H DISCABifr Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/constitutionreviseOOnewhrich 'ff. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. CONVENTION TO REVISE THE CONSTITUTION JUNE, 1912 MANCHESTER. N. H. ; PRINTED BY THE JOHN B. CLAUKE COilPANY. 1912 jk'>^>^ OOCUMtNIS CEPT. JOURNAL CONVENTION TO REVISE THE CON- STITUTION JUNE, 1912. CoNOOKD, N. H., June 5, 1912. The delegates of the Convention to Eevise the Constitution assembled in the hall of the House of Kepresentatives on Wednesday, June 5, 1912, and were called to order by Hon. Daniel Hall of Dover. On motion of Mr. William F. Whitcher of Haverhill, Hon. John M. Mitchell of Concord was chosen temporary chair- man. Messrs. Edwin G. Eastman of Exeter and Nathaniel E Mar^"Ti of Concord were chosen a committee to escort the temporary presiding officer to the chair. Oh assuming the chair, Mr. Mitchell addressed the Con- vention as follows: GE!Nn.E:NrEx of tite Con^'fntion: — Please accept my sincere thanks and grateful acknowledg-- ment for this evidence of yonr confidenee and g-enerosity. An- ticipating* j'onr desire to proceed to the work for which we are commissioned as promptly and expeditiously as is consistent with Oirderly procedure, I now await your pleasure with re- spect to completing- the temporary, and providing for the permanent organization of the Conventicn. 3 wd.273^6 *'4* *'• 'jTouris-al' OP 'Constitutional Convention. On motion of Mr. Frank B. Preston of Rochester^ Mr Harrie M. Young of Manchester was chosen temporary sec- retary. On motion of Mr. Jesse M. Barton of Newport, — 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: — SITLLIVAN COUNTT. Jesse M. Barton of Newport. Hiram Parker of Lempster. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Joseph B. Sanborn of Fremont. John L. Mitchell of Portsmouth. STRAFFORD COUNTY. Walter S. Meader of Rochester. George H. Sherry of Dover. BELKNAP COUNTY. Benjamin F. Drake of Laconia. Charles E. Tilton of Tilton. CARROLL COUNTY. Frank Weeks of Ossipee. Paul Wentworth of Sandwich. MERRIMACK COUNTY. Thomas F. Clifford of Franklin. George W. Fowler of Pembroke. Wednesday, June 5, 1912. HILLSBOBOUGH COUNTY. Arthur L. Keyes of Milford. James A. Broderick of Manchester. CHESHIEE COUNTY. Amos J. Blake of Fitzwilliam. Gardner S. Howe of Hinsdale. GKAFTON COUNTY. William S. Carter of Lebanon. James H. Bailey of Littleton. COOS COUNTY. Mitchell H. Bowker of Whitefield. Fred C. Cleaveland of Lancaster. Mr. Joseph Madden of Keene presented the petition of Patrick E. G-riflfin of Walpole, contesting the right of Daniel W. Connors of Walpole to a seat as delegate. On motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, the petition was laid on the table. On motion of Mr. Edward H. Wason of Nashua, — 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 1902, one copy for each member of this Convention, and its oflRcers. It was moved by Mr. William B. Fellows of Tilton that the resolution be laid upon the table. On a viva voce vote the resolution did not prevail. The question being on the resolution of Mr. Wason of Nashua, — On a viva vnce vote the resolution was adopted. 6 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Barton of Newport^ for the Committee on Credentials, reported that prima facie evidence had been presented to them of the election of the following named gentlemen as delegates to this Convention. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. Atkinson Charles I. Pressey. Auburn . Edward C. Griffin. Brentwood John J. Knights. Candia George H. McDuffee. Chester . Cyrus F. Marston. Danville . Clarence M. Collins. Deerfield Jonathan H. Batchelder Derry William H. Benson. Frederick J. Shepard. John E. Webster. East Kingston William D. Ingalls. E^ping . John Leddy. Exeter Henry W. Anderson. Edwin G. Eastman. Arthur 0. Fuller. John Scammon. Fremont . Joseph B. Sanborn. Greenland Harrie A. Holmes. Hampstead Frank W. Emerson. Hampton Horace M. Lane. Hampton Falls George C. Healey. Kensington Stewart E. Kowe. Kingston Leonard W. Collins. Londonderry Rosecrans W. Pillsbury. Newcastle James W. P.ridham. Newfields George E. Leighton. Newington Frederick H. Pickering. Newmarket Charles A. Morse. George H. Willey. Newton . John E. Hayford. North Hampton James R. Dow. Wednesday June 5. 1912. Northwood . William H. Towle. Nottingham . Perley B. Batchelder. Plaistow . . Fred P. Hill. Portsmouth- -Ward 1 William T. Entwistle. John August Hett. Ward 2 Charles H. Batchelder. Harry E. Boynton. Frederick M. Sise. Ward 3 John L. Mitchell. William H. Moran. Ward 4 Ernest L. Guptill. Ward 5 Eugene B. Eastman. Raymond William G. Brown. Rye Albert H. Drake. Salem George C. Gordon. Lester Wallace Hall. Sandown . John W. Lovering. Seabrook Charles D. Foote. South Hampi ■on Frank M. Jewell. Stratham George E. Gowen. Windham John E. Cochran. STBAFF ORD COUNTY. Barrington . Frank H. Clark. Dover, Ward 1 Ernest B. Folsom. Clarence I. Hurd. Ward 2 John Main. Herbert K. Otis. George H. Sherry. Ward 3 George G. Neal. Arthur G. Whittemore Ward 4 Elisha R. Brown. Alonzo Melvin Foss. Daniel Hall. Ward 5 John H. Wesley. Durham . . Albert DeMerritt. Farmington Ulysses S. Knox. Journal of Constitutional Convention. Farmington Charles W. T. Wilson. Lee Louis H. Snell. Madbury . Charles G. Sanders. Middleton William F. Hanson. Milton Fred B. Eoberts. New Durham . . Zanello D. Berry. Eochester, Ward 1 . Albert L. Eichards. Ward 2 . Frank B. Preston. . Ward 3 . Walter S. Header. Ward 4 . Aurelle Beaudoin. Isidore P. Marcotte. Ward 5 . Orrin A. Hoyt. Ward 6 . Albert Wallace. Kollinsford Gardner Grant. Somersworth, Ward 1 John N. Haines. Ward 2 Fred H. Brown. Ward 3 Louis P. Cote. Ward 4 Michael P. Flanagan. George Letourneau. Ward 5 Treffle Leclerc. Strafford . . . Woodbury W. Durgin. BET,K> FAP COUNT y:. Alton Charles H. McDuffee. Barnstead Frank H. Moore. Belmont . . Edwin C. Bean. Centre Harbor . Leonard B. Morrill. Gilford . . . James E. Morrill. Gilmanton George C. Parsons. Laconia, Ward 1 True E. Prescott. Ward 2 Edward M. Eichardson Ward 3 John T. Busiel. Ward 4 . Oscar L. Young. Ward 5 ' . William D. Veazey. Ward 6 . Benjamin F. Drake. George H. Saltmarsh. Meredith Simeon M. Estes. Wednesday, June 5, 1912. Kew Hampton . Herbert M. Thyng. Sanbornton Robert M. Wright. Tilton William B. Fellows. Charles E. Tilton. CARROLL COUNTY. Albany James T. Povall. Bartlett . . Ealza E. Andrews. Brookfield George A. Wiggin. Chatham . . . Hazen Chandler. Conway . . . Holmes B. Fifield. James L. Gibson. Arthur R. Shirley. Eaton • • Henry H. Robertson. Effingham James L. Wormwood Freedom . George F. Huckins. Hart's Location Charles H. Morey. Jackson . . . Nelson I. Trickey Madison . Edward E. Hoyt. Moultonborough James E. French. Ossipee . Frank Weeks. Sandwich Paul Wentworth. Tamworth Edward S. Pollard. Tuftonborongh Robert Lamprey. Wakefield William W. Berry. Wolfeboro Sewall W. Abbott. Frank P. Hobbs. MEHBIM !ACK ooTimn. AUenstown Charles H. Smith. Andover . . George W. Stone. Boscawen Willis G. Buxton. Bow . . Henry M. Baker. Bradford Everett Kittredge. Canterbury Henry L. Clough. Chichester . . John L. T. Shaw. Concord, Ward 1 . George E. Farrand. 10 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Concord, Ward 1 Ward 2 Wa.rd 3 AVard 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Ward 8 Ward 9 Danbury . Dunbarton Epsom Franklin, Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Henniker . Hill Hooksett Hopkinton Loudon . Newbury . New London Northfield Pembroke Pittsfield . John E. Harden. Clarence L Tibbetts. Abijah Hollis. Allen Hollis. James 0. Lyford. John M. Mitchell. Charles R. Corning. Arthur P. Morrill. Charles P. Bancroft. Henry A. Kimball. Nathaniel E. Martin. William W. Flint. Edward J. Hatch. Frank P. Quimby. Howard F. Hill. Edward J. Gallagher. John Henneberry. Harry G. Dean. Bradford Burnham. Warren Tripp. Rufus P. Gardner. Charles H. Bean. Frank E. Woodbury. Thomas F. Clifford. Seth W. Jones. Charles A. Wilkins. Ellon S. Little. Fred N. Mitchell. Arthur J. Boutwell. Albert B. Sargent. Joseph A. Donigan. Justin 0. Wellman. Edwin J. Young. George W. Fowler. Henry T. Fowler. Joseph A. Rainville. Edward Everett Clark. Nathaniel S. Drake. Wednesday June 5, 1912. 11 Salisbury John Shaw. Sutton Milton B. Wadleigh. Warner Edward H. Carroll. Webster . Harvey C. Sawyer. Wilmot . Fred E. Goodhue. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. Amherst . Horace T. Harvell. Antrim Hiram W. Eldredge. Bedford . George D. Soper. Bennington Arthur J. Pierce. Brookline Orville D. Fessenden Deering . Edwin F. Button. Francestown Edson H. Patch. Goffstown Gecrge P. Hadley. Alvin P. Seeton. Greenfield Willis D. Hardy. Greenville Daniel J. Brown. Hancock . Clarence H. Ware. Hillsborough Charles S. Flanders. George W. Haslet. Hollis Daniel W. Hayden. Hudson . Henry C. Brown. Litchfield Amos Saunders. Lyndeborough . Walter S. Tarbell. Manchester, Ward 1 Narcisse Eicher. James A. Sayers. Joseph Tait. Ward 2 Charles B. Brown. Elliot C. Lambert. Jesse B. Pattoo. George H. Warren. Allan M. Wilson. Ward 3 John G. Crawford. Joseph 0. Gagnon. Edwin F. Jones. Eugene G. Libby. 12 JouiiNAL OF Constitutional Convention. Manchester, Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Ward 8 Ward 9 Ward 10 Liidwig Lindquist. Hobart Pillsbury. John B. Cavanaugh. Henry B. Fairbanks. William G. Garmon. George I. Haselton. Frederick W. Shontell. Harrie M. Young. James A. Broderick. Martin Connor. William B. Eagan. James L. Glynn. Thomas F. Howe. Peter J. Magan. Patrick J. Eyan. Thomas F. Sheehan. Joseph P. Chatel. Joseph M. McDonough. Almus W. Morse. Robert I. Stevens. Edward B. Woodbury. Arthur J. Moquin. Herman Rodelsperger. Rudolph Schiller. Charles C. Tinkham. Henry J. Van Vliet. Theophile G. Biron. Odilon Demers. Francois X. Gagne. Euclide F. Gooffrion. Winfred D. Hebert. Horace Martel. Armelle Turcotte. Joseph Chevrette. John J. Connor. John J. Donnelly. Frank J. Leclerc. Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 13 Mason Merrimack Milford Mont Vernon . Nashua, Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 AYard 8 Ward 9 'New Boston New Ipswich Pelham . Peterborough Sharon Temple Weare Wilton Windsor Albert B. Eaton. Everett E. Parker. Arthur L. Keyes. Clinton A. McLane. Fred T. Wadleigh. Frank J. Conner. Harry P. Greeley. Charles J. Hamblett. Charles 0. Andrews. Eobert A. French. James A. Gilmore. James P. Lampron. Frank Rancour. Edward E. Parker. Frederick J. Gaffney. Edward H. Wason. Thomas F. Moran. Frederick D. Eunnells. Arthur K. Woodbury. Horace H. Phaneuf. John F. Shea. Willard C. Tolles. Frank S. Clancy. Charles Dionne^ Jr. Joseph Ducharme. George Theriault. Samuel L. Marden. William E. Davis. Charles W. Hobbs. Eben W. Jones. Ezra M. Smith. George M. Smith. Willie W. Colburn. Byron L. Morse. George E. Bales. Joseph E. Xelson. 14 Journal of Constitutional Convention. CHESHIKE COUNTT. Alstead . John W. Prentiss. Chesterfield David W. Slade. Dublin . William H. Pierce. Fitzwilliam Amos J. Blake. Gilsum Osmon H. Hubbard. Harrisville Thomas J. Winn. Hinsdale Gardner S. Howe. Edalbert J. Temple. Jaffrey George H. Duncan. Will J. Mower. Keene, Ward 1 Orville E. Cain. Charles M. Norwood. Ward 2 Adolf W. Pressler. Jerry P. Wellman. Ward 3 Martin V. B. Clark. Charles C. Sturtevant Ward 4 Robert E. Faulkner. Ward 5 Joseph Madden. Marlborough Levi A. Fuller. Marlow Rockwell F. Craig. Nelson James E. Ruffle. Eichmond Almon Twitchell. Rindge Charles W. Fletcher. Roxbury . David B. Nims. Stoddard Henry E. Spalding. Sullivan . Leslie H. Goodnow. Sur.ry Hiram F. Newell. Swanzey . George E. Whitcomb. Troy " . Melvin T. Stone. Walpole . Daniel AV. Connors. Frank A. Spaulding. Westmoreland Elmer T. Nims. Winchester John P. Ball. David 0. Fisher. Wednesday, June 5, 191*2. 15 SULLIVAN COUNTY. Acworth .... Guy S. Neal. Charlestown . . . Oscar C. Young. Claremont . . . Hartley L. Brooks. Henry N. Hurd. Emerson A. Quimby. George P. Eossiter. James Duncan Upham Cornish .... Fenno B. Comings. Croydon . Edgar W. Davis. Goshen Burk Booth. Grantham William H. Howard. Langdon . Charles Winch. Lempster Hiram Parker. Newport . Jesse M. Barton. John W. Johnson. Ernest A. Eobinson. Plainfield . . . Charles A. Tracy. Springfield Carl B. Philbrick. Sunapee . Murvin A. Bailey. Unity Charles A. Newton. Washington Melvin E. Hixson. GKAFTON COUNTY. Alexandria . ... Ned A. Mathews. Ashland . Ellis G. Gammons. Bath John H. DeGross. Benton Lebina H. Parker. Bethlehem Fred D. Lewis. Bristol . Henry C. Whipple. Campton Darius Moulton. Canaan Charles 0. Barney. Dorchester Henry M. Merrill. Faston Charles A. Young. Ellsworth Yemie H. Avery. Enfield . Thomas J. Carleton. Eugene A. Wells. 16 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Franconia Grafton Groton Hanover . Haverhill Hebron Holderness Landaff . Lebanon . Lincoln Lisbon Littleton Lyman Lyme Monroe Orange Orford Piermont Plymouth Rumney . Thornton Warren Waterville Wentworth Woodstock Henry Spooner. George S. Barney. Charlie D. Jewell. Edward P. Storrs. Frank A. Updyke. Edward M. Clark. William E. Lawrence. William F. Whitcher. Albert E. Moore. Robert P. Curry. Raymond B. Stevens. William S. Carter. William H. Hatton. Reuben C. True. Thomas P. Waterman. George E. Henry. George Conrad Brummer. Eri C. Cakes. James H. Bailey. Richard T. Eastman. George A. Veazie. Arthur N. Shute. David A. Grant. Daniel R. Gilchrist. Charles H. Ford. Robej-t 0. Carr. Samuel H. Ames. Davis B. Keniston. Frederick P. Weeks. Henry W. Herbert. Frank L. Hazeltine. Frank C. Clement. Clarence H. Green. Calvin T. Shute. George H. Green. Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 17 OOOS COUNTY. Berlin, Ward 1 Henry A. SmitJi. Patrick J. Smyth. John T. Stewart. Ward 2 Herbert I. Goss. John B. Noyes. Edmund Sullivan. Ward 3 Jonathan J. Haanei. Eobert B. Wolfe. Carroll . Edward M. Sheehe. Clarksville Willis A. Harriman. Colebrook Jason H. Dudley. Thomas F. Johnson. Oolumbia Frank P. Lang. Dalton . Henry F. Whitcomb. Dummer . • Adam W. Wight. Errol Arthur E. Bennett. Gorham . Alfred E. Evans. Jefferson Don C. Clough. Lancaster Fred C. Cleaveland. Irving W. Drew. George F. Morris. Milan Frank M. Hancock. No-rthumberland Henry H. Hayes. Judson A. Potter. Pittsburg George W. Baldwin. Kandolph Arthur L. Watson. Shelburne James Simpson. Stark William T. Pike. Stewartstown Perley Knapp. Stratford John C. Pattee. Whitefield . . . Mitchell H. Bowker. Benjamin C. Garland. On motion of Mr. Corning of Concord, the report was ac- cepted and adopted. The roll was then called, and 383 gentlemen answering to 18 Journal of Constitutional Convention. their names^ a quorum of the Convention was declared pres- ent. M-r. Lyford of Concord moved that the Convention pro- ceed to the election of a permanent president by ballot and that the chair appoint three tellers to distribute, collect and assort the votes^ but subsequently withdrew the motion. Mr. Eastman of Exeter moved that the Hon. Edwin F. Jones of Manchester be elected permanent president by acclamation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Madden of Keene. On a viva voce vote the Hon. Edwin F. Jones was elected President of the Convention. Messrs. Wason of Nashua and DeMerritt of Durham were appointed to conduct the President-elect to the chair. (The President in the chair.) On assuming the chair Mr. Jones addressed the Convention as follows: Gen^hlemen of TKB CONYETeriON: — For this token of your esteem and confidence, I would return you my sincere thanks, doubly sincere for the handsome and unanimons manner in which the choice has been made. I deem it an honor second to none that can come to a citizen of New Hampshire, and to prove to you my appreciation of the g-reat honor which you have conferred upon me, I shall endeavor, with fairness and with strict compliance with the rules that may be adopted by the Convention to preside over the deliber- ations of this body, in order that we mOij^ as quickly as possi- ble perform the duties w*hich have been imposed upon us by the people of this state. Without your assistance I can do little, working together we can accomplish the work satis- factorily, I trust. It is a great task and an important duty that has been en- trusted to us. In considering the proposals Avhich shall come before this Convention for changes in the fundamental law of this state, let us proceed with caution, with deliberation, with tliought. If we remember the success of the old constitution, if we respect the work of the fathers, if we see how that work Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 19 has stood during- a century and a quarter, if we cling- to the traditions and landmarks of the past, we shall do well; and if we do not move for any great chang-e in that constitution uhder which we have lived so long- and so happily in this state, and do not move until after the most mature deliberation and careful uiscussion, we have decided in our own minds that we are willing to extend to the people the opportunity to make chang-es, which we, out of our judgment and out of our deliber- ations shall heartily submit to them, — then we will have done something which will be satisfactory to ourselves, and perhaps something which will be ratified by the people. Then let us proceed with caution, with deliberation, and with care. Once more I thank you for the honor you have given me, and I await the pleasure o£ the Convention. On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, proceeded to ballot for Secretary of the Convention. The President appointed as tellers Mess.rs. Hill of Concord, Hnrd of Claremont, Farrand of Concord, Lamhert of Man- chester, and Norwood of Keene. The ballot for Secretary resulted as follows: Whole number of ballots cast 383 Necessary to a choice 192 Harry F. Lake of Concord 2 Thomas H. Madigan^ Jr., of Manchester 119 Allan Chester Clark of Concord 262 And Allan Chester Clark having received a majority of all the ballots cast was declared elected. Mr. Clark appeared and qualified before President Jones. On motion of Mr. Qnimby of Concord^ the following reso- lution was adopted: Besolved, 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 20 Journal of Constitutional Convention. doorkeepers, a warden of the coat-room, and an official sten- ographer. The President appointed the following gentlemen as such committee: Messrs. Quimby of Concord, Clough of Canterbury, Kewton of Unity, Barton of Newport, Young of Laconia, Prescott of Laconia, Anderson of Exeter, Morse of Newmarket, Whitte- more of Dover, Brown of Somersworth, Sullivan of Berlin, Evans of Gorham, Oakes of Littleton, Shute of Wentworth, French of Moultonborough, Hobbs of Wolfeboro, Warren of Manchester, Tolles of Nashua, Cain of Keene, and Winn of Harris ville. Mr. H'O'bbs of Wolfeboro offered the following resolution: R^olved, That the Secretary of State be instructed to pro- cure for the use of the members 425 copies daily of the Manchester Union, the Concord Evening Monitor^ and the Concord Daily Patriot. On motion of Mr. Clark of Haverhill, the resolution was laid upon the table. On motion of Mr. Clifford of Franklin, — Resolved, That the President be authorized to appoint three pages. On motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua, the following resolu- tion was adopted: Resolved, That a committee of ten, one from each county, be appointed by the chair to report rules for the government of this Convention and recommend methods of procedure, and until the report of this committee shall have been ac- cepted and adopted the rules of the Convention of 1902 be adopted as the rules of this Convention. The President appointed the following gentlemen as such committee: Messrs. Wason of Nashua, George W. Fowlei Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 21 of Pembroke, Scammon of Exeter, Hurd of Dover, Madden of Keene^ Dudley of Colebrook, Bailey of Littleton, Bean of Belmont, Gibson of Conway, Hurd of Claremont. On motion of Mr. Wason of N'ashua, — Resolved, That when this Convention adjourn, it adjourn to meet this afternoon at 2 o'clock. On motion of Mr. Gladden of Keene, the petition of Pat- •rick E. Griffin of Walpole, contesting the right of Daniel W. Connors of AValpole to a seat as a delegate, was taken from the table and referred to a special committee, consisting of one member from each county. The President appointed the following gentlemen as such committee: Messrs. Fuller of Exeter, Stone of Andover, Howe of Hinsdale, Haines of Somersworth, Wentworth of Sandwich, Yeazey of Laconia, Broderick of Manchester, John- son of Newport, Cleaveland of Lancaster, Gilchrist of Monroe. On motion of Mr. Barney of Canaan, the following reso- lution was adopted: Resolved, That the drawing of seats be made a special order for this afternoon at 2.05 o'clock, that the method followed in the House of Eepresentatives be adopted and that the Sec- retary of the .Convention draw seats for absent members. On motion of Mr. Young of Laconia, Messrs. Van Vliet of Manchester and Drake of Laconia were permitted to select seats in advance of the drawing, both being deprived of their eyesight. On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, the following reso- lution 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. Wliitcher of Haverhill, the Convention adjourned. 