422 REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. CHAP. and its erection into a distinct and independent common IX. 1820 wealth.1 But one other topic remains to be noticed in this place – the revision of the constitution in 1820. The convention for this purpose was called during the administration of Governor Brooks, who succeeded Mr. Strong in 1816, and who was chosen chief magistrate for seven years successively.2 At the original adoption of the constitution, it had been proposed that a convention should be called, at the end of fifteen years, for its revision, should changes be deemed necessary; but nothing was done at that time. It was supposed, however, that alterations might now be made which would be improvements in the instrument, though it was not contended that it was materially defective, nor had there been any complaints of its abridging the liberties of the people. A diminution in the number of representatives, and the adoption of a new principle in the choice of senators, were the principal changes suggested; and, as the District of Maine had been recently Petitions for the separation of Maine were preferred to the legislature of Massachusetts in 1816, and a convention was appointed, to be holden at Brunswick, which voted in favor of the step; but the separation was not fully effected until 1820. N. Am. Review for Sept., 1816; Bradford, iii. 244, 249, 257, 258; Williamson's Maine, ii. 2 Bradford, iii. 238, 256. Governor Brooks was a native of Medford, Mass., and at the time of his election was in the 64th year of his age. He had served with distinction in the war of the revolution, and had filled many important offices, both civil and military. After the war, he was for some time major general of the Massachusetts militia, and marshal for the district of Massachusetts, under the federal government. He was also a member of the convention for adopting the federal constitution, a representative and senator in the legislature of Massachusetts, and a member of the Council under Governor Strong. Respected for his talents, and remarkably conciliating and popular in his manners, though very decided and independent in his conduct, his qualities as a statesman and his character as a man secured him the confidence of the members of both parties; his policy and measures gave no occasion for his political opponents to charge him with acting exclusively or rashly; and the course he pursued, throughout his administration, was eminently calculated to check the violence of partisan feeling. That he was a federalist is admitted; but no one was more ardently attached to republican principles, and no one more readily subscribed to the doctrine that civil and political power emanates from the people. Comp. Rev. Charles Brooks's Hist. of Medford, and N. E. Gen. Hist. Reg. REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 423 erected into a separate state, this was thought the most favor- CHAP. able time for effecting these changes. IX. Nov. The votes of the people were in favor of a convention, and 1820. it was accordingly called - its sessions being held in the city of Boston. Over this large and respectable body of nearly five hundred men, among whom were many of the most eminent civilians, the venerable John Adams, formerly president of the United States, and then in the eighty-fifth year of his age, was called to preside; but, declining the service on account of his years and his growing infirmities, Chief Justice Parker was chosen in his place. The sessions continued for about seven weeks; the greatest harmony prevailed among the members; and, as the result of their labors, a number of amendments were proposed, to be submitted to the people for adoption or rejection. These amendments were embodied in fourteen articles or clauses, only nine of which were ultimately approved, and one of these related merely to the mode of introducing future alterations.1 The convention was in favor of an alteration of the constitution by which only one session of the General Court should be held in each year, commencing on the first Wednesday in January with a power in the legislature or the governor, however, to call other meetings, should necessity require; but this change was not approved, nor was it finally adopted until some years after. The proposition that representatives should be chosen by districts, instead of by towns, was likewise rejected; nor was the more recent attempt of the convention of 1853 to effect a like change attended with better success. The proposal for an alteration in the third article of the bill of rights, depriving the legislature of the power of enjoining on the citizens of the state attendance upon public religious worship, was also rejected; nor was that article altered until the Proceedings of the Convention; Bradford, iii. 262, 263. 424 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED. IX. CHAP. year 1834.1 It was also the opinion of the convention that the tenure of office for the judges of the judicial courts should 1820. be expressly during good behavior, without a liability of removal for any other cause; but the change was deemed unnecessary, as it was supposed there was little danger of removal for merely political purposes.2 The amendments adopted by the people were, that the gov ernor should have five days, while the General Court was in session, to consider and object to any bill presented to him for signature; that the legislature should have power to constitute municipal or city governments in any town containing at least twelve thousand inhabitants, reserving the power to annul any by-laws made by such governments; that all male persons of the age of twenty-one years, who had resided within the state for one year, and for six months within the town in which they claimed a right to vote, and who had paid a tax assessed upon them within two years, should have and enjoy the right of suffrage; and that, in the election of military officers, those under twenty-one years of age, who were reg ular members of a company, should have a right to vote; that notaries public should be appointed by the governor, with the consent of the Council, in the same manner and for the same time as justices of the peace, which was for the term of seven years; that no county attorney, clerk of a court, sheriff, register of probate, or register of deeds, should, at the same time, be a member of the Congress of the United States, and that no judge of the Court of Common Pleas should hold any other office under the commonwealth except that of justice It was further proposed so to amend the declaration of rights as to provide that persons on trial for crimes might be heard by themselves and counsel, instead of themselves or counsel; and that no person should suffer imprisonment, or other ignominious punishment, on official infor mation, nor unless on indictment by a grand jury, except in cases expressly provided for by law. See Proceedings of the Convention, and Address to the People. 2 Proceedings of the Convention; Bradford, iii. 263–265. IX. of the peace or an office in the militia; and that future amend- CHAP. ments should receive the consent of the majority of the Senate and two thirds of the House, be published and approved by 1820. the like numbers in the next General Court, then submitted to the people, and, if approved by a majority of their votes, become a part of the constitution. In addition to these propositions, that part of the constitution which required all the legislators, magistrates, and civil officers to declare their belief in the Christian religion was annulled, and the oath of allegiance was likewise abridged.1 It will be perceived that none of these changes materially affected the integrity of the instrument which the wisdom of our fathers had framed, and that the people, as a general thing, were satisfied with their system of government - a system as perfect, perhaps, as is any where enjoyed, and as promotive of the interests and the well-being of the community. Thus the history of Massachusetts has been traced from the foundation of the colony at Plymouth to the revision of the state constitution in 1820-a period of exactly two hundred years. To sum up the incidents narrated in these volumes is entirely unnecessary. Taken as a whole, however, it may be confidently affirmed, that the history of no other community is more striking than our own. The great lessons it teaches us are, confidence in the integrity of the people and their capacity for self-government; confidence in religious principle, which is the safeguard of liberty; and reliance on God, who is the ruler of all, and to whom individuals and nations are responsible. "In the leading or peculiar traits of character," says Bradford, in closing his narrative," the people of Massachusetts are much the same as for several generations past. They are not fond of great changes; and to mere innovations they are 1 Minutes of the Convention, and Address to the People; Bradford, iii. 265, 266, and App. 312-327. CHAP. decidedly averse. Their first desire is to give their children IX. a good education, and to maintain the literary and religious 1820. institutions of the commonwealth. They acknowledge the importance of useful employment for all classes and ages, and are desirous that their children should acquire early habits of study and industry. They are ever ready to encourage useful inventions, and to adopt improvements in agriculture and the mechanic arts, although they are deviations from the pursuits of their ancestors. With such an intelligent and moral population, it will not be difficult to support a republican government. It is only when the people are ignorant and corrupt that civil freedom is in danger, or that a few ambitious men can establish a despotic government where liberty has long been enjoyed." I Hist. of Mass. iii. 288, 289. |