
 
 Ward, Simon 16, 493, 509, 590, 640, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
INDEX. 937 
 
 Warden, Alexander 16, 492, 509, 590, 640, 674, 709, 747, 813 
 
 Warner, Franklin G 12, 204, 509, 522 
 
 Wason, Edward H 14, 23, 92, 444, 451, 488, 492, 509, 545, 547 
 
 590, 629, 639, 675, 708, 722, 748, 811 
 
 Watson, Laban M 17, 492, 509, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Way, Osman B 15, 91, 509 
 
 Weare, Benjamin F 8, 491, 509, 589, 638, 707, 746, 812 
 
 Webb, John W 10, 509, 638, 674, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Webster, Edward K 12, 493, 499, 509, 589, 746, 811 
 
 Wentworth, Alvin F 16, 20, 21, 292, 493, 509, 590 
 
 636, 675, 707, 748, 813 
 
 Westgate, Tyler 16, 91, 510, 674, 707, 748, 812 
 
 Wetherell, Albert S 8, 92, 337, 510, 588, 638, 673, 706, 746, 811 
 
 Wheeler, Benjamin R 9, 491, 510, 640, 708, 747, 811 
 
 Whitaker, Hermon 13, 492, 510, 590, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Whitaker, William F 13, 493, 510, 589, 639, 675, 707, 746, 811 
 
 Whittier, Moses T 12, 510, 640, 673, 747, 811 
 
 Wight, Adam W 17, 510, 590, 640, 674, 709, 747, 812 
 
 Wight, Joseph H 17, 92, 510, 674, 709, 748, 812 
 
 Wilkins, Charles A 12, 142, 510, 639, 707, 747, 773, 813 
 
 Wilkinson, Rufus 13, 492, 510, 589, 639, 674, 747, 811 
 
 Willson, Edward T 10, 491, 510, 589, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Wilson, Royal L 12, 510, 589, 639, 675, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Wingate, Joseph C. A. .9, 71, 75, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 98, 190, 200, 265, 275 
 410, 411, 510, 589, 638, 673, 706, 746, 756, 812 
 
 Woodbury, Arthur K 14, 493, 510, 590, 639, 674, 748, 811 
 
 Woodbury, Elmer E 17, 33, 91, 103, 338, 492, 510, 523, 590 
 
 640, 646, 650, 709, 725, 747, 856 
 
 Woodbury, Gordon 12, 90, 289, 377, 378, 510, 670 
 
 675, 703, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Woolson, Augustus A 16, 20, 487, 492, 510, 640, 674, 709, 747 
 
 Woodward, Clement J 15, 92, 510, 639, 674, 707, 748. 812 
 
 Worcester, George A 14, 240, 492, 510, 590, 639, 708, 748^ 813 
 
 Wright, Charles, 2d 15, 207, 510, 674, 708, 748, 812 
 
 Wyatt, Otis C 12, 492, 510, 640, 708, 746, 811 
 
 Young, Charles A . . . , 16, 509, 510, 590, 640, 675, 747 
 
 Young, Willis E .17, 493, 510, 812 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Adjournment, resolutions relating to 593, 749, 799 
 
 final 823 
 
 Amendment to woman's suffrage resolution 462 
 
 Amendments proposed, when to submit to people 804 
 
 Bill of Rights and Executive Department, committee appointed. . 90 
 
 Chairman, temporary 3 
 
 address by 3 
 
 Chaplain, appointment of 22 
 
 president to supply 89 
 
 Colby, James F., tendered thanks of Convention 804 
 
 Committee on Assignment of Rooms, resolution creating 141 
 
 appointment of 142 
 
 report of 178 
 
 Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department, appoint- 
 ment of 90 
 
 Committee on Credentials, resolution creating 6 
 
 report of 8 
 
 Committee on Finance, resolution creating 178 
 
 appointment of 207 
 
 report 781*799 
 
 Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution and 
 
 Other Proposed Amendments, appointment of 91 
 
 Committee on Judicial Department, appointment of 91 
 
 Committee on Legislative Department, appointment of. 90 
 
 Committee on Mileage, resolution creating 141 
 
 appointment of 206 
 
 report of 499 
 
 Committee on Permanent Organization, resolution creating 19 
 
 appointment of 19 
 
 report of 22 
 
 Committee to consider petition of Felix G. Harbor et als., 
 
 appointment of 21 
 
 report of 87 
 
 Committee to conduct president-elect to the chair 18 
 
 Committee on Publishing the Report of the Proceedings of the 
 
 Convention, resolution creating 651 
 
 appointment of 70& 
 
 report of 802 
 
940 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Committee on Rules, resolution creating 20 
 
 appointment of 20 
 
 president added 23 
 
 report of 24 
 
 adopted 30 
 
 Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the 
 Amendments Agreed to by the Convention, appointment of. . 92 
 
 report of 766, 813 
 
 adopted.. 822 
 
 Committee to Consider Ward Ten, Manchester, Contest, appoint- 
 ment of 21 
 report of 88 
 