22 Journal of Constitutional Convention. AFTEEJS'OOX. The Convention met at 2 o'clock, according to adjourn- ment. (The President in the chair.) Mr. Quimby of Concord^ for the Committee on Permanent Organization, reported, recommending the following named lady and gentlemen for the several offices: Assistant Secretary, Bernard W. Carey of Newport. Sergeant-at-Arms, Albert P. Davis of Concord. Chaplain, Eev. Charles C. Garland of Concord. Doorkeepers, John F. Bartlett of Sandown, Oscar D. Bev- erstock of Keene, and Charles A. Holden of Rumney. Warden of Coat-room, Eugene D. Sanborn of Fremont. Official Stenographer, Lizzie H. Sanborn of Laconia. The report was accepted and the recommendations were adopted. The committee also recommended the election of George Goodhue of Concord, doorkeeper, Augustus P. Home of La- conia, assistant warden of the coat-room, and Ray E. Burkett of Concord, assistant stenographer, to serve during the Con- vention. The recommendations were adopted. Mr. Wason of Nashua, for the Committee on Rules and Methods of Procedure, submitted the following report: RULES OF THE CONVEINTTON". 1. The President shall take the chair at p-recisely the hour to which the Convention shall have adjourned, shall immediately call the members to order, and at the commence- ment of each day's session shall cause the journal of the pre- Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 23 ceding 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 adjournment. 2. A majority of all the members of the Convention shall constitute a quorum. 3. All committees shall be appointed by the President, unless otherwise directed by the Convention; and the first named member of any committee appointed by the President shall be chairman. 4. Xo person but the members and officers of the Con- vention 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, first, to adjourn; second, to lay on the table; third, to postpone to a day certain; fourth, to commit; fifth, 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 precede all amendments to the main question; and all mo- tions and reports may be committed at the pleasure of the Convention. 9. No vote shall be reconsidered unless the motion for reconsideration be made by a member who voted with the majority. 10. Every question shall be decided by yeas and nays, 24 Journal of Constitutional Convention. 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 com- mittee; and the rules of proceeding in Convention shall be observed in Committee of the AYhole, 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 order 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 amend- ment 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 re- ferred to an appropriate committee, who shall examine and report thereon to the Convention, with such recommenda- tions as they may deem advisable. No proposition for an amendment shall be received after Tuesda}^ June 11, 1912, unless by unanimous consent of the Convention or upon the recommendation of a standing 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 Rights and Executive Department. (2) On Legislative Department. (3) On Judicial Department. WEbNESDAY, June 5, 1912. 25 (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. On motion of Mr. Wason of Xashua^ the report was ac- cepted and the rules adopted as the rules of the Convention, On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, the Secretary was' instructed to secure the usual number of printed copies of the rules for the use of the members of the Convention. On motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, — Besolved, That the Secretary of State be instructed to furnish 425 copies of Colby's Manual of the Constitution of New Hampshire, edition of 1902, for the use of the officers and members. Mr. Young of Manchester called for the special order of the afternoon, the same being the drawing of seats. Pay E. Burkett of Concord qualified before the President as assistant stenographer. Mr. Flint of Concord introduced the following resolution: Resolution No. 1. Relating to the House of Representatives. Besolved, That Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the state of New Hampshire shall be, and hereby are, amended to read as follows: Art. 9. There shall be in the legislature of this state a representation of the people, biennially elected, as follows: Every town, or place entitled to town privileges, shall have one representative in the General Court, except as hereinafter specified. 26 Journal of Constitutional Convention. The city of Manchester shall have five, and all other cities in the state, together with the town of Claremont, shall have three representatives. On motion of Mr. Flint of Concord, the resolution was re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Flint of Concord introduced the following resolution: Resolution No. 2. Relating to the Senate. Resolved, That Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire shall be, and hereby are, amended to read as follows: Art. 24. The Senate shall consist of 50 members, who shall hold their office for two years, from the first Wednes- day 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, di- vide the state into 50 districts of contiguous territory, as nearly equal as may be, without dividing towns and unin- corporated places, on the basis of population according to the last census of the United States, or of this state. On motion of Mr. Flint of Concord, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Flint of Concord introduced the following resolution: Resolution No. 3. Relating to Future Mode of Amending the Constitution. Resolved, That Articles 97, 98 and 99 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire shall be, and hereby are, amended to read as follows: Art. 97. Any amendment or amendments to this Con^ stitution may be proposed by either house of the legislature. Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 27 Any proposed amendment or amendments which shall be introduced in either house, and which shall be approved by a majority of the members of the General Court, shall be entered on the journal of each house, together with the ayes and nays thereon. When any proposed amendment or amend- ments shall be thus passed by a majority of each house of the legislature, and entered on the respective journals thereof, the Secretary of State shall submit such proposed amend- ment or amendments to the vote of the people at the next general election (except the legislature direct a special elec- tion, in which case the amendment or amendments shall be submitted at such special election), and if a majority of the qualified electors voting shall approve and ratify such pro- posed amendment or amendments at said regular or special election, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution. Until otherwise provided by law, the Secretary of State shall have such proposed amendment or amendments pub- lished in at least two newspapers in each county for a period of not less than 90 days. If more than one amendment shall be submitted, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be submitted in such manner that the electors may vote for or against such proposed amendments separately. Art. 98. Whenever a convention shall be called by the legislature to propose alterations, revisions or amendments to this Constitution, or to propose a new Constitution, such amendments, alterations, revisions or new Constitution pro- posed by such convention shall not go into effect until sub- mitted to the electors of the state at a general or special election, and be approved by the majority of the electors voting thereon. On motion of Mr. Flint of Concord, the resolution was re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey introduced the following resolution: 28 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Resolution No. 4. Relating to the Initiative and Referendum and Future Mode of Amending the Constitution. Resolved, That the Constitution of Xew Hampshire be amended as follows: After Article 5 of Part Second of the Constitution add a new article, which shall be numbered Article 6, and which shall be as follows: Akt. 6. iN'o act or resolve passed by the General Court shall take effect earlier than ninety days after the final ad- journment of the General Court passing the same, except ap- propriation bills authorizing expenditures from the treasury of the state for purposes authorized by existing law, and ex- cepting also acts or resolves declared to be emergency meas- ures. An act or resolve declared to be an emergency measure shall contain a preamble briefly setting forth the facts con- stituting the alleged emergency. A separate vote shall be taken on the preamble of such act or resolve by a call of the yeas and nays, and unless the preamble is adopted by a two- thirds vote of the total membership of each branch of the General Court, the act or resolve shall not be an emergency measure. If within ninety days after the final adjournment of any General Court a referendum petition signed by not less than four thousand qualified voters of the state shall be filed with the Secretary of State against any act or resolve passed by that General Court, except as above stated, such act or re- solve shall not become law, but shall be submitted to the voters of the state at the ensuing state election. If a major- ity of the votes then cast thereon is in the affirmative, such act or resolve shall become law in thirty days after such state election; but if the majority is in the negative, the act or resolve shall become null and void. If a referendum petition be filed against an emergency measure, such measure shall be law until it is voted upon by the voters, and if it is then Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 29 rejected' by a majority of the voters voting tliereon, such measure shall be thereby repealed. The General Court may^ by majority yea and nay, vote in each branch, refer any act or resolve to the voters of the state, or any act or resolve affecting any locality to the voters of that locality, to be voted upon at any regula-r or special election, and such act or resolve shall become law in thirty days after having been approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon; otherwise, it shall be null and void. In case an act or resolve proposed in the General Court fails to be passed by that General Court, then on petition of the number of voters last above st-ated, and filed with the Secretary of State not less than four months previous to the next ensuing state election, said act or resolve in its original form or in such amended form proposed in the General Court as may be petitioned for by such petitioners shall be submit- ted to the voters at the next ensuing state election, and shall take effect if a majority of the votes cast thereon is in the' affirmative ; otherwise it shall not take eif ect. If accepted by the voters, such measure shall become law in thirty days after the said state election. The full text of a measure submitted to a vote of the people under this article of the Constitution need not be printed on the official ballots, but until otherwise provided by law the Secretary of State shall prepare the ballots in such form as to present the measure or measures concisely and intelligibly. The veto power of the Governor shall not extend to any measures accepted by vote of the people under this article of the Constitution. If conflicting measures submitted to the voters shall be approved by a majority of the votes severally cast thereon, the measure receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall become law as to all conflicting provisions. The Secretary of State shall print and distribute to each voter in the state entitled to vote on the measures to be submitted, not less than two months previous to the time of voting, a pamphlet containing the titles of the measures to be voted upon as they will appear upon the official ballot, 30 Journal of Constitutional Convention. together with the full text of the measures to be submitted; and the General Court shall enact legislation for ca-rrying this article of the Constitution into effect; but until such legislation shall be enacted this article shall be self-execut- ing, and the Secretary of State and all other officers shall be guided by these articles and the general laws. Re-number Article 6, making it Article 7, and likewise re- number all succeeding articles of Part Second of the Con- stitution. Strike out Articles 97, 98 and 99 of Part Second of the Constitution as it now stands, and insert in place thereof the following: Art. 97. The General Court may, by majority, yea and nay vote of all the members elected to each branch, in two consecutive legislatures, subiliit to the voters amendments to this Constitution, which shall take effect when approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon, and not otherwise. Art. 98. Any amendment to this Constitution, proposed by petition of not less than eight thousand qualified voters of the state, and filed with the Secretary of State not less than four months previous to any state election, shall be submitted to the voters of the state at that election in the same manner as amendments proposed by the General Court, and shall take effect when approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon, and not otherwise. Art. 99. All alterations and amendments to this Con- stitution shall take effect thirty days after having been ap- proved by a majority of the voters voting thereon, and not otherwise, the Secretary of State ha\ing in the meantime canvassed the returns of the voting thereon, and having certi- fied the Tesislts thereof. On motion of Mr. Dimcan of Jaffrey, the resolution was laid on the table, ordered to be printed, then referred to the Committee of the Whole and made a special order for Wednesday morning, June 12, at 10.35 o'clock. Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 31 Mr. Corning of Concord. — I rise really for a parliamentary inquiry. I have never been in a Constitutional Convention be- fore as a member. I presume there are many here like myself, lacking- that education and experience. What I wish to inquire about is this: Of course in my mind all the time is the simi- larity of action betw^een this Convention and our legislature. What I w^ant to know is, wrhat are the committees appointed by the chair later on, to do? Are they to consider these ques- tions, or are they to be brought in without any consideration at all and talked here off and on three or four hours. The Pr€sid}ent. — The chair will state his understanding of the rules to be as follows: Under the rules all proposed amend- ments g-o at once to one of the standing- committees unless otherwise ordered by the Convention. Most of these amend- ments would be referred back by the standing- commiitee for discussion in a full Convention. Under the interpretation of the rules in the Convention of 1902, it was found to be very desirable that such discussion should take place in the Coanmit- tee of the Whole rather than in the Convention itself. So then, these amendments today would have been referred, under the rules, to one of the standing- committees, if there had not been motions made by the proposers to have them referred to the Committee of the Whole. The idea is, in the Committee oi the Whole there is no yea and nay vote, and the number of times that a man can speak upon a measure is not limited, and there is a chance for full and free debate. Then the Committee of the Whole, which is really the Convention sitting- with a different presiding- of- ficer, — ^a man called Chairman of the Committee, instead of President of the Convention, — can decide whether the subject matter which they have under consideration is something- they want to support or oppose. If it is something that the full membership, having- discussed it in the Committee of the Whole, decide that they do not want it to g-oi any further, then the Committee of the Whole recomniends back to the Convention the defeat of the measure. If it is something which they think should g-oi forward, then it is referred back to the Convention, usually with the recommendation that it go to the proper standing committee, who will then consider it, in the light of the fact that the Convention has favored it in the Com- mittee of the Whole, with the idea of putting- it in the proper shape, so when it comes back from that committee it can come back in proper shape with the recora.mendatio'n of botli the Committee of the Whole, and the Standing Committee. 32 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. That is the way thing's worked in the last Convention, and, after the first day or two, things worked very nicely, and it seems to the Chair it is desirable that in this Comvention all these proposed amendments should be taken up at the pleasure of the Convention and discussed in the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole will doubtless decide quickly, one waj' or the other, and we shall make more prog-ress than if they are all sent in the first instance to some standing- committee and then come back with a report from it, and then go to the Committee of the Whole for discussion. Does that make it clear? Mr. Corninf) of Concord. — Yes, ^Ir. President. Mr. Fellows of Tilton introduced the following resolution: RESOI.UTION No. 5. Relating to Taxation of Wild and Forest Land and Money at Interest. Resolved, That Article 5, Part Second, of the Constitution be amended by inserting in the 22nd line of said article after the words "and upon all the estates within the same" the following, "except wild and forest lands and money at inter- est which may be specially assessed and rated," so that the article as amended shall read in part as follows: "Art. 5. And, further, full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the said General Court, from time to time ... to impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates, and taxes upon all the inhabi- tants of, and residents within, the said state and upon all the estates within the same except wild and forest lands and money at interest which may be specially assessed and rated.'' On motion of Mr. Fellows of Tilton that the resolution be referred to the Committee of the Whole, Question being on the motion, — Mr. Crawford of Manchester. — It seems to me from your in- terpretation of the Committee of the Whole, that this is a question on which undoubtedly there will be some discussion; or there will be evidence offered bv the Tax Commission or Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 33 soime other parties interested, and it seems to me the matter should, in the first instance, gro to the Committee on Taxation, or some other appropriate committee for their consideration before it goes to the Committee of the Whole. Your Honor's interpretation has reversed the ordinary rules of Committee of thie Whole -with which I have had some familiarity, where everything- is referred to a standing committee and they re- port and it is then put in the general order and goes to the Committee of the Whole where all amendments may be made to be reported back to the house. Then when it is reported back to the house it seems to me it is rehearsing the matter to then refer it to one of the standing committees for their consideration. It seems to me this matter of taxation is one of the most important tilings coming before this Convention and, if there are to be any hearings upon it to which outsiders or any others interested may wish to be present, these hear- ings should be had before the standing committee. Mr. Crawford of Manchester moved to amend by referring to the appropriate standing committee when appointed. Question being on the amendment, — Mr. Lyford of Cmicord. — Mr. President, I think what the gen- tleman from Manchester desires will be more readily accom- plished by the motion of the gentleman from Tilton to refer this to the Committee of the Whole than in any other way. The fact is that when it is befoire the Committee of tlie W^hole, every member has the information that would come on a hear- ing before a standing committee. You refer this to a standing committee and that committee has got to come in here and give you all the information it has received. We have found, from the experience of previous Conventions, that by referring these matters to the Committee of the Whole, every member is informed of what a special committee would be informed, and that, in the great majority of cases, time is saved thereby. It was the experience in the Convention of 1876, of which I was a member, and also of 1902, "^that this is the most s-^tisfactory way of giving every man all the information that a special committee would have, at first hand. I hope the motion of the gentleman from Tilton will prevail. Mr. Crawford of Manchester withdrew his amendment. Question being on the motion of Mr. Fellows of Tilton.— 34 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Wason of ISTashua offered the following amendment: That the resolution be laid on the table to be printed be- fore reference. On a viva voce vote the amendment was adopted, The question being on the motion of Mr. Fellows of Tilton, as amendeid-, on a viva voce vote the motion prevailed, — On motion of Mr. Clifford of Franklin, — Resolved, That all amendments previously introduced and all amendments subsequently introduced be laid on the table and printed before reference 'to Committees. Mr. Fellows of Tilton introduced the following resolution: Kesolution No. 6. Relating to Grading of Inheritance Taxes and Exemptions. R-esolved, That Article 6, Part Second^ of the Constitution be amended by adding at the end of said article the follow- ing: "Taxes assessed upon the passing of property by will or inheritance or in contemplation of death may be uniformly graded and rated in accordance with the amount of property passing, and with the degree of relationship between the donee, heir-at-law or legatee and the person from whom it passes^ and reasonable exemptions may be made." On motion of Mr. Fellows of Tilton, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Wason of Nashua introduced the following resolution: Resolution No. 7. Rdating to Female Suffrage. Resolved, That the word "male" be stricken from Article 27, Part Second, of the Constitution. Wednesday, June 5, 1912. 35 On motion of Mr. Wason of Naslrna, the resolution was laid on the table. Mr. Crawford of Manchester introduced the following reso- lution : Resolution No. 8. Eelating to the Election of Certain Officers. Resolved, That Article && of the Constitution be amended by striking out in the first line the words secretary, treasurer, so the same shall read: Art. &Q. The secretary, treasurer, attorney-general, and auditor shall be biennially elected by ballot, by plurality vote, and a commissary-general shall be chosen by joint bal- lot of the senators and representatives assembled in one room. On motion of Mr. Crawford of Manchester, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Crawford of Manchester introduced the following reso- lution : Resolution No. 9. Relating to the Tenure of Office of Certain Officers. Resolved, That Article 74 of the Constitution be amended by inserting after the word "any" in the second line the words "justice and associate justice of police courts/' so that the article shall read: In order that the people may not suffer from the long continuance in place of any justice or associate justice of the police court, and any justice of the peace, who shall fail in discharging the important duties of their office with ability and fidelity, all commissions of justices and associate justices of police courts and 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, 36 Journal of Constitutional Convention. if necessary, be renewed or another person appointed, as shall most conduce to the well-being of the state. On motion of Mr. Crawford of Manchester^ the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Lyford of Concord offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: Kesoltttton Adopted by the Contention on the Deatih lOF THE Hon. Heinut M. Baker, Deilegate from the Town of Bow. On the eve of the assembling of this Convention death has removed one of its distinguished members. A son of New Hampshire, the Hon. Henry M. Baker of Bow was ardently devoted to the interests of his native state. As a member of the legislature, a state senator, a member of the Constitu- tional Convention of 1902, and as a congressman, his pub- lic service was patriotic and honorable. As a citizen, his life was helpful to his fellowmen, every worthy cause enlisting his earnest support. Be it therefore Resolved, That we, the delegates of New Hampshire in Convention assembled, here express the sorrow of the state at the loss she has sustained by the death of a son who con- tributed his share to her fame in the service he rendered, both as a- public servant and as a private citizen, and that we spread upon our records this, our testimonial to his memory. Mr. Young of Laconia offered the following amendment: That a copy of this resolution be sent to the family. Question being on the amendment, — On a viva voce vote the amendment was adopted. Question being on the resolution as amended, — On a viva voce vote the resolution was unanimously adopted. Thursday, June 6, 1912. 37 On motion of Mr. Young of Manchester, the Convention adjourned at 5 o^clock as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Hon. Henry M. Baker of Bow. THURSDAY, June 6, 1912. The Convention met at 10.30 o'clock, according to adjourn- ment. (The President in the chair.) Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, the Eev. Charles C. Garland of Concord. On motion of Mr. Young of Manchester, the rules were so far suspended that the reading of the Journal was dispensed) with. Miss Lizzie H. Sanborn of Laconia appeared and qualified as official stenographer before the President of the Con- vention. On motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, — Resolved, That the New Hampshire Direct Legislation League be granted the use of Representatives' Hall next Tuesday evening, June 11, for a public meeting. The President, in accordance with a resolution previously adopted, appointed the following pages: Morris P. Smith of Meredith. John M. Shirley of Franklin. Fred Rushlow of Concord. Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester introduced the following resolution: • RESOI.UTION No. 10. Relating to Voting Precincts. Resolved, That the legislature shall have full power and authority to establish more than one place of public meet- 38 Journal of Constitutional Convention. ing within the limits of any town or ward in the state for the casting, counting, declaring and returning of "votes, and the election of officers under the Constitution; to prescribe the manner of warning, holding and conducting such meet- ings, and for that purpose may divide any town or ward into voting precincts. On motion of Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester introduced the following resolution: Resoolution No. 11. Eelating to Future Mode of Amending the Constitution. Resolved, That the Constitution of the state be amended as follows: Amend Part Second of the Constitution by striking out Articles 98 and 99 of the same, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Art. 98. Any amendment or amendments to this Con- stitution 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 branches, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legislature 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 branch, 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 ghall approve and ratify such amendment or amend- ments, or any of such amendments, by vote of at least two thirds of the electors voting thereon, such amendment or Thursday, June 6, 1912. 89 amendments so approved and ratified 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. Akt. 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 gen- eral election 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 ses- sion, provide for calling such convention. On motion of Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Morris of Lancaster introduced the following reso- lution: Resolution No. 12. Eelating to the Jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace. Resolved, That Article 76, Part Two, of the Constitution 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, subject to right of appeal and trial by jury of 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 de- manded shall not exceed one hundred dollars, and title of real estate is not concerned, but with the right of appeal to either party to some other court. And the General Court are further empowered to give to police courts original juris- diction to try and determine, subject to right of appeal and trial by jury, all criminal causes wherein the punishment is less than imprisonment in the state prison. 40 Journal of Constitutional Convention. On motion of Mr. Morris of Lancaster, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Pillsbury of Manchester introduced the following reso- lution: Ressolution No. 13. Eelating to the House of Eepresentatives. Resolved, That the Constitution shall be amended by strik- ing out what is now Section 9 of the second part and substi- tuting as that Section 9 the following: The House of Eepresentatives shall consist of three hun- dred members, which shall be apportioned by the legislature, at the first session after a United States census, to the sev- eral counties of the state, equally, as nearly as may be, accord- ing 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 rep- resentative districts of contiguous territory, so as to appor- tion 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 counties into repre- sentative districts may, upon appeal by a town or ward, ex- amine the classification of that town or w^ard, 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. Thuksday, June 6, 1912. 41 On motion of Mr. Pillsbury of Manchester, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Newell of Surry introduced the following resolution: Reisolution" No. 14. Relating to the House of Representatives. Resolved, That Part Second^ Article Nine^ of the Consti- tution be amended by striking out the words "six hundred" and inserting in the place thereof the words "eight hundred/' and striking out the words eighteen, and inserting in the place thereof the words twenty-eight hundred; also by striking out the words "twelve hundred" and inserting in the place thereof the words "two thousand," so that the amended sec- tion shall read: Art. 9. There shall be in the legislature of this state a representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded upon the principles of equality^ and^ in order that such rep- resentation 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 the authority of the United States or of this state^ may elect one representative; if ^-^^^-y-'^ight ^^ii-nrlrpfl gnpV| iphflhitflTits. may elect two rep- resentatives, and so proceeding in that proportion, making two thousand such inhabitants the mean increasing num- ber 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 the 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. 42 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Resolved, That Article 11, Part Second, of the Consti- tution be amended by striking out the words "six hundred" and inserting in the place thereof the words "eight hun- dred," so that it shall read as follows: Whenever any town or city ward shall have less than eight hundred such inhabi- tants^ the General Court shall authorize such town, place, or ward to elect and send to the General Court a repre- sentative such proportionate part of the time as the number of its inhabitants bear to eight hundred, but the General Court shall not authorize any such town, or place, or ward to elect and send such representative, except as herein pro- vided. On motion of Mr. Newell of Surr}-, the resolution was re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Newell of Surry also submitted certain statistics and tables, explanatory of Eesolution No. 14, which, on motion of the same gentleman, were laid on the table to be printed and then referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Winch of Langdon introduced the following resolu- tion: EjesoltjtiO'N No. 15. Eelating to the House of Eepresentatives. Resolved, That Article 9 of Part Second be amended begin- ning after the words in the fifth line, "and wards of cities," shall elect one representative for the term of two years; so that said Section 9 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 cit- ies, shall elect one representative for the term of two years, provided that no town shall be divided or the boundaries of the wards of any city so altered as to increase the number TiiuKSDAY, June 6, 1912. 43 of representatives to which such town or city may be entitled, and provided further, that those towns which may become cities and divided into wards in the future, each ward so formed shall be entitled to elect one representative at the next biennial election following such formation. On motion of Mr. Winch of Langdon, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Wadleigh of Milford introduced the following resolu- tion: Hbsioltjtion ISTo. 16. Eelating to Future Mode of Amending the Constitution. Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by striking out Articles 98 and 99 of Part Second 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 members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered in their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legislature at the next general election, and shall be pub- lished 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 major- ity of all members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed amend- ment 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; pro- vided, 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. 44 Journal of Constitutional Convention. 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 the members of the legislature. And if it shall ap- pear that a majority of the electors voting thereon have voted for a Convention^ the legislature shall, at its next ses- sion, provide for calling such Convention; but no alteration shall be made in this Constitution before the same shall be laid before the towns and unincorporated places and ap- proved by a majority of the qualified voters present and vot- ing on the subject. On motion of Mr. Wadleigh of Milford, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam introduced the following reso- lution: EjjaoLunoN No. 17. Eelating to the Senate. Resolved, That Article 24, Part Two, of the Constitution be amended by striking out the words "twenty-four^' and in- serting in the place thereof the words "thirty-one/' so that the same shall read: The Senate shall consist of thirty-one members, who shall hold their office for two years, from the first Wednesday of January next ensuing their election. And that Article 25, Part Two, be amended by striking from the third line the words "twenty-four" and inserting in place thereof the words "thirty-one." The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legisla- tive Department. EePORT /OP OOMIMITTEIB ON PETITION OP PaTEIOK E. Gkipfin. Mr. Fuller of Exeter, for the special committee to whom was referred the petition of Patrick 'E. Griffin, claiming a Thursday, June 6, 1912. 45 seat in this Convention as a delegate from Walpole, and con- testing the right of Daniel W. Connors to such seat, report said petition with the following recommendation: That the petitioner have leave to withdraw, and that said Daniel W. Connors be declared a duly qualified member of this Convention, legally elected as a delegate from Walpole, and be seated accordingly. The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted. On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord^ the Convention re- solved itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Reso- lution No. 5^ Relating to Taxation of Wild and Forest Land and Money at Interest. Ik Committee of the Whole. (Mr.Wason of Nashua in the chair.) Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I would like to ask the g-entleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, who is a member of the Tax Com- mission, to explain to the members of the Committee, the scope of his proposed amendment. I think it is something" in which we are all interested. Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — Those few words in two lines tell the story a good deal better than anybody can tell it by standing up here and talking several hours. It is so near the first of April that any of you who may have been unfortunate enoug-h to hold bonds know what taxation of intangibles means. If you are honest, if you had not bought stock and sworn off your bonds against your indebtedness, you will be called upon to pay on a bond from which you are receiving four percent or three and one-half percent, from one to two percent, or from one-quarter to one-half, and perhaps a larger proportion of the income you receive from that bond. You will be obliged to do that so long as the legislature takes the position that it does under the Constitution as it is now. In o'ther words, if the legislature leaves bonds, or money at interest taxable, they must be taxed a;t their full value; that is, at the value for which they will sell in the market, which is usu^ally the par value — may be more, may be a little less. The legislature cannot step in and say that from the forty dollars you may 46 Journal of Constitutional Convention. receive as an income, you may pay five dollars for instance — which most of u.s might be willing- to do — but says yo"u must pay fifteen or twentj^ or twenty-five dollars of your forty dol- lars. Now, personally, I do not believe that money at interest should be taxed at all, because it is double taxation. Tlie legis- lature, however, has not taken kindly to that view all the years since money has been taxed. While the legislature remains in the same frame of mind, it seems better to most people that it may be able, if it cares to, to classify credits, or put a low fixed tax on them in the same way the savings bank deposits are taxed, — which, undoubtedly, is now unconstitutional, — but about which no question will be raised by any sensible person in the state of New Hampshire. In the Tax Commiission report this year, which was written last fall, there was a suggestion that this evil might be cured by putting in the word "uniform," in place of the word "pro- portional," in Article 5 of Part Second. The thought had not been carried far enough at that time to show what might happen if that change was made. In other words, all property could be classified, if the legislature saw fit. The timberm.an oo'uld come to the legislature, the groceryman could come, the farmer could come, — the farmer would most certainly come, — everybody would come and say, "Let my particular class of property go in at some different rate from other classes of property," and you would have the door wide open for the classification of all kinds of property, which I do not believe ought to be the case in the state of New Hampshire. Now, many people do think all restrictions should be taken away from the legislature so far as taxation is concerned. I do not believe tliat is right. If all constitutional restrictions were removed, you would know after one legislatur« had ended what the law would be for two years, but you could not tell what it was going to be after the session of the nex't legislature. It does not seem to me it is time now to take away all constitu- tional restrictions, so far as taxation is concerned. There are these two classes of property which some people thmk ought to be taxed in some way. A piece of paper is not property, it represents property, it is called property by some people, — and they think it ought to be taxed, and for the purpose of having this done this amendment is suggested. Now, for pieces of paper and for the forests of our state this amendment is suggested. In other words, the statute will read that every- thing shall be rated proportionally down to this point. If we put in this exception, which relates to credits which may be Thursday, June 6, 1912. 