 Committee of the Whole 40-86, 103-140, 142-177, 182-196 
 
 268-295, 297-331, 338-360, 362- 
 
 371, 372-390, 400-419, 420-458 
 
 462-490, 494-498, 553-588, 684- 
 
 690, 751-763 
 
 Communication from State Treasurer I 390 
 
 Concord Evening Monitor, resolution authorizing purchase of 20 
 
 Constitutional Conventions, resolutions relating to 243, 296, 333 
 
 discussion on 626 
 
 roll-call 638 
 
 report inexpedient 641 
 
 Constitution, resolution relating to future amendments 32 
 
 of New Hampshire 881 
 
 Contest, Ward Ten, Manchester, resolution in favor of Nelson W. 
 
 Paige 459 
 
 Convention, hours for assembling 23 
 
 president of 18 
 
 ballot for 18 
 
 secretary of 19 
 
 ballot for 19 
 
 Council, resolution relating to 335 
 
 report inexpedient 609 
 
 County Solicitors, resolution relating to 93 
 
 new draft 337 
 
 discussion 792 
 
 laid on table 799 
 
 Courts, Police, resolution to extend jurisdiction 95 
 
 new draft 518 
 
 discussion 675 
 
 adopted 677 
 
 Courts, Supreme and Superior, resolutions relating to 101, 264 
 
 discussion 601, 651 
 
 report 670 
 
 indefinitely postponed 717 
 
 Credentials, Committee on, resolution creating 6 
 
 report of 8 
 
INDEX. 941 
 
 Debate, resolution limiting, adopted 608 
 
 District System, proposition to determine 181 
 
 report favoring 644 
 
 Doorkeepers, appointment of 22 
 
 Educational Test, resolution relating to 7& 
 
 adopted 514 
 
 Electing Certain State Officers by the People, resolution relating 
 
 to 332 
 
 indefinitely postponed 718 
 
 Electors, resolution relating to privileges of 336 
 
 report inexpedient 782 
 
 Estates of Deceased Persons, resolution to tax 32 
 
 report inexpedient 460 
 
 Exempting Property from Taxation, resolution relating to 264 
 
 discussion 528 
 
 report inexpedient 553 
 
 Final Adjournment 823 
 
 resolutions relating to 593, 749, 799 
 
 Finance, discussion on 391 
 
 Finance Committee, resolution creating 178 
 
 appointment of 207 
 
 report 781, 799 
 
 Free Passes, memorandum concerning the prohibition of on rail- 
 roads 230 
 
 resolutions relating to 101, 102, 243, 335 
 
 discussion 681, 684, 751, 765, 808 
 
 roll-call 811 
 
 resolution to refer to legislature 752 
 
 Future Constitutional Conventions, resolutions relating to.243, 296, 333 
 
 discussion 626 
 
 roll-call 638 
 
 report inexpedient 641 
 
 Future Mode of Amending the Constitution, and Other Proposed 
 Amendments, committee appointed 91 
 
 Governor, Lieutenant, resolution creating office 266 
 
 report inexpedient 609 
 
 Governor's Council, resolution relating to 335 
 
 report inexpedient 609 
 
 Governor's Proclamation 880 
 
 Governor's Title, resolution relating to 179 
 
 report inexpedient 523 
 
 " His Excellency," resolution relating to 179 
 
 report inexpedient 523 
 
 House of Representatives, proposition to determine size 181 
 
942 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Incompatibility of Certain Officers, resolution relating to 237 
 