47 specially assessed and rated, and growing- wood and timber, •then the legislature has a right to do as it wants to with these two classes of property, or so-called property, and the door is still closed against the corporation, against the railroads, against the storekeeper, and everybody else coming in and ask- ing to have a special assessment or rating made on his property. This seems to me is broad enough to accomplish what is wanted, and leaves things as they are with regard to everything else. It may be suggested, — ^why not have it so you can tax stock in corporations, foreign corporations? You can, if you want to do that, a thing which they do in Massachusetts and some other states, purely for a selfish purpose. In Massachusetts they tax the stock of foreign corporations, and confessedly to make people invest their money in domestic corporations. You can see how unfairly it has worked in New Hampshire, and see the reason why the Amoskeag corporation has done as it has done. The larger part of the capital stock of the Amoskeag corporation was held by Massachusetts people. Massachilsetts people were sending their money up here, — without the Massa- chusetts peiople and without the money from there it is doubt- ful w^hether that corporation could go along, or any other cor- poration where a large amount of money is required. What did they do ? The men that lo wned stock in Massachusetts were taxed on the stock; and this state taxed the property of the corporation here. It does not seem that New Hampshire is going to hold out that kind of an invitation to people who come in from abroad and want to take up a permanent residence here. Say to them this, — "You come to New Hampshire, we are advertising our scenery and we are spending money for our roads, to get you here, but after you are here we not only will tax you on the tangible property you have here, but we will take a portion, smaller or larger, of the income which you derive from property elsewhere, for the privilege of living here." That is not the kind of invitation we want to send out to people to come here, and it does not seem for that reason alone we ought to tax foreign stock. In other words, if the gentlemen in this hall were each to put in $100 or $1000 and form a corporation to build a large plant, or a mill, all of tha,t property is taxed. Now, why should we go down into our pockets and, after paying taxes on our property, pay the tax on the corporate stock in addition? It was in 1833, I think, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law which changed the method of taxing property. In other 48 Journal of Constitutional Convention, words, it made property taxable at its value as is done today, also stock in corporations, and, lof course, some selectmen at- tempted to tax corporate stock, but the court said that was not only double taxation, but was unjust and oppressive as well as being- unconstitutional. It would be just as unjust and op- pressive to put into the amendment here anything" which would allow the taxation of stock of corporations. Therefore, the words I have used here are "money at interest," — that would take bonds, that would take all classes of loans, or bills receiv- able from which anybody derives interest, but would not include the stock of corporations. Mr. Duvis of New Ipswich. — It seemis to me this particular amendment is wrong in two instances. So far as I am able to decide it is in a way cruelty to animals and a hardship to men. Taxation has a tendency to destroy the thing taxed, if it is possible for it to do so. Exemption benefits and improves. Now I will ask you, if it is the part of wisdom for us to improve wild land in this way, — ask you if it is wise for us to encour- age idleness, and put a penalty upon thrift, ambition, and in- dustry? It seems to me that when we in any way exempt wild lands, we are saying to the farmer, the agriculturist, and all others who take off their coats, gird up their loins, and go into the wild lands to redeem them and make them productive, bountiful and advantageous to state and community, as reward of merit for your labor pay us more tax. It seems to me that we are gravely in error when we put such a penalty upon men who have so labored. (Sturely if we take the tax from some things, stocks, money at interest, etc., lands and various other commodities must bear the burden, for taxation is an exact balance. What we take off from oee, we must put on to an- other. Just a few thoughts for your consideration. Thank you. Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord. — 'Gentlemen, being engaged in the rate hearing before the Public Service Commission, and hap- pening to have a recess at this time, I came in to find a subject under discussion in which it happens I have a large interest, not a personal interest, but an interest on behalf of the state of New Hampshire: — That is, some method of taxation of growing timber lands, which will enable the owner of those lands to hold them until the timber grows up large enougti to cut. I think the last speaker perhaps misapprehended the inten- tion of this amendment, which would permit a special method of taxing wild lands and timber lands, rather than exempting them entirely from taxation. It is by no means surprising that one shoum see in any amendment proposing a special method Thursday, June 6, 1912. 49 of taxation, a plan of exemption; but I would be one of the last to propose any exemption on the taxation of property. This timber proposition, however, involves peculiar considera- tions, in that the crop which you are raising- takes from forty to sixty years for maturity, — and it is an undeniable fact that if this crop is taxed annually, each year, from the time it starts until it has matured and is harvested, taxed at its full value as the tax commission propose it shall be taxed as long as the laws remain as they are today,— it is an undeniable fact that the tax will amount to more than any one ever heara of such a crop beings worth when it was harvested, according- to any prices tnat have ever existed up to this time. I hope this mat- ter may be laid over for discussion in order to g-ive me an opportunity to present to this body statistics and tig-ures show- ing just Avhat I mean by that. Now I should suppose that the legislature, in dealing with the question of taxation as to wild lands and timber lands, would adopt a plan something as follows: — Tax the land itself for every dollar it is worth as land for the purpose of raising timber, perhaps a dollar an acre, perhaps two dollars an acre. I am not an expert on that particular branch of it, but there are plentj^ of men who are. Then ai-range that the tax on the forest itself shall be deferred and collected when the crop is harvested, making the rate a fair rate, ten or fifteen percent even, perhaps, of the stumpage value when it is cut. That will encourage the increasing of our forest lands, so we can have the incidental benefits that result from forest lands, more than any other class of property, — the scenic effect that the gentle- man from Tilton just referred to; the effect on our stream flow, which is of vast importance to our manufacturing indus- tries; the ett"ect on climate, on public health, — a hundred dif- ferent incidental benefits that the public derive from the forest lands in common with the owner. We shall be deriving a fair income from the land itself, and when the crop is harvested shall receive a fair contribution from the owner. T have taken a few moments to explain, and I hope I may have an oppor- tunity to give the figures at another hearing. It may be that this matter should come to vote at this time and I don't waut any suggestion I have made to be considered in the light of deferring action, providing the action will be in the direction I want it. Mr. WadlcUfh of Milford. — I would like the privilege of asking the gentleman from Tilton one thing. My mind is not clear whether this allowing- cf classification of money at interest 50 Journal of Constitutional Convention. would in any way affect the law of last session exempting- mortgag-es on real estate of less than five per cent interest. Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — None whatever. If this amendment goes through, the legislature can drop intangibles entirely from taxation; they can put them on the same basis they are taxed now; they can tax more, they, can tax less, — they can do anything they want to. They can establish a rate and assess it. They would be foolish if Ihey did not tax a good deal lower. I hope to live long enough to see this whole thing wiped out. This simply gives greater latitude to the legisla- ture as to what they may do. Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — In listening to the remarks of the previous speakers, the question has naturally arisen in my mind, — What has brought about the demand for a classification of any kind of property? And this answer has come to me, — That in the natural course of events in a community like ours, the community invariably takes upon itself activities which it had not contemplated at the beginning, — the formation of the community. The cost of carrying on these enterprises has to be paid by taxation. In the old days we used to leave the care of tuberculous patients to their people. Now the state has established a sanatorium, and takes upon itself the care of the tuberculous patient. The same with the feeble-minded, the same with the insane, the same with a large number of classes of individuals and activities. The state has taken upon itself the burden which is reflected in the size of our tax bills. Now as the amount of taxes increases, we find that there are certain classes of property on which a larger tax rate is de- structive. We find, also, that there are certain classes of property which cannot be destroyed by any amount of taxation. At the present time we have reached a position wherein the tax that is assessed against a piece of grow- ing timber has become so great a burden that it is prac- tically destructive, as was shown by the gentleman from Concord who last spoke. In addition to that, we find that the tax on a bond at the present time at its full value is practically destructive. A tax of two percent on the face value of four percent bonds is a fifty percent income tax, which is practically destructive, and if continued wall drive all bonds from New Hampshire. The same imposition of taxes on grow- ing timber, as I stated before, will inevitably, — ^if some provi- sion is not made, — drive all growing timber from New Hamp- shire. If we pursue our investigation a little further we will find there is some rate of taxation which will inevitably de- Thursday, June (5, 1912. 51 stroy all products of labor, — of human labor, — and improve- ments. On the other hand, natural resources taxed at what- ever rate can never be destroyed. The land, which is the foundation of everj^thing- whereby we live, upon which we live, can never be destroyed by a tax rate of even one hundred per- cent. We have got to live on the land, and we have g-ot to stay here. Now, as the burden of taxation increases, we begin to see the truth of this fact; we are seeing it here today, as has been suggested, when we begin to exempt from taxation, or to classify for taxation rather, the growing timber and money at interest, credits of various kinds, and as we have already done exempted mortgages, bearing less than five percent from taxation, that we thereby inevitably increase the burden of taxation, which rests upon other classes of property. And when we exempt or partially exempt, or classify for taxation, money at interest, bonds, etc., and growing timber land, we thereby increase the burden upon the farmer's cows, upon his horses, upon his buildings, upon the manufacturer and his machinery and his stock in trade. So while I am heartily in favor of the present amendment as far as it goes, I believe it should go still further and allow the classification of property of all kinds for taxation, because we shall see as soon as we commence to classify certain property, we shall inevitably have to increase the burden which will rest upon other classes of property, and thereby increase the present high cost of living, which is so oppressive upon us all. Mr. Barton of Newport moved that the Committee rise and report the resolution to the Convention, with the recom- mendation that it be agreed to. Quesltion being on the motion of Mr. Barton of Newport, — Mr. Goss of Berlin. — I am in favor of this amendment, but it seems to me that it is open to question if it wouldn't be im- proved by using the word "except" instead of the word "pro- vided." The word "provided" used in this resolution carries the inference that this class of property shall not be ratably and equitablj^ taxed. I suggest to the Committee to which this resolution shall be referred that it substitute the word "ex- cept," so as not to carry that inference. In the next place, I should like to inquire if it would not be better to separate the two subjects, so that the voters, when they come to vote upon them, can vote upon the question of the classification of forest lands and of money at interest separately. I sec* no connec- 52 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. tion between the two, and it occurs to me that there may l^e voters who will desire the adoption of one provision and not of the other. When a vote is taken, I ask to have the two sub- jects taken up separately. Mr. FelU/ws of Tilton. — I will say I don't know but that the gen- tleman from Berlin is rig-ht. I am rather inclined to think this lang-uag-e I have usecl is a little better. If this should g-o for- ward in fhe Convention, I understand it will go to the proper Committee and the phraseology may then be considered a little more than I have been able to consider it. I don't see why the Convention, if it sees fit to divide the question, — have the wild lands and then money at interest, — can not so divide it. If the Committee think both better go in together, there will be no need of taking the two votes here. Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — I am not prepared to discuss this question, but I want to say it is a pretty serious question, — one of the most serious before the Convention, — one that there is more public agitation about this year than any other ques- tion we shall have to consider. I w-ish we could have more dis- cussi'on on this matter. It seems unfair that bonds are taxable at full value, whereas gilt edged securities, stocks of foreign corporations, etc., are not taxable at all. One man has a hundred thousand dollars invested in stocks and pays no tax, another has a hundred thousand dollars in bonds and pays fifty percent of the income as tax. It seems to me this miatter ought to be discussed. I think the gentle- men here ought to discuss it thoroughly. And the question of the taxation of wild lands ought to be discussed more than it has been, and I hope that there will be no endeavor to put this thing through without a full consideration by the Con- vention. Mr. Hohbs of Wolfeboro. — Mr. Chairman, I am heartily in ac- cord with the gentleman from Milford, Mr. Wadleigh, and I hope, sir, that no resolution will prevail which will deprive any member of speaking here, many of whom I know are able and willing and wanting to discuss this question from every viewpoint. This is a question which interests every individual of our state, and all who wish to speak should have an opportunity. I do not care to make any further remarks at this time. T thank you. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I desire to say in moving to go into Committee of the Whole on this subject that I know its im Thuksday, June 6, 1912. 53 portance and that we have ample time before us at present. In calling- upon the g-entleman from Tilton to explain his amendment, I thoug-ht it would lead to inquiries by members and that we would get various opinions at a period of the Ck)n- vention when we have little else to do. Therefore, I hope the motion of the gentleman from Newport will not prevail, al- though I am in favor of the amendment. The adoption of the amendment simply confers power upon the legislature to classify these two kinds of what we call property-. The legis- lature in its ^vlsdom may see fit to classify wild lands and it may refuse to classify what we call intangibles. I desire to maKe it clear that the amendment merely confers authority upon the legislature. Mr. Barton of Newport withdrew his motion that the Com- mittee report the resohition to the Convention^ with the recommendation that it be agreed to. Mr. WhiteJier of HaverJiill. — I would like to get a clear under- standing of the motion. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Tilton, whether money at interest includes all intangibles, stocks, bonds, notes, mortgages, — whether all intangibles are to be regarded as money at interest; and, further, I wish to inquire whether it is not the purpose of this amendment to put the whole matter of wild forest lands and money at in- terest up to the legislature to classify as it sees fit. Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — I will answer the last question by saying, "Yes." It leaves the whole matter of forest lands and the whole matter of credits to the legislature to tax as it sees fit. The gentleman asks, — are not stocks money at interest? Is the deed of his place which he holds, — is that money at in- terest? Can he collect of himself the thousand or five thou- sand dollars which may be the value of that place to himself? The certificate of stock of a corporation is merely evidence of ownership of an undi\aded interest in the actual property of the corporation. , If my friend, Senator Morse, and myself own a farm, and each of us has the deed of an undivided half, and then we should sell to the gentleman from Milford. and should distribute it piecemeal to every member in the room, we would be the owners of that farm, or the property of that corporation, and if the thing failed we would simply lose our money. If I, as an outsider, loan the gentlemen a certain amount of money and take a mortgage of their place, if that place should go all to 54 Journal of Constitutional Convention. pieces and they have no means I could g-et nothing-. They promise to pay me so much money and so much interest, — from as many of them as are g-bou as individuals, or from the corporation, I can collect my money and my interest, but when T buy in I am a part owner. Now speaking- of these foreig-n corporations: If anybody has shares of stock in the Pennsylvania Railroad, he simply has an undivided interest in the actual physical property of the Penn- sylvania Railroad. After it pays its expenses, if there is an overplus, it is divided among- the stockholders; and if the road does not earn anything-, they do not g-et anj^hing-. There is the greatest distinction between money at interest ^ and the deed of your place, which is merely evidence that you are the actual owner of that piece of property. So this amendment would not allow the classification, or the taxation of stocks of foreig-n corporations, or of domestic cor- porations, which, as I said before, in 1838 the Court said was unjust and oppressive and double taxation, and I do not believe we want to adopt double taxation to that extent. The taxa- tion of credits passes entirely to the legislature. If they want the law to remain as it is today, they can have it; they can chang-e it in any way to suit themselves, they are not throttled by this amendment. Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — That was my understanding, but as the matter of stocks has been mentioned, and comparison of six percent stock with four percent bonds has been made, I wish the matter to be broug-ht before us clearlj'. I didn't understand the stock in the Pennsylvania Railroad was any more taxable, if I owned a share, than half of a farm out in Illinois would be, were I the owner. Mr. Davis of New Ipswich. — ^^Gentlemen, there is one more point, just a brief one, which I believe we should consider. The question seems to hing-e on money value, so for illustra- tion I will take two farmers, two equally competent and cap- able farmers, the one, successful, put his money into stocks and bonds, and is taxed low according- to the judgment of a few individuals, not the majority of the people. The other puts his mon«y into live stock, horses, cows, sheep, etc., into those things which are of general benefit to the entire com- mjunity. He is taxed to the full value. Now, Gentlemen, I believe we should consider this fact when we are considering these others. I am not adverse to the protection of the forest lands, — I believe in it, but I believe that such protection should be reasonably restricted and controlled. I believe if we are to exempt forest lands, we should do so by a measure which will Thuksday, June 6, 1912. 65 surely protect them. For instance, there should be a limita- tion as to the time of cutting-, which would result in an actual protection. This exemption of forest lands is not entirely new. It has been g"oingf on for a great many years. If you do not believe it, go back to your inventories, and you will see where pasture, and sprout lots, have been taxed very low, and so taxed for a great many years, — so taxed, in fact, when they were sold for good timber lots and cut off very shortly after- wards. Now, if exemption is going to protect forest lands, why has it not done so in the past, for they have been prac- tically exempted for years in a great many instances? I will cite one case in my locality where the timber land set for years as sprout land, marked $900, then $1100, then, I think $1800, and finally last year it was marked at $2800, and the owner, who was very angry at this, sold it very shortly for $8,000, and two weeks later that buyer sold it for $15,000. Did the exemption protect the forest land, or did it protect the pocket books? Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — I realize, as well as the gentleman from Tilton, that there is a great deal of difference between bonds and stocks purely from a legal standpoint. A bond is evi- dence of debt and stock evidence of ownership. But from the standpoint of taxation there is no difference. Every man who puts his money into stocks expects to get interest, or he would not put it in there. No stockholder of the Pennsylvania Railroad expects to take possession of his share of the road, all he wants is his interest or di\'idend, and the man who puts money into bonds of the same railroad expects his interest. Now if this kind of property is to be taxed at all, let us tax all of it or none of it. Why should a man who has saved up fifty thousand dollars and put it into bonds be taxed, and his neighbor who has saved np fifty thousand dollars, and puts it into stock of the same corporation, not be taxed? I cannot see any sense in it. I think this amendment, if it is adopted, should be so changed as to allow the legislature to classify all kinds of investment, whether bond or stock. I hope this amendment may be divided. There are many of us who believe that timber land should" be classified, or rather that the legislature should have the power to classify. I think there are a great many people here who believe that intangi- bles,— stocks, bonds, notes, mortgages, etc.,— should all be treated alike, either taxed alike or not taxed. So I hope we may have a chance to vote on these two propositions separately. Mr. Garter of Lebanon.— I wish to make one point here. One g-entleman has said, if we reduce the tax on bonds we mu»t 56 Journal of Constitutional Convention. increase the tax on other property. Now it strikes me Ihat is not true. If the tax remains on bonds as it is today, it will be only a short time when we shall drive the bonds out of the state, — we shall not have that tax at all. It will work a hard- ship to the people of New Hampshire. There are men who are trustees of property, and there are widows and other women, who have small amounts upon which they have to live. They do not wish to take any great risk in making their invest- ments. Now, they either must put their money into some savings bank, in which case the state will receive only three- fourths of one percent, or else they must buy securities, which are not so safe as bonds. There is one gentleman in my own town, who is a trustee of an estate, and he had that invested in bonds, I think some seventeen thousand dollars, and he said to the assessors: "I will pay the tax this year, but If this law remains as it is, I shall be oblig-ed to put the money somewhere else." And so we shall lose the tax. I think a g-ood many men would put their money into bonds and be willing to pay a small tax, who would otherwise buy preferred stock, or some other se- curities upon which they would not be taxed in our state. Mr. Crawford of Mancliester. — I don't rise for the purpose of discussing this matter, but to make a motion, because this tax matter is a good deal like the tariff. I have studied it a great deal. The more I study it the less I know about it, and I don't know anybody that knows any more about it than I do. Now there are evidently many here who desire to discuss this ques- tion and we have ample time, and we can take time to discuss it before this Convention shall close its proceedings. I don't like to see any one out off. I am not interested in any bonds or stocks. I have none, never have had any and don't expect to have any. But there are others who would like an explana- tion of this proposed amendment. On motion of Mr. Crawford of Manchester, that the Com- mittee do now jise, report progress^ and ask leave to sit again, rhe affirmative prevailed. In Conyention. (The President in the chair.) Mr. Wason of Nashua, for the Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred Eesolntion No. 5, Eelating to Taxation Thursday, June 6, 1912. 57 of Wild and Forest Lands and Money at Interest, having con- sidered the same, leport progress, and ask leave to sit again. The report was accepted and leave granted. Mr. Madden of Keene introduced the following resolution: Resolution No. 18. Eelating to the House of Eepresentatives. Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by striking out Articles 9 and 10 of the second part thereof, and in- serting the following: Art. 9. There shall be in the legislature of this state a representation of the people, to consist of three hundred and fifty members, biennially elected, and founded upon princi- ples 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 containing thre e hundre d or more inhabitants by the last census of the smte, taken by authority of the state or of the United States, may elect one member. The remaining number necessary to complete the full number of three hundred and fifty shall be apportioned to such towns and cities as shall have five thousand or more inhabitants, as shown by said census, in proportion to the population of said towns and cities. And the governor, with the advice of the council, shall make and publish such apportionment within thirty days after the re- ceipt of an official return of said census. Provided, that no town or ward shall be divided or estab- lished for the purpose of increasing the representation from any town or city. On motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Madden of Keene submitted certain statistics and ta- bles, explanatory of Kesolution No. 18, Relating to the House 68 Journal of Constitutional Convention. of Representatives, and, on motion of the same gentleman, the same was laid on the table to be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole with the resolution. On motion of Mr. Morse of Newmarket, — Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to secure the usual number of printed copies of the roll of the Con- vention, and the Constitution of the state, for the use of the members. The President. — Is there not something- we can do? Mr. Cavanaiigh of Manchester. — I will sug-g-est that the amend- ment which I submitted giving* to the legislature the right to establish voting precincts, might be taken from the table, not necessarily for final action, unless the members should vdsh to take such action, but that it might be discussed. On motion of Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester, that Resolu- tion Xo. 10, Relating to Voting Precincts, be taken from the table and the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution. The affirmative prevailed. In CoMjkriTTE'E of the Whole. (Mr. Eastman of Exeter in the chair.) Mr. Cavanmigh of Manchester. — Mr. Chairman, as this proposed amendment was submitted by me, I would like to say just a word, and that is, — It is an amendment similar to the one that was introduced in the last Convention, and as I understand it, adopted by the Convention, and submitted to the people, but which did not receive the required two-thirds vote. It simply means this: It is a plan to give to the legislature the authority, whenever the inhabitants of any ward or any town think their voting list is so large as to make it difficult to accommodate everybody who wishes to vote, the right to establish more than one voting place in that town or ward. Now I did not expect that the discussion would begin at this time, so I have no figures relating to the city of Manchester, showing how many voters there are in each ward, but those figures can be had, if the members wish to have them, later on; but it seems to me, considering the conditions in our city, and Thursday, June 6, 1912. 59 in other cities and some towns, there being- so many voters in some of the wards, it is practically impossible, within the hours specified by the law for the opening- of the polls and closing-, to permit everybody to vote. I think this condition will be more pronounced in the future than in the past. As 1 under- stand it, the last session of the leg-islature passed a law elim- inating- marking- in the circle for the purpose :of voting the straig-ht ticket. Hereafter we shall be called upon to vote separately for every candidate on the ticket, which, of course, will take more time. There have been instances in our city which have proved the necessity for this amendment in another important feature incident to it; the amount of time which has been required for the counting-, sorting- and making- return of the votes cast, on the part of the election officers, who work sometimes until the middle of the next day. That is some- thing that should not be allowed to exist, in my opinion. The number of voting places should be made larger so the number of votes cast in each place will be smaller and the work of the election officers after the polls are closed expedited; and to give to the voters greater convenience in the matter of voting during the hours that the polls are open. It is merely to give some authority to the legislature to enact some law to carry this into effect. That is practically all there is to the amend- ment. If there should be some more discussion on it, — if there should be serious objection to the amendment, — I should ask that the matter be taken up in Committee of the Whole, and I will submit figures showing the necessity of legislation of this kind, at least, in our city. Mr. Newell of Surry. — It has been my lot to be an election officer, and I realize that in some of the wards in Manchester, and in some of the larger towns in this state, it must impose great hardship, especially in counting the votes. This amend- ment ought to pass. It was passed by the last Constitutional Convention, and it was submitted by it to the people, but failed of ratification, but I hope the Convention will submit the amendment again, — try once more. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I simply rise to say that this amend- ment was thoroughly considered in the last Convention, and simply failed of ratification by the people, because it was not understood. It gives permission to the legislature to divide the large wards of cities into voting precincts, and to provide vot- ing precincts for the large towTis, if they desire it. Some one has called attention, perhaps the gentleman from Manchester, to the fact that the Australian vote was changed by the last (30 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. leg-i^lature, so that, instead of being able to vote by groups by making a cross at the head of the column, we have to" vote for the individual candidates by making crosses against their nam.es. That entails more labor on the election officers in counting, especially in the large wards. Some of our .wards in Concord would be affected by it. It is a provision in the Con- stitution that will enable the legislature to take care of these large wards and provide them with conveniences for voting and for counting by dividing them into voting precincts. That is the whole of this amendment. Mr. Lyford of Concord moved that the Committee of the Whole do now rise and recommend the adoption of the amendment. Question being on the motion of Mr. Lyford, — Mr. Crawfoi'd of Manchester. —Mr. Chairman, coming as I do from one of the largest wards in the city of Manchester, I realize the disadvantage under which they labor by having only one precinct in the ward. In Massachusetts I know the wards of the size of the one where I live would have_ several voting precincts, which accommodate not only the voters, but the election officers, and I don't think there is a member here, no matter from how small a town he maj'^ come, who understands as the delegation here from Manchester understands, who will have one word to say against the adoption of this resolution. When you get into a ward of two or three thousand voters, when voting is delayed under the present system of marking the ballots, — which I prefer to the circle, — no matter how many polling places they may have it oftentimes happens that all the voters do not get in before the polls close. Then the elec- tion officers work all night, sometimes into the next day, before the vote is canvassed. There is no injury that can result from having smaller precincts in the larger wards. They should be fairly divided, — every voter will have his right secured, and the labor vdll be greatly reduced, and I hope, not only for the benefit of the larger towns, but especially for the relief of our large wards in our cities, this Convention will adopt the motion which has been made, that this resolution of the Committee, when we rise to report, wdll be reported with the recommenda- tion that it be agreed to. Mr. Whitchrr of Haverhill. — Mr. Chairman, I suppose there are two sides to almost every question. I believe, could the matter be adjusted without too great difficulty, that voting precincts Thursday, June 6, 1912. 61 in our larg-er towns and wards of cities would be a very great convenience. The matter ot adjustment, of course, would have to be left to the legislature. As I understand it this amend- ment is simply a constitutional permission for the legislature to create voting precincts in such large wards of the cities and in towns, as may be desired, or as the legislature may deem wise to create. 13ut looking forward a little, in the town of Haverhill which I have the honor in part to represent, while voting precincts in that town would be of great convenience, three-quarters of the voters of the town having to make jour- neys of four to five or eight miles to reach the town hall, and with upwards of a thousand names on the checklist, and with all the difficulties of marking the ballots as has been sug- gested by the gentleman from Concord, — while voting precincts would be, I say, of great convenience in that. town, there would be some practical difficulties, and some other amendments, or legislation, would be necessary to carry such things into eifect. For example, at present the election officers of wards and cities at the November elections make declaration as to the election of moderator and supervisors and members of the General Court, and with two or three voting precincts in the wards of the cities, and in the towns, some arrangement would have to be made for the return of the votes of who was elected. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — A matter of legfislation. Mr. Whitclwr of Haverhill. — My friend from Concord says a matter of legislation. I am speaking of the difficulties that might arise in the way of any legislation, and I presume it was those difficulties that led to the rejection of the amendment proposed by the last Constitutional Convention. There would certainly have to be a set of election officers for each of those precincts. It seems to me there are practical difficulties that would be found in the way, when the legislature attempted to solve the problem, if the people should adopt this amendment. It would, however, be a great convenience in many towns and wards of the cities. Mr. Wason of Nashua. — ^Gentlemen of the Committee, I never knew a piece of legislation proposed to the legislature of New Hampshire, or to any other legislature, that wasn't filled with difficulty by some man or men, who had an innate feeling to oppose or offer slight opposition to the measure. Now it has been said that the cities and large towns are affected by this proposition, or change. That is true. I do not know but it would be wise for the gentlman from Manchester to offer an amendment to omit from the proposed change the word "towns" and then my friend from the North Country, who has t)2 Journal of Constitutional Convention. just spoken, would not be frightened with the danger, and the troubles that would confront some succeeding legislafure of New Hampshire, of which he might have the honor to be a member. But so far as we are concerned and the city of Manchester, — of which I have some knowledge, being from a neighboring city some seventeen miles away, — and my own city, Nashua, — we have some very large wards. Ward 7, I think in Nashua has a checklist of 700. I think Ward 9 has a larger list, or substantially the same, and I know that the voters, especially in Ward 7, have inadequate quarters, — and also in Ward 8, — within which to vote. There do not seem to be convenient places in any of these wards where a large room or hall or place can be found for voting. In these wards a school- room or a basement to a school house, has been used for years. It is not an uncommon thing in the general election to find the election officers there until twelve o'clock the next day, having worked all night and the forenoon to finish the canvass- ing and counting of the ballots. Under the proposed amend- ment, the legislature can divide those wards into two or three precincts, and the voters could go and vote in quietness and have plenty of room and plenty of light to see to mark their ballots; the election officers could have the same conditions for canvassing the returns, and get their work done within a reasonable time after the voting had ceased, — we could get the returns from these wards more rapidly, — and you all know we like to hear early the returns after the polls are closed. It is true it would make a few dollars of expense, it might mean an additional set of election officers, or, if it was divided into three precincts, three sets of officers, but the expense is small. The voters of those wards have the right to have a convenient place. Perhaps the pay of the election officers could be re- duced. I think perhaps the officers themselves, if consulted, would be willing to take half pay, if they didn't have to work all day and all night and into the next forenoon, and could get through a few hours after the close of the polls. I think if the gentleman from Haverhill will look this matter over, he will see there is no objection to this proposition. If you will canvass the vote of the people ten years ago in the state, the}^ voted strongly in favor of it. Out in some of the country towns where they care nothing about it, — were not interested in it, — the vote was not the same as in the wards of the cities, where the people were interested. The Convention adjourned and the amendment proposed to be submitted to the people was printed in the newspai)ers. The voters went to the polls and those who were interested voted, as the returns vdll show. Thuksday, June 6, 19.12. 63 While in the country towns it was different, and so I say on the whole under tiiose conditions, the tenth amendment was carried by a good fair majority, as I recollect it, something over 3,000 plurality. My friend from Concord suggests major- ity; that is better still, but 3'ou can examine for yourselves. The vote is there and I say, in fairness to the large wards of the cities of this state, and the voters of these cities, we ought to submit it to the people, and see if they will adopt it, and if my distinguished friend from Haverhill has serious objec- tion, or his mind is troubled with what would happen when it comes to the legislature, I am perfectly walling, for one, to say to him, if he wants the word "towns" stricken out, "I will consent," but so far as the wards of the cities are concerned, and the cities of Manchester and ^Nashua, I will object, and I hope the motion to report it favorably yill be adopted, and we will be nearer the goal for adjournment by getting this out of the way at once. Mr. Broderick of MancJvester. — One phase of this subject has not been discussed. I read in the papers a day or two ago an account of a gentleman from Belgium who took pains to go to a mayor or notary public here to provide evidence that he was in America at the time of voting in the election in this country. It suggested to me this idea. This measure affects even the smallest towns in the state of New Hampshire. It is much to be desired, it will be admitted, at the time of election that there shall be a very universal expression of the people on every question submitted to them. The working of our present election machinery in effect disfranchises a very large proportion of the people of the larger towns and wards of our state, and hence we do not secure anj'^thing like an universal expression, because it is physically impossible, in many of our wards, for the people to express their choice. In that way it affects the interest of the remotest and smallest town in our state. For instance, in Ward 6 in Manchester there are 2160 voters. They vote from 9 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the afternoon. You will see, gentlemen, by a very simple mathematical demonstration, it is not possible for these 2160 men to express their choice on election day. And Ward 6 is not a great exception. W^ard 5 and Ward 9, — and I imagine there must be large towns, — have that exact situation. Yoa will keep in mind that there is a large proportion of the citi- zens who can only have a certain time to get to the polls, and that time being at noon very often they do not have the op- portunity to express their choice. Our present election ma- chinery disfranchises a very large proportion of our citizenship. 