 report 371 
 
 indefinitely postponed 764 
 
 Inheritance Tax, resolution relating to 250 
 
 report inexpedient 594 
 
 Initiative and Keferendum, resolutions relating to 204, 264 
 
 discussion 606,784 
 
 indefinitely postponed. 764, 799 
 laid on table 792 
 
 Judicial Department, committee appointed 91 
 
 Legislation, Special, resolution prohibiting 244 
 
 discussion 516 
 
 report inexpedient 682 
 
 Legislative Department, committee appointed 90 
 
 Lieutenant-Governor, resolution creating office 266 
 
 report inexpedient 609 
 
 " Male," resolution to strike out of constitution 93 
 
 Manchester Union, resolution authorizing purchase of 20 
 
 Members of the Convention, resolution relating to pay 521 
 
 Memorandum concerning the prohibition of free passes on rail- 
 roads 230 
 
 trusts and monop- 
 olies 223 
 
 Method of procedure, discussion on 74 
 
 Mileage Committee, resolution creating 141 
 
 appointment of 206 
 
 report of 499 
 
 Militia, resolution relating to 241 
 
 adopted 609 
 
 Official stenographer, appointment of 23 
 
 oath of office 30 
 
 Organic Law Development, review of 208 
 
 Organization, temporary 3 
 
 Pages, appointment of 24 
 
 Passes, Free, memorandum concerning the prohibition of on 
 
 railroads 230 
 
 resolutions relating to 101, 102, 243, 335 
 
 discussion 681, 684, 751, 765, 808 
 
 roll-call 811 
 
 resolution to refer to legislature 752 
 
 Patriot, The Daily, permission to distribute 30 
 
 Pensions, resolution relating to 331 
 
 adopted 594 
 
INDEX. 943 
 
 Pensions, resolution reconsidered and laid on table 719 
 
 People and Patriot Co., communication from 30 
 
 Petition of Felix G. Harbor et als. t presented 7 
 
 committee to consider 21 
 
 report of 87 
 
 Plurality to elect, resolution relating to 32 
 
 discussion 524 
 
 indefinitely postponed 678 
 
 Police Courts, resolution to extend jurisdiction 95 
 
 new draft 518 
 
 discussion 675 
 
 adopted 677 
 
 Polls and Estates, taxation of 249 
 
 Popular vote to elect certain state officials 243, 332 
 
 discussion , 523 
 
 roll-call 673 
 
 report inexpedient 675 
 
 President, ballot for 18 
 
 address by 18 
 
 tendered thanks of Convention 805 
 
 address by 807 
 
 Press, resolution tendering thanks of Convention to 823 
 
 Privileges of an elector, resolution relating to 336 
 
 report inexpedient 782 
 
 Proceedings, first day 3-22 
 
 second day 23-88 
 
 third day 89-177 
 
 fourth day 178-205 
 
 fifth day, no session, 
 sixth day, no session. 
 
 seventh day 206-248 
 
 eighth day 249-336 
 
 ninth day 337-419 
 
 tenth day 420-497 
 
 eleventh day 498-520 
 
 twelfth day, no session, 
 thirteenth day, no session, 
 fourteenth day, no session. 
 
 fifteenth day 521-607 
 
 sixteenth day 608-683 
 
 seventeenth day 684-783 
 
 eighteenth day 784-823 
 
 Proclamation by governor 880 
 
 Proposed Amendments, when to submit to people 804 
 
 Questions submitted to qualified voters 863 
 
 vote on.., . 866 
 
944 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Heed, Thomas B., resolutions adopted 20$ 
 
 Religious clause in Constitution, resolutions relating to 38, 93, 238 
 
 discussion. .39, 182, 511, 613 
 
 adopted new draft 625- 
 
 Representation, resolutions relating to 33, 36, 38, 86, 95, 98, 99, 178 
 
 179, 180, 203, 207, 240, 241 
 246, 247, 297 
 
 discussion 103, 142, 181, 196, 268, 297 
 
 338, 372, 396, 420, 719 
 
 majority report 641 
 
 minority report 646 
 
 report for district system 644 
 
 roll-call 745 
 
 Resolutions relating to adjournment, final 593, 749, 799, 823 
 
 Resolution to amend Art. 32, Part 2, of the Constitution 98 
 
 report inexpedient 267 
 
 Resolution to amend Art. 6, Bill of Rights 38, 93, 238 
 
 Resolution creating Committee on Assignment of Rooms 141 
 
 appointment of 142 
 
 report of 178 
 
 Resolution creating Committee on Credentials 6 
 
 report of 8 
 
 Resolution creating Committee on Finance 178 
 
 appointment of 207 
 
 report 781, 799 
 
 Resolution creating Committee on Mileage 141 
 
 appointment of 206 
 
 report of 499 
 
 Resolution creating Committee on Permanent Organization 19 
 
 appointment of .... 19 
 
 report of 22 
 
 Resolution creating Committee on Rules 20 
 
 appointment of 20 
 
 president added 23 
 
 report of 24 
 
 adopted 30 
 
 Resolution creating Committee to publish the report of the Pro- 
 ceedings of the Convention 651 
 