64 Journal of Constitutional Convention. and as I said, affects even the towns where they can vote in an hour or two. Mr. Hadley of Ooffstown. — The gentleman who last spoke il- lustrates a forcible point of the argnment, — a disfranchising- cf the voters in the wards which he cites. The larg-er portion of these people are laboring people, w^ho go to the polls at the noon hour or the night hour. Mathematically they are dis- franchised. It is impossible for them to have an opportunity to vote. If you carry the thing out, about six people must vote in a minute, which is an intpossibility. Now the con- stituents I represent have thought of this matter, and they are willing, — and I speak as a representative of a town, — per- haps the second or third largest in Hillsborough Countj^ — they are favorably inclined towards this proposition, and I hope the members from the country towns will look favor- ably upon this, as it is certainly a step in the right direction, and a step which is towards progression. Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — I want to disabuse the mind of the gentleman from Nashua of the idea that I am at all frightened at anything of this kind. I have the impression that my own town, if the matter could be worked out easily and without any serious difficulty, would be in favor of just that thing. We suffer greatly in Woodsville, for instance, from the inconvenience of being obliged to vote a long distance from our residences, and I know we do not usually get through canvassing the vote until about two o'clock in the morning of the next day. It certainly would be a convenience in the large town of Haverhill. I only spoke of the fact that there are some practical difficulties in the way, and it might require changes in the matter of statute law, and as the gentleman from Nashua will, of course, be in the next great and General Court he can arrange it all satisfactorily. Mr. Wddleigh of Milford. — I desire to say that I don't like to have it laid on the towns not ratifying this amendment when submitted by the previous Convention. I notice that in Ward 9, Manchester, — if you will look at the Manual, — that the vote in favor of this amendment was 186 for, and 457 against, — a a very large majority against it. Manchester did not ratify this amendment, while Milford and other towns ratified it by a great majority. I think it would be a good thing to put the blame where it belongs in this matter. Mr. Wason of Nashua. — It was a general statement made as to towns, and if I had confined myself strictly to the record, I should have illustrated it by using the word "Haverhill" as that town voted three to one against it. Thursday, June 6, 1912. 65 On a viva voce vote the motion of Mr. Lyford prevailed. In Convention. (The President in the chair.) Mr. Eastman of Exeter, for the Committee of the y/'hole, to whom was referred Resolution Xo. 10^ Relating to Voting Precincts, haviDg considered the same, recommend that the resolution be agreed to by the Convention. The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted, and the resolution referred to the Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed to by the Convention. On motion of Mr. Young of Manchester, the Convention adjourned at 12.37 o'clock. AFTERNOON. The Convention met at 2 o'clock, according to adjourn- ment. (The President in the chair.) Leave, of Absence. Mr. Hanson of Middleton was granted leave of absence until Tuesday; June 11, on account of sickness in his family. Mr. Hurd of Claremont introduced the following reso- lution : Ej!&0IyUTION No. 19. Relating to the Senate. Resolved, That Article 25, Part 2, of the Constitution be amended by stri"king out the words ^'and, in making this division, they shall govern themselves by the proportion of direct taxes paid by the said district/' so that said article as amended shall read as follows: Art. 25. i^nd, that the state may be equally represented in the Senate, the legislature shall, from time to time, divide 66 Journal of Constitutional Convention. 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. On motion of Mr. Hurd of Claremont^ the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Updyke of Hanover introduced the following reso- lution : Resoi/Ution Xo. 20. Relating to the Election of County Officers. Resolved, That Article 70 of Part Second of the Consti- tution be stricken out and that the following article be sub- stituted therefor: There shall be elected or appointed in and for each of the counties,, in the manner hereinafter prescribed^ three county commissioners, a treasurer, a solicitor, a sheriff, a register of probate and a register of deeds. At the biennial election held in N'ovember, 1914, the electors of the several counties shall elect three county commissioners, who shall hold office for two, four and six years respectively, and at each biennial election thereafter, one county commissioner, who shall hold office for a term of six years. The -county commissioners elected under this article shall elect the county treasurer, who shall hold office at their pleasure. TKe solicitor and the sheriff 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 by the judges of the superior court for cause, after due notice and a hearing. The register of deeds and the register of probate shall be appointed by the governor and council and shall hold office for a terra of five years; they shall be subject to removal by the governor and council for cause, after due notice and a hearing. The first appointments under this article of solicitor, sheriff, register of probate and register of deeds shall be made to take effect on the first day of January, 1915. Thursday, June 6, 1912. 67 The resolution was referred to the Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments. Mr. "W'Thittemore of Dover introduced the following resolu- tion: Resolution No. 21. Eelating to Appointment of Solicitors. Resolved, That Article 70 Part Second of the Constitution 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 the superior court and shall hold office for' a term of five years. They shall be subject to removal by the judge of the superior court for cause, after due notice and hearing. The judges of the superior court shall have power to make all necessary rules for carrying into effect the provision of this article. The first appointment under this article shall be made to take effect on the first day of January, 1915. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments. On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, that Resolution No. 6, Relating to Grading of Inheritance Taxes and Exemptions be taken from the table and that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, to consider the resolu- tion, the affirmative prevailed. In Committee op the Whole. (Mr. Hall of Dover in the Chair.) Mr. Felloivs of Tilton. — In 1902 the Constitutional Convention made it possible for the legislature to tax inheritances. Prior to that time, such laws had not prevailed in this state, and they may not have been constitutional; the amendment in brief was this: The public charges of g-overnment or any part 68 Journal of Constitutional Convention. thereof may be raised by taxation of polls, estates and other classes of property, including- franchises and property when passing by will or inheritance. Of course very soon the question came to the court whether the subsequent inheritance tax law was constitutional, and the court held it was; that is to say, a flat tax of 5% as it is now assessed on property when passing- to collateral heirs, was sus- tained. Inere is a question, or the court said a year ago last winter they were in doubt, whether the Constitution was so broad that taxes could be graded; in other words, a tax as- sessed according to the amount of the estate passing, in case of a large estate, you might not be able to get more out of it proportionally, than you could from a smaller estate. This was the language of the opinion of the court given to the legislature in 1911. It is very brief and to the point: "Upon the principle of that decision (Thompson vs. Kidder, 74 N. H., 89), we see no objection to an assessment at different rates upon classes standing in different relations to the original owner of the property, or between which there is reasonable ground for distinction. To be exact, the tax may be assessed at a different rate upon the property passing to direct heirs than to collaterals; a distinction may be made between relatives more or less remote in direct line. Upon the question whether, in view of the fundamental provisions of the Constitution as it was construed and understood prior to 1903, it was intended by the amendment then made to authorize an exaction from those in the same class or rela- tion to the testator or ancestor varying in accordance with the amount of property passing, or in other words, to au- thorize a classification based upon amount merely, we find that we are not agreed in opinion." House Journal, 1911, p. 687. Everybody who is in favor of an inheritance tax is in favor of some form of statute which will allow the gradation of the tax depending on the amount of property passing. Sup- posing a man is going to get one thousand dollars, he may now be called upon to pay two percent or five percent, and the man getting one hundred thousand dollars will be called upon to pay the same amount. That is not exactly fair. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the legislature, if it desires, to take a graded tax according to the amount of property passing from the testator or donor, to the legatee or donee. In trying to get an amendment which would be brier and yet cover the points, this has been introduced. Thursday, June 6, 1912. 69 (Reads resolution) This will serve to cover the case vs^here the estates are small, where there are minors, or in the case of widows. The langoiag-e of the proposed amendment explains the situation, and what the Court has said in addition explains the situation better than I could if I should stand here and attempt to talk a g"reat while long-er. Mr. Corning of Concord. — The g-entleman from Tilton spoke of taxing- widows? Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — I say the clause in here, "and reason- able exemptions may be made," will allow the exemptions for widows or minor children, or any such thing as that. Mr. Corning of Concord. — Widows are not taxed? Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — Of course they are not taxed now as the law is. The law passed was merely a collateral inheritance tax law, and it can remain as it is, and vsddows need not be taken into consideration. It is possible now we could have a direct state tax, but if you did possibly the widows would have to come in. Mr. Corning of Concord. — I do believe In gradation, but I hardly believe in direct tax to children or widows. Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — The legislature need not impose it in this case. I do not intend to tax widows by any manner of means, except in cases of large estates. The leg^islature might do it today, and they might under this amendment, and might not. Mr. Eastmam, of Exeter. — I do not propose to enter into any discussion of this proposed amendment, but in the past I have had considerable to do with the business pertaining to the office of the state treasurer and the collection of this inheri- tance tax, and this proposed amendment has been drawn up in accordance with the needs of the department in the ex- pedition of the business pertaining to it, in the interests of justice, so to speak. As the law now stands, and as we under- stand it has got to be interpreted under the Constitution, w« are obliged to assess what is called a horizontal tax of five percent. Under this proposed amendment the legislature has it in its power to pass such acts as will enable the State Treasurer, in the collection of this tax, to exercise some judg- ment in regard to particular cases, which under the law as it now stands, and as it has to be in conformity with the Con- stitution, is not the case, and without entering into any extended discussion I believe this proposed amendment is in 70 Journal of Constitutional Convention. the line of what we oug-ht to have, and what we. need if we are going- to have an inheritance tax, which certainly has proved itself a very g-ood thing for the state of New Hamp- shire. It has broug"ht ver^' larg-e revenues to the state of New Hampshire, and, as I believe, without inflicting unnecessary hardship upon the people of this state. I hope the proposed amendment will be recommended by the Committee and will be finally adopted by the Convention. Mr. Craicford of Maivchester. — The original bill, I believe I had the privilege, at the request of members of the legislature, of drafting. To those of you who are not familiar with that law, which was patterned very closely after the law of Massachu- setts making- it applicable to New Hampshire, widows, children, sons-in-law and daug-hters-in-law, brothers and sisters, were exempt, so it only applied to the collaterals, to one not nearly related to the deceased, upon whom the tax of five percent was levied. Now it has seemed to me the more of it they have, the more they should pay on the tax, because, if anyone A.ants to leave me a million dollars who isn't related to me, I will willing"ly pay the five percent tax on it, and under the present law the widows and children and immediate relatives are exempt. Now I hope this state will not follow Massachusetts. When they g-ot the wedge in and g-ot the collateral inheritance tax, then the next thing was to bring it right home to the widows and children, and they get a smaller percentage, but they tax them all. The craze for taxation and the craze for creating offices which can draw the amount of money raised by taxation, is running wild. The moment that jow find in this state that there is a measure passed to increase the receipts of our treasury, then up springs somebody advocating some commis- sion or other office so as to draw that money. Now, I am not opposed to this resolution. The original bill, as I prepared it for Mr. Pillsbury who had charge of it in the legislature, and who is a member of this Convention, I thought five percent would reach those that ought to pay the tax if they were going to inherit the estate, exempting all those to whom the estate rightfully belonged, but the suggestion which is made here in this amendment is a gradation of that tax. If I can be assured that the immediate relatives, who are now exempt under the present law, will continue to be exempt by the legislature if this amendment is adopted, and the grada- tion will increase in percentage, according to the size of the estate, so those who get the most will pay the most, I Thursday, June 6, 1912. 71 should have no objections to it, but I think the tax as it is now, reaches all that oug"ht to be taxed. Perhaps some more distant and not relatives at all should pay more than the five percent >and some of the nearer ones should pay less. I am not speaking* this to oppose the proposition, because I believe the people have a right to amend their Constitution whenever or however they please, provided it does not destroy the republican form of g-overnment, and the only question, as I view it, is whether the proposition is one which the people desire to pass upon. If it is, let them have that privilege. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — In the last Convention we prepared an amendment permittins" t>>*^ +i^'atir.7i of inheril-.nces and franchises. It was the evident intention of that Convention to submit an amendment broad enough to enable the legisla- ture to pass a graduated inheritance tax. The amendment was passed back and forth from the Convention to the legislative Committee several times to make sure of that. It appears from the opinion of the Supreme Court that the Convention did not accomplish what it desired to accomplish at that time, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tilton is to cure that defect. I do not know that any assurance can be given to the gentleman from Manchester as to what the legislature will do. We cannot legislate in a Constitutional Convention; we can only provide for general and fundamental principles. Now, then, if this Convention, representing the people, desires to have a graduated inheritance tax, collateral or direct, with exemptions that exist in other states so that small estates are not taxed, so that certain amounts coming to the widows and minor children can be exempt, this amend- ment provides for that result. As to the effect of an inheri- tance tax, when the first measure was proposed to the New Hampshire legislature under the amended Constitution it was thought that fifty thousand dollars on a collateral in- heritance tax of five percent would be a large revenue. It has, however, averaged, I think, more than one hundred thou- sand a year since that time. It has been a source of revenue that we needed; it has been collected easily, and it is a tax that prevails in most of the states of the Union, only they have a direct tax as well as a collateral tax. Now this amendment simply enables the legislature to provide for a graduated in- heritance tax, with exemptions for the widow and minor children, as in the opinion of the legislature should be exempted. 72 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Davis of j!sew Ipswich. — While we are considering- this resolution, which it seems to me is a very worthy and desir- able one, ought we not to consider briefly what is happening in other states where it has been adopted, or at least, a similar one, and that is this: It is found that holders of vast proper- ties, where the inheritance tax is a measure adopted, are now proceeding to dispose of these properties before death to im- mediate relatives and so escaping this taxation. I mention this briefly, thinking perhaps we ought to consider it while we are considering this' measure. On motion of Mr. Barton of Xewport^ that the Committee of the Whole do now rise and recommend to the Convention that the resolution be agreed to by the Convention, — The affirmative prevailed. In Convention. (The President in the Chair). Mr. Hall of Dover, for the Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred Eesolution No. 6, Relating to Grading of Inheritance Taxes and Exemptions, having considered the resolution, report the same with the recommendation that the resolution be agreed to by the Convention. The report was accepted, resolution adopted and referred to the Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed to by the Convention. Mr. Pattee of Manchester introduced the following reso- lution: Resolution No. 22. Relating to the House of Representatives. Resolved, That Part Second, Article 9 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 "three thousand;" and by striking out the words "twelve hundred " in the tenth line of said section, and inserting in place thereof the words "twenty-four hun- dred," so that said section, as amended, shall read: Thursday, June 6, 1912. 73 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 six h undred inhabitants by the last general census of the stateTTaken by authority of the United States or of this state, may elect one representative; if three f>^n]isaTid.^a3ii2iL, inhabitants may elect tw^o representatives; and so proceeding in that proportion, making twenty-four hundred such in- habitants the mean increasing number of any additional representative; provided, that no town shall be divided or the boundaries of the wards of any city so altered as to in- crease 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. On motion of Mr. Pattee of Manchester, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Pattee of Manchester submitted certain statistics, ex- planatory of Resolution No. 22, Relating to the House of Representatives, and moved that the same be laid on the table with the resolution, printed and referred to the Com- mittee of the Whole. On a viva voce vote the motion prevailed. Mr. Lyford of Concord moved that the Convention re- solve itself into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering Resolution No. 2, Relating to the Senate, and Resolution No. 19, Relating to the Senate. On a viva voce vote the motion prevailed. 74 Journal of Constitutional Convention. In Ca:MMiTTE'E of the Whole. (Mr. Mitchell of Concord in the chair.) Mr. Lamhert of Manchester. — There is another proposition in regard to the Senate, making- the Senate 31. The Chainnan. — This has been referred to the Legislative Committee. . Mr. Lambert of Manchester.— ^Of course if we are in Committee of the Whole we cannot recall it, but it seems we oug-ht to take them all up at once. The Chairman. — The Chair rules that it is not before the Committee of the Whole at the present session, and it cannot be broug-ht from the Committee to which it has been referred. The subjects now before the Committee for consideration are the two resolutions read. Mr. Cavana/ugh of Manchester. — I understand there is another resolution relating- to the make-up of the Senate which has g-one to the same Committee. Is there any objection to that being considered here at this time with these two which are properly before the Committee of the Whole? Mr. Jones of Manchester. — As I understand the situation, the proposed amendment, offered by the gentleman from Fitzwil- liam, Mr. Blake, was referred to the Committee on Legislative Department. The amendment proposed by Mr. Blake simply changes the number of the Senate from 24 to 31. The two which are before the Committee of the Whole have both an entirely different effect from that of the one proposed by Mr. Blake of Fitzwilliam. The Blake amendment simply increases the number of the Senate from 24 to 31. That offered by Mr. Hurd of Claremont, which is before this Committee now, leaves the number at 24 but strikes out of the Constitution the re- quirement that the senatorial districts be based on taxes paid, — that in making the lines of the senatorial districts the legislature shall not be governed by the amount of direct taxes paid, — and divides them according to population. The other amendment, that offered by Mr. Flint, does both of these things. It raises the number of the Senate from 24 to 50, and it also provides that in arranging the lines of the senatorial districts you shall not consider the amount of direct taxes, but the fifty districts shall be divided equally on the basis of population. These are the three propositions that have been introduced. One is not before this Committee at the present time, and we Thursday, June 6, 1912. 75 cannot g-et it before this Committee except by rising- and reporting, coming into Convention again, and having it re- ferred here; and it seems to me it would be a w^aste of time and energy for the Committee to do that when you have got the whole proposition, all there is in regard to the Senate, be- fore you in these two proposed amendments, and, if either one of these amendments which you are considering" here should meet the favor of the Committee so that you wanted to report favorably, j^ou can report it as it has been introduced, or you can put on any kind of an amendment and recommend the passage of that amendment, so whether the Blake amendment is before you or not, if you want to leave things just as they are for determining the lines of the senatorial districts and increase the number from 24 to 31, you can do that by an amendment to either one of the two amendments now before the Committee; and it seems to me that the whole question here is, does the Committee want to chang-e the Senate, — increase the Senate, that is the proposition, to increase it. There is no proposition to decrease it. Do you want to increase it to 31 or to 50? Those are the two propositions presented. If you do want to increase the number, do you want to increase it and leave the lines of the districts to be determined as "at the present time, upon the direct tax paid by each district, or do you want to divide it a/ccordmg- to population? There is the whole thing- in a nut- shell, that is before the Committee in all three of the amend- ments. Mr. Hurd) of Clawmont. — Gentlemen of the Committee, the matter has been so clearly stated by the g-entleman from Manchester, Mr. Jones, that it hardly needs further explana- tion. The sense of the resolution introduced by me, which I am pleased to know is covered by that of the gentleman from Concord, merely proposed to strike out the clause of the present article of the Constitution which provides that in mak- ing the division the legislature shall be governed by the pro- portion of direct taxes. The object in striking this out, as Mr. Jones has clearly said, is to make the Senate, so far as the basis of representation is concerned, a purely popular assem- bly, — that the districts should be made up by a count of quali- fied voters, without any reference to whether there is much or little taxable property in that district. I think the whole thing can be condensed in a phrase. It is to popularize the Senate, to make it a popular assembly, and nothing else. As far as the number of the Senate is concerned, this is a matter 76 Journal of Constitutional Convention. I do not wish to speak about. I see no objection to, and I see some arg^iments for, an increase of the upper chamber, and for the present I will leave this matter to the discussion of the Committee. Mr. Qitimby of ^jiaremont. — I come from the same town Mr. Hurd does, and I heartily agree with what he has said in regard to changing the districts, but I go further and say that I think that the people that we represent at Ularemont would be very much pleased to have the Senate increased. Whether 50, as proposed by one of these resolutions, is the right number I do not know, but I think that it is very evident to us up in that end of the state that it would be better, and that we would get perhaps better legislation and more quickly, by in- creasing the Senate, and therefore I hope, (vdthout going into any great argument) and I think it is the desire of the con- stituency in our part of the state, that the Senate shall be in- . creased to at least 40 and possiblj^ 50. Mr. Morse of Newmarket. — Gentlemen of the Committee, I can see no good reason for increasing the Senate. In the first place, if you increase the members of the Senate from 24 to 31, 40 or 50, what are you going to do with them? We shall have to build another addition upon the State house to accommo- date them, unless you want to hang them up on the wall. Now it has been said in the past that you can control them easier if they are a small number than you can if they are a larger number, and that may be so, but until some good reason is brought forward for increasing the Senate from 24 to 31, 40 or 50, I, Mr, Chairman, shall be opposed to any such increase. Ifr costs more, and you are trying now to cut down the number of this House, and when the proper time comes I shall raise my voice against the cutting down of the membership of this House, because I believe that money cannot be better spent than in sending members to this House for at least an education, if for nothing more. So far as the large representation in the House is concerned, I am not so sure but that it is good Democratic doctrine, and, if it is, I most heartily approve of that. Mr. Lwnvprey of Tuftonborough. — >Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, this subject certainly is broad. I am not like the gentleman who preceded me exactly. I believe in cutting down the House and increasing the Senate. I do not know, however, about increasing it to fifty. I hardly think we should; rather make it 36 or 40. I think we could care for that number in the senate chamber as it is now. You all Thursday, June 6, 1912. 77 understand very well that it is easier to control 24 men than it would be 36 or 40. There is antagonism between our House and Senate and always has been, and the nearer their numbers are tog-ether it seems to me the less antagonism there will be. Now, Gentlemen, I should heartily support cutting down the House, and I do not care to make the number required for the first representative more than 600 either. I would not object to every town being represented here. 1 am from the coun- try, a small town. If you should make it more than 600 my town would not have representation. You may say that I am selfish. I am, and we all are. Now then, I believe that it should go something like this. There is one bill in here that agrees with my sentiments on this matter quite well, and that is the one which starts it at 600, then next 2400, and so on. I believe that is what we should adopt. It would cut the House down pretty nearly as well as we might expect on this occa- sion. We have got to submit something to the people that they will adopt. Now, Gentlemen, the country will not allow too much slaughtering. There are over 100 towns in the state that have between 600 and 800 population. The small towns have been pro-rated so long they are used to it, and I do not think there will be any trouble with them. They will be will- ing to keep it where it is. I will not take up any more time, but it will be brought up later when I am better prepared. Mr. Barney of Canaan. — I would like to say just a word at this time. I was brought up on a farm, and when we har- nessed the horse to go to work, we never put him into the cart hind end to. The last legislature, in response to a de- mand of the people, called this Constitutional Convention, and the people ratified the call. The principal reason why this Convention was called was to reduce the size of our legisla- ture, and get rid of our unwieldy House. Now it seems to me we are hitching the horse into the cart wrong end to when we talk of increasing the size of the Senate before we know what we are going to do about decreasing the size of the House, and I shall certainly, for one, vote against any increase in the number of senators until I see some reasonable plan, some rational plan, proposed for reducing the size of the House. We have got commissions without number in the state of New Hampshire. Two or three are born every session of the legislature, and we do not want to create any more office holders unless it is absolutely necessary, and I think we had better go slow enough to find out if we are going to have less members of the House of Representatives, before we make more senators* in this good old state of New Hampshire. 78 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Wadleigh of Milford, moved that the Committee of the Whole do now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Question being on the motion of Mr. Wadleigh, — Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — The men who have introduced these resolutions upon these subjects are not here, and it seems to me we ought to hear what they have to say in reg-ard to the resolutions. And ag-ain, I do not think it is very wise for this Convention, or Committee of the Whole, to recommend resolu- tions or adopt them, until we have seen them in print or writ- ing" and thoug-ht them over. I am sorry that we have passed a single resolution here before it was printed, and I hope that we shall not take action upon any other resolution until it is printed and looked over to our satisfaction. For that reason I make this motion. The motion of Mr. Wadleigh prevailed. In Conyention. (The President in the chair.) Mr. Mitchell of Concord, for the Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred Resolution No. 2, Relating to the Sen- ate, and Resolution No. 19, Relating to the Senate, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The report was accepted and leave granted. Mr. Hohhs of Wolfehoro. — Mr. President, I rise for inquiry. It seems to me that in view of the fact that we are bringing in resolutions for amendments to the Constitution, and will be doing so until Tuesday next when the time limit is up, and many of these questions, many of these resolutions, that have been brought in will probably be duplicated, varied somewhat, it seems to me there ought not to be any final action taken upon them until after the time limit for introducing resolu- tions has expired. I ask, Mr. President, if that will not be a better and more intelligent way of getting at this matter, that all of the members may know and govern themselves accord- ingly, that there will be no final action on any of the measures until after the final presentation of all amendments. Thursday June 6, 1912. 79 The President. — All the Chair can siig-gest in answer to the sug-g-estion of the gentleman from Wolfeboro, is that it is up to the Convention. It is for them to decide. Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — If the gentleman will make a mo- tion to that effect I would like to second it. The President. — The Chair would rule that the motion would not be in order. I think, speaking as a delegate from one of the constituencies, I think the action taken this afternoon on the Senate matter was eminently proper, and that was to con- sider it and let everybody talk that wanted to talk and was ready to talk, and then take the matter up again later. I think the Convention should go very slowly in regard to the matter of adopting amendments to be presented to the peo- ple. It is well to discuss and discuss early and as long as is consistent with getting through sometime, but there is no occasion for hasty action, and the members know that both of the proposed amendments which were favorably looked upon by the Convention have been referred to a Committee and there will still be a chance for the Convention to act upon those questions when they come back from the Committee. So I think the suggestion of the gentleman is very good, that final action be not taken upon anything until after Tuesday, while new matter is coming in, but that we do spend our time and spend it to advantage in discussing the various proposi- tions. m Committee of the Whole we have already had practically every subject upon which there are proposed amendments. The bulk of the amendments as you have noticed as they came in, the proposed ones, deal with the size of the House of Repre- sentatives. Then there was the tax matter, a collateral in- heritance tax, and there is one about justices of police courts. Practically that covers the field of all of the different amend- ments of which there have been some twenty odd already introduced, and it seems to me it would be well enough, and the time could be advantageously spent, if the Convention should go into Committee of the Whole to take up the matter of the size of the House of Representatives and talk that out and advance the different propositions that men have. There is the district system which has been proposed, there is the town system which has been proposed, and there are about 15 dif- ferent ones in between. Now it seems to me there is subject matter enough for discussion for the rest of this afternoon and all day tomorrow, and the men who want to talk will not all have a chance to talk on them even then. 80 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro. — Mr. President, That is my idea, but I would like to have it understood that there will be no final action taken on any of the resolutions until after Tuesday. I am heartily in lavor of discussing all these matters, but I do not agree with the gentleman from Canaan, Mr. Barney. The point at issue is, can we have an understanding here so that we may all know that these resolutions are not to be finally acted upon until after Tuesday. That is the proposi- tion I would like to have settled if possible. Mr. Barton of Newport moved that the Convention re- solve itself into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering Resolution No. 7, Relating to Female Suffrage. Question being on the motion, — Mr. Wason of Nashua raised the point that the motion was not in order for the reason that the resolution had been laid on the table. The President ruled the point well taken. Mr. Biarton of Newport moved that Resolution No. 7, Relating to Female Suffrage, be taken from the table. On a viva voce vote the negative prevailed. Mr. Fellows of Tilton called for a division. Mr. Fellows of Tilton withdrew his call for a division. On motion of Mr. Young of Manchester, the Convention adjourned at 3.41 o'clock. FRIDAY, June 7, 1912. The Convention met at 10.30 o'clock, according to ad- journment. (The President in the chair.) Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, the Rev. Charles C. Garland of Concord. The reading of the Journal having begun, on motion of Mr. Younor of Manchester, the further reading was dispensed with. Fkiday, June 7, 1912. 81 Leave of Absence. Mr. Leddy of Epping was granted leave of absence for Tuesday^ June 11, on account of important business. Mr. Bean of Franklin, introduced the following resolution: '& Resolution No. 23. Relating to Pensions. Resolved, That Article 36 of the Bill of Eights be amended by striking out the words "and never for more than one year at a time/' so that said Article 36, as amended, shall read as follows: I Article 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 legis- lature. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department. Mr. French of Nashua introduced the following resolu- tion: Resolution No. 24. To Strike Out from the Bill of Eights the Words "Protes- tant" and "Evangelical." Resolved, That Article six of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution be amended by striking out in lines one and two of the first paragraph the words "rightly grounded on evangelical principles/' and in line thirteen of the same paragraph the word "Protestant/' so that as amended the said Article 6 shall read 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 due subjection, and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated 82 JouRAL OF Constitutional Convention. 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 pub- lic teachers of piety, religion, and morality. Provided, not- withstanding, that the several towns, parishes, bodies cor- porate, or religious societies shall at all times have the ex- clusive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And no person of any one particular sect or denomination shall ever be compelled to pay toward the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or denomina- 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 subordina- tion of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law. And nothing herein shall be under- stood to affect any former contracts made for the suppart 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 Mr. French of Nashua, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. On motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua, — Resolved, That the President be authorized to appoint a special committee of twenty, each county bf the state to be represented on said committee by at least one member of this Convention. Said committee when appointed shall consider such matters relating to the suffrage of women as shall be referred to it by this Convention. Said committee is granted the free use of this hall next Wednesday and Thursday evenings for public hearings on any matters that may be referred to them for consideration. FfiiDAY June 7. 1912. 88 On motion of Mr. Lambert of Manchester^ — Resolved, That the President appoint two special commit- tees, one on mileage and one on finance, each committee to consist of ten members. On motion of Mr. Young of Manchester^ — ■ ■ Vi Resolved, That when the Convention adjourn this fore- noon, it be to meet next Tuesday, June 11, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon. The President announced the following standing com- mittees: 0^ Bill of Rights and Executive Depahtment. Hall of Dover. Bales of Wilton. Fuller of Exeter. Buxton of Boscawen. Madden of Keene. Leddy of Epping. Gibson of Conway. Saltmarsh of Laconia. Bancroft of Concord. Blake of Fitzwilliam. Upham of Claremont. Hadley of Goffstown. Clement of "Warren. Norwood of Keene. McDonough of Manchester. Cavanaugh of Manchester. Pattee of Manchester. Bowker of Whitefield. Greeley of Nashua. Carroll of Warner. On Legislative Detahtmbnt. Lyford of Concord. Marris of Lancaster. Wason of Nashua. Fellows of Tilton. Barton of Newport. Whittemore of Dover. Martin of Concord. Evans of Gorham. Scammon of Exeter. DeMerritt of Durham. Lambert of Manchester. French of Moultonborough. G. W. Fowler of Pembroke. Warren of Manchester. Cain of Keene. Stevens of Landaff. Carter of Lebanon. Wallace of Rochester. Mitchell of Portsmouth. Fessenden of Brookline. 