 appointment of 709 
 
 report of 802 
 
 Resolution creating Committee to consider Ward Ten, Manches- 
 ter, contest 21 
 
 report of 88 
 
 Resolution relating to Constitutional Conventions 243, 296, 333 
 
 discussion 626 
 
 roll-call 638 
 
 report inexpedient. ... 641 
 
INDEX. 945 
 
 Resolution to extend jurisdiction of Police Courts 95 
 
 new draft 518 
 
 discussion 675 
 
 adopted 677 
 
 Resolution relating to Supreme and Superior Courts 101, 264 
 
 discussion 601, 651 
 
 report 670 
 
 indefinitely postponed 717 
 
 Resolution on death of Hon. Thomas B. Reed 206 
 
 Resolution limiting debate adopted 608 
 
 Resolution relating to educational test 75 
 
 adopted 514 
 
 Resolution to elect certain state officers by the people 332 
 
 indefinitely postponed 718 
 
 Resolution!relating to privileges of an elector 336 
 
 report inexpedient.. 782 
 
 Resolution to tax estates of deceased persons 32 
 
 report inexpedient. . 460 
 
 Resolution relating to exempting property from taxation 264 
 
 discussion 528 
 
 report inexpedient 553 
 
 Resolution relating to governor's council 335 
 
 report inexpedient. . . 609 
 
 Resolution creating office of lieutenant-governor 266 
 
 report inexpedient 609 
 
 Resolution relating to governor's title 179 
 
 report inexpedient 523 
 
 Resolution relating to incompatibility of certain officers 237 
 
 report v 371 
 
 indefinitely postponed 764 
 
 Resolution relating to inheritance tax 25ft 
 
 report inexpedient 594 
 
 Resolution relating to initiative and referendum 204, 264 
 
 discussion 606, 784 
 
 indefinitely postponed 764, 799 
 
 laid on table 792 
 
 Resolution relating to special legislation 244 
 
 discussion 576 
 
 report inexpedient 682 
 
 Resolution to print alphabetical list of members 23 
 
 relating to pay of members 521 
 
 Resolution relating to militia 241 
 
 adopted 609 
 
 Resolution relating to free passes on railroad 101, 102, 243, 335 
 
 discussion 681, 684, 751, 765, 808 
 
 roll-call 811 
 
 to refer to legislature 752. 
 
 60 
 
946 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 Resolution in favor of Nelson W. Paige 459 
 
 Resolution relating to pensions 331 
 
 adopted 594 
 
 reconsidered and laid on table 719 
 
 Resolution authorizing president to appoint certain convention 
 
 officials 20 
 
 Resolution authorizing the printing of the following: 
 
 Review of Organic Law Development 208 
 
 Memorandum on Free Passes on Railroads 208 
 Memorandum on Trusts and Monopolies . . 208 
 
 Resolutions relating to representation 33, 36, 38, 86, 95, 98, 99, 178 
 
 179, 180, 203, 207, 240, 241 
 246, 247, 297 
 
 Resolution authorizing printing of tables 141 
 
 Resolution of thanks to James F. Colby 804 
 
 officers and employees 813 
 
 representatives of the press 823 
 
 Frank S. Streeter 805 
 
 Resolution relating to drawing of seats 21, 30 
 
 Resolution, secretary of state to furnish copies of the Journal of 1889 7 
 
 Resolution relating to size of senate .94, 96, 265, 266 
 
 discussion 719 
 
 report inexpedient 750 
 
 Resolution relating to sheriffs 97 
 
 adopted 296 
 
 Resolution relating to county solicitors 93 
 
 new draft 337 
 
 discussion 792 
 
 laid on table 799 
 
 Resolution relating to standard of value 240, 332 
 
 report inexpedient 522 
 
 Resolution relating to word " subject " 86 
 
 report inexpedient 613 
 
 Resolutions relating to trusts 37, 239, 242, 265 
 
 discussion 494, 553, 678, 679, 709 
 
 roll-call 588 
 
 Resolution relating to voting precincts 33 
 
 adopted 267 
 
 recommitted 717 
 
 adopted, new draft 764 
 
 Resolution, highest number votes sufficient 32 
 
 discussion . . . '. 524 
 
 indefinitely postponed 678 
 
 Resolution to elect by popular vote 243, 332 
 
 discussion 523 
 
 roll-call 673 
 
 report inexpedient 675 
 
INDEX. 947 
 
 Resolution relating to woman's suffrage 93 
 
 discussion 460, 591, 691 
 
 roll-call 491 
 
 reconsideration 706 
 
 notice to reconsider 493 
 
 resolution to amend.. . . 462 
 
 Review of Organic Law Development 208 
 
 Roll-call, Constitutional Conventions, future 638 
 
 electing certain state officers 673 
 
 substituting minority for majority report on represent- 
 ation 745 
 
 free passes on railroads 811 
 
 trusts 588 
 
 woman's suffrage 491 
 
 reconsideration 706 
 
 Rules, resolution creating committee '. 20 
 
 appointment of 20 
 
 president added 23 
 
 report of 24 
 
 adopted 30 
 
 to print and distribute copies 31 
 
 Seats, resolution relating to drawing 21, 30 
 
 Secretary, temporary 6 
 
 ballot for 19 
 
 oath of office 12 
 
 assistant, appointment of 82 
 
 Secretary of State 7 
 
 Sergeant-at-Arms, appointment of 22 
 
 Senate, resolutions relating to size of 94, 96, 265, 266 
 
 discussion 719 
 
 report inexpedient 750 
 
 Sheriffs, resolution relating to 97 
 
 adopted 296 
 
 Solicitors, county, resolution relating to 93 
 
 new draft 337 
 
 discussion 792 
 
 laid on table 799 
 
 Special Legislation, resolution prohibiting 244 
 
 discussion 516 
 
 report inexpedient 682 
 
 Standard of Value, resolution relating to 240, 332 
 
 report inexpedient 522 
 
 State officials, certain, to be elected by popular vote 243, 332 
 
 discussion 523 
 
 roll-call 673 
 
 report inexpedient 675 
 
"948 JOUBNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 State Treasurer, communication from 390 
 
 Stenographer, official, appointment of 23 
 
 oath of office 30 
 
 Streeter, Frank S., tendered thanks of Convention 805 
 
 ^'Subject," resolution relating to 86 
 
 report inexpedient 613 
 
 Sundry information 857 
 
 Supreme and Superior Courts, resolutions relating to 101, 264 
 
 discussion 601, 651 
 
 report 670 
 
 indefinitely postponed 717 
 
 Table, submitted by Mr. Aldrich of Littleton 134 
 
 submitted by Mr. Baker 250, 857 
 
 submitted by Mr. Barton 853 
 
 submitted by Mr. Leach 849 
 
 submitted by Mr. Lyf ord 108 
 
 submitted by Mr. Newell 838 
 
 submitted by Mr. Scott 827 
 
 submitted by Mr. Woodbury of Woodstock 856 
 
 Tables, resolution authorizing printing of 141 
 
 Tax, inheritance, resolution relating to 250 
 
 report inexpedient 594 
 
 Taxation, exempting property from, resolution relating to 264 
 
 discussion 528 
 
 report inexpedient 553 
 
 resolutions relating to 249, 250 
 
 report new draft 595, 625 
 
 accepted 625 
 
 indefinitely postponed 684 
 
 Taxing estates of deceased persons, resolutions relating to 32 
 
 report inexpedient 460 
 
 Tellers, to distribute and collect ballots 17 
 
 to sort and count ballots 18, 19 
 
 permanent, appointment of 141 
 
 Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments 
 
 Agreed to by the Convention, committee appointed 92 
 
 report of 766, 813 
 
 adopted 822 
 
 Treasurer, state, communication from 390 
 
 Trusts and monopolies, memorandum concerning prohibition of. 223 
 
 Trusts, resolutions relating to 37, 239, 242, 265 
 
 discussion 494, 553, 678, 679, 709 
 
 roll-call 588 
 
 Value, standard of, resolution relating to 240, 332 
 
 report inexpedient 522 
 
INDEX. 949 
 
 Vote, popular, to elect certain state officials 243, 332 
 
 discussion 523 
 
 roll-call 673 
 
 report inexpedient.. 675 
 
 Voters, questions submitted to 863 
 
 vote on 866 
 
 Votes, highest number sufficient in all cases 32 
 
 Voting precincts, resolution relating to.. . 33 
 
 adopted 267 
 
 recommitted 717 
 
 adopted new draft 764 
 
 Ward ten, Manchester, contest, resolution in favor of Nelson W. 
 
 Paige 459 
 
 Warden of cloak room, appointment of 22 
 
 assistant, appointment of 31 
 
 Woman's Suffrage Association, communication from 35 
 
 address by representatives of 336 
 
 Woman's suffrage, resolution relating to 93 
 
 discussion 460, 591, 691 
 
 roll-call 491 
 
 reconsideration 706 
 
 notice to reconsider 493 
 
 resolution to amend 462 
 
 Yeas and nays, constitutional conventions, future 638 
 
 election of certain state officials 673 
 
 free passes 811 
 
 representation 745 
 
 woman's suffrage 491, 706 
 
 trusts.. . 588 
 
YC 36129