84 Journal of Constitutional Convention. On Judicial Department. Mitchell of Concord. Parker of Nashua. Hamblett of Nashua. Ahbott of Wolfeboro. Corning of Concord. Folsom of Dover. Haines of Somersworth. Yeazey of Laconia. Faulkner of Keene. Fuller of Marlborough. Hurd of Claremont. Batchelder of Portsmouth. Hall of Salem. Haselton of Manchester. Smith of Peterborough. Crawford of Manchester. "Weeks of Ossipee. Sullivan of Berlin. Oakes of Lisbon. Cleaveland of Lancaster. On Future Mode of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments. Eastman of Exeter. Guptill of Portsmouth. Bean of Belmont. Stone of Andover. Hurd of Dover. Rowe of Kensington. Clifford of Franklin. Young of Manchester. Dudley of Colebrook. Goss of Berlin. Foss of Dover. Craig of Marlow. Prescott of Laconia. Wentworth of Sandwich. Runnells of Nashua. Newton of Unity. Bailey of Littleton. Tripp of Epsom. Entwistle of Portsmouth. Woodbury of Manchester. On Time and Mode op Submitting to the People the Amendmeints Agreed to By the Convention. Pillsbury of Londonderry. Shute of Wentworth. Abijah Hollis of Concord. Newell of Surry. Johnson of Colebrook. Young of Laconia. Wilson of Manchester. Allen Hollis of Concord. Keyes of Milford. Brown of Somersworth. Brooks of Claremont. Young of Easton. Moran of Nashua. Pattee of Stratford. Morse of Newmarket. Lamprey of Tuftonborough. Pressler of Keene. Shontell of Manchester. Rossiter of Claremont. Shaw of Salisbury. Friday, June 7, 1912. 85 The President announced the following special commit- tees^ according to resolutions previously adopted: On Wqman^s Suffrage. Wihitcher of Haverhill. Wadleigh of Milford. Shepard of Derry. Boutwell of Hopkinton. Stone of Troy. Hobbs of Wolfeboro. Main of Dover. Morrill of Gilford. Wight of Dummer. Wilkins of Henniker. McLane of Milford. Towle of i^orthwood. Neal of Dover. Shaw of Chichester. Farrand of Concord. Parsons of Gilmanton. Tarbell of Lyndeborough. Spaulding of Stoddard. Parker of Benton. Young of Charlestown. Pike of Stark. Sanborn of Fremont. Hill of Concord. Barney of Canaan. Donigan of Newbury. On Finance. Morrill of Concord. Haslet of Hillsborough. Connor of Ward 10, Manchester. Demers of Manchester. Schiller of Manchester. Hay den of Hollis. Pierce of Bennington. Wellman of 'New London. Patch of Francestown. Clark of Haverhill. On Mileaoe. Wolf of Berlin. Eoedelsperger of Manchester. Biron of Manchester. Wesley of Dover. Chatel of Manchester. On motion of Mr. Crawford of Manchester, — Resolved, That the order whereby Eesolution No. 9, Eelat- ing to Tenure of Office of Certain Officers, was referred to the Committee of the Whole, be vacated and the same referred to the Committee on Judicial Department. On motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua, the Convention ad- journed at 11.31 o'clock. 86 Journal of Constitutional Convention. TUESDAY, June 1.1, 1912. The Convention met at 11 o'clock, according to adjourn- ment. (The President in the chair.) Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, the Eev. Charles C. Q-arland of Concord. The reading of the Journal having begun, on motion of Mr. Young of Manchester, the further reading was dispensed with. Leave of Absence. Mr. Wadleigh of Sutton was granted leave of absence for Tuesday forenoon, on account of important business. Mr. Coming of Concord was granted leave of absence for Tuesday and Wednesday, in order to hold Probate Court. Mr. Quimby of Claremont introduced the following resolu- tion: Rbsolution No. ^5. Relating to the Senate. Resolved, That Article 24 of Part Second of the Consti- tution be amended by striking out the words "twenty-four'' and inserting in place thereof the word "forty," so that said article as amended shall read: Abit. 24. The Senate shall consist of forty members, who shall hold their office for two years from the first "Wednesday of January next ensuing their election. That Article 25 of Part Second of the Constitution be amended by striking out the words "twenty-four" and in- serting in place thereof the word "forty" and by striking out the words "The proportion of direct taxes paid by the said districts" and inserting in place thereof the words "the population of said districts,'' so that said article as amended shall read: Tuesday, Jcjne 11, 1912. 87 Art. 25. And^ that the state may be equally represented in the Senate^ the legislature shall, from time to time, divide the state into forty districts, as nearly equal as may be with- out dividing towns and unincorporated places; and in making this division they shall govern themselves by the population of said districts, and timely make known to the inhabitants of the state the limits of each district. On motion of Mr. Quimby of Claremont, the -resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Newell of Surry, introduced the following resolution: RBaoLUTiON No. 26. Relating to the Election of Representatives in Cities and Towns of Less Than 800 Inhabitants. Resolved, That Article 10 of the Constitution be amended by adding thereto as follows: Contiguous towns, or towns and wards having respectively less than eight hundred 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 electing 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. On motion of Mr. Newell of Surry, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Goss of Berlin, introduced the following resolution: Resolution" No. 27. Relating to the House of Representatives and Senate and the Compensation of the Officers and Members Thereof. Resolved, That Articles 9, 14, 24 and 25 of Part Second of 88 Journal qf Constitutional Convention. the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire be amended by striking out all of said articles and inserting • in place thereof the following: Art. 9. There shall be in the legislature of the state a represen'tation of the people by the election bienially of two hundred members, founded upon principles of equality, and' in order that such representation will be as equal as cir- cumstances will admit, the legislature shall, from time to time divide the sta^te into two hundred districts, as nearly equal as may be, on the basis of population according to the last preceding census of the United States or of this State. Art. 24. The Senate shall consist of fifty 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 fifty districts as nearly equal as may be^ on the basis of population according to the last preceding census of the United States, or of this state. Art. 14. The presiding officers of both houses of the legislature shall severally receive out of the State Treasury as compensation in full for their services, for the term elected, the sum of five hundred d'ollars, and all other members there- of seasonably attending and not departing without license the sum of four hundred dollars, exclusive of mileage; yro- vided, however, that when a special session shall be called by the Governor, such officers and members shall receive for at- tendance an additional compensation of five dollars per day for a period not exceeding fifteen days and the usual mileage. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legisla- tive Department. Mr. Georore "W. Fowler of Pembroke, introduced the fol- dowing resolu'tion: — Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 89 Resoit^tption No. 28. Providing for Election by Plurality Vote of the Governor and Other Officiials. Resolved, That part second of the Constitution be amended as follows: part second, tittle "Senate/' article thirty-two and thirty-three, article forty-one, title "Executive Power — Grovernor," and article sixty, title, " Council," by striking out the word " majority" wherever it occurs in said article, and substituting therefor the word " plurality." The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legisla- tive Department. 'Mr. H. A. Smith of Berlin, introduced the following reso- lution. Resoltjtion- No. 29. Relating to the Recall. Resolved, That the Constitution be amended as follows: — after Art. 94 of Part Second of the Constitution as it now stands, insert a new article, which shall be numbered Art. 95, and shall be as follows: — Art. 95. Every public officer of this state, holding an elective office, either by election or appointment, is subject to recall from such office by the qualified voters of the elec- torial district from which candidates are elected to such office. A petition for a new election shall be signed by qualified voters of suc'h district in number not less than twenty-five per centum of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for all candidates for that office and shall be filed with the Secretary of State, provided, however, that after one recall petition and election, no further recall petition shall be filed against the same officer, unless such petitioners shall pay all expenses of the previous recall election. Re-number Art 95, as it now stands, making it Art. 96, and likewise re-number all succeeding articles. 90 Journal of Constitutional Convention. On motion of Mr. H. A. Smith of Berlin, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord, introduced the following refSolution: RESO'LtJTIOJN^ No. 30. Relating to County Officers. Resolved, That Article 70 of the Constitution, Part Second, t)e so amended as to read as follows: The County treasurers, registers of probate, solicitors sheriffs, registers of deeds and other county officers shall be chosen in such manner as the legislature may from time to time direct. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department. Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord, introduced the following resolution: RBSOLtPTION No. 31. Relating to Approval of Bills. Resolved, That Article 43 of the Constitution, Part Second, be amended by adding at the end thereof the fol- lowing: "The governor may in like manner return any bill mak- ing an appropriation without his approval as to any it'im or items of appropriation or as to any part of any such item or items.'* The resolution was referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department. Mr. Young of Manchester, introduced the following resolution: Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 91 Kesqltjtion No. 32. Amending Article 5, Section 2, of the Constitution, Estab- lishing Betterment Laws. Resolved, That Article 5, Part Second, he amended by inserting after the word "laws'' in the fourth line of said article the words "including betterment laws/' so that said article as amended shall read: Art. 5. 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 reasonable orders, laws, including better- ment laws, statutes, ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without, so as the same be not re- pugnant or contrary to this Constitution, etc. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legis- lative Department. Mr. Stevens of Landaff, introduced the following resolu- tion : Re&0'I;ution ^o. 33. Relating to Taxation. Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by striking out in Article 5, Part 2, the words "proportional and'' in the nineteenth line of said section, and the words "upon all the inhabitants of, and residents within, said state, and upon all estates within the same" in the. nineteenth, twenti- eth and twenty-first lines of said section, so that soid sec- tion shall read as follows: Art. 5. 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 reasonable orders, laws, statutes, ordi- nances, directions, and instructions, either with penalties or without, so as the same be not repugnant or contrary 92 Journal of Constitutional Convention. 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 subjects 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 nam- ing and settling all civil officers within this state, such of- ficers excepted the election and appointment of whom are hereafter in this form of government otherwise provided for; and to set forth the 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 respective- ly administered unfo them for the execution of their sev- eral offices and places, so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this Constitution; and, also, to impose fines, mulcts, imprisonments, and other punishments; and to im- pose and levy reasonable assessments, rates, and taxes 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 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, di- rectly or indirectly, for the benefit of any corporation having for its object a dividend of profits, or in any way aid the same by taking its stock or bonds. Resolved, further, that Article 6, Part 2, be amended by striking out all of said section and inserting in place thereof the following: The public charges of government or any part thereof may be raised by taxation. The subjects of taxation may be divided according to their kind or value into classes dif- ferently taxed. On motion of Mr. Stevens of Landaff, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 93 Mr. Hurd of Claremont, introduced the following resolu- tion: KesO'LTjtion No. 34. Eelating to the Election of Officials hy Plurality Vote. Resolved, That all public officers who, by the Constitu- tion, are required to be chosen by a majority vote, shall be chosen hereafter by plurality vote, and all articles, or parts of articles, of the Constitution inconsistent herewith, are here'by repealed. On motion of Mr. Hurd of Claremont, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hurd of Claremont, introduced the following resolu- iton: RESOLtrTiON No. 35. Relating to the House of Representatives. Resolved, That Article 9 of Part Second of the Constitu- tion be amended by striking out of the sixth line the word '^six" and inserting in place thereof the word "eight;" by striking out of the eighth line thereof, the word "eighteen," and inserting in place thereof the word "twenty-four;" by striking out of the tenth line thereof the word "twelve,^' and inserting in the place thereof the word "sixteen;" and that Article 10 of Part Second of the Constitution be amended by striking out the word "six" wherever it shall occur, and by inserting in place thereof the word "eight," so that these articles shall read as follows: Art. 9. There shall be, in the legislature of the ^ate, a representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded upon the 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 e ight hundred inh abitants by the last general census of the state, may elect one represenfative ; if jwenty - four hundred^ such inhabitants, may elect two representa- 94 Journal of Constitutional Convention. tives; and so proceeding in that proportion, making sixteen hundred such inhabitants the mean increasing number for any additional representative. Provided, that no town shall be divided or the boundaries of any ward 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 bound- aries or ward lines changed^ the General Court in session next before these amendments shall take effect, shall equit- ably apportion representation in such manner that the num- ber 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 eig'ht hundred such inhabitants, the General Court shall authorize such town, place, or ward to elect and send to the General Court a representative such propor- tionate part of the time as the number of its inhabitants shall bear to eight hundred; but the General Court shall not authorize any such town, place, or ward to elect and send such representative, except as herein provided. On motion of Mr. Hurd of Claremont, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Buxton of Boscawen, introduced the following resolu- tion: RESOLtlTION No. 36. Eelating to the Election of Officials by a Plurality of Votes. Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended as to pro- vide that in all elections of civil officers by the people of thia state, whose election is provided for by the Constitution, the person having the highest- number of votes shall be deemed and declared to be elected. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department. Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 96 Mr. Fellows of Tilton introduced the following resolution: Eesoltjtion No. 37. Eelating to Income Tax. Resolved, That Article 6, Part Second, of the Constitution be amended by inserting after the word "including" the following: "incomes, the taxes on which may be graduated and progressive with reasonable exemptions/' so that said article as amended shall read as follows: Art. 6. The public charges of government or any part thereof may be raised by taxation upon polls^ estates^ and other classes of property, including incomes, the taxes on which may be graduated and progressive with reasonable exemptions^ franchises and property when passing by will and inheritance; and there shall be a valuation of the es- tates within the state taken anew once in every five years, at least, and as much of tener as the General Court shall order. On motion of Mr. Fellows of Tilton, the resolution was re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Clement of Warren, introduced the following resolu- tion: RESOLurrOiN No. 38. Relating to Corporation Salaries and Dividends. Resolved, That Article 10 of the Constitution, Part First, be amended by adding as follows: the legislature may fix maximum salaries of corporation officers and of dividend payments, that the public may be benefited by lower prices. The legislature may forbid corporations to overvalue their properties by overissue of stocks and bonds and affix penal- ties for the violation thereof. On motion of Mr. Clement of Warren, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Boynton of Portmouth introduced the following resolution : 96 Journal of Constitutional Convention. - Re'Soltjtion No. 39. Relating to Taxation of Wild Lands. Resolved, That Article 5, Part Second of the Constitution be amended by inserting in the twenty-second line of said article after the words "and upon all the estates within the same" the following: "except wild and forest lands^ stocks, stock in public funds, bonds, money at interest, and any other intangible property, any of which may be specially as- sessed and rated; and also to impose and levy an income tax (not exceeding ten per cent) on the income from any or all the kinds or classes of intangible property last mentioned, and it may graduate the tax according to the amount of the income and may grant reasonable exemptions; provided, that if such tax be levied on the income from any such intangible property no other tax shall be levied on such stocks, stock in public funds, bonds, money at interest, or other intangible property against the owner or holder thereof." So that the article as amended shall read in part as follows: Aht. 5. And, further, full power and authority are here- by given and granted to the said General Court, from time to time ... 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 the estates within the same, except wild and forest lands, stocks, stock in public funds, bonds, money at interest, and any other intangible property, any of whic'h may be specially as- sessed and rated; and also to impose and levy an income tax (not exceeding ten per cent) on the income from any or all the kinds or classes of intangible property last mentioned and it may graduate the tax according to the amount of the income and may grant reasonable exemptions; pro^nded, that if such tax be levied on the income from any such intangible property no other tax shall be levied on such stocks, stock in public funds, bonds, money at interest, or any other intan- gible property against the owner or holder thereof. Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 97 On motion of Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth, introduced the following resolution: RbsouuttOiN No. 40. Relating to County Commissioners. Resolved, That Article 70' of Part Second of the Consti- tution be amended by the addition of the following: At the biennial election held in November, 1914, the elec- tors of the several counties shall elect three county commis- sioners, who shall hold office for two, four and six years re- spectively, and at each biennial election thereafter, one county commissioner, who shall hold office for a term of six years. The county commissioners elected under this article shall elect the county treasurer, who shall hold office at their pleasure. On motion of Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. On motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua, — Resolved, That Resolution No. 7, Relating to Female Suf- frage, be taken from the table and referred to the Special Committee on Woman's Suffrage. On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, that the Conven- tion resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the pur- pose of considering all resolutions relating to the subject of representation in the House of Representatives, the same being, — Resolution No. 1, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution No. 13, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. 98 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. Eesolution Xo. 14, Relating to the House of Eepresenta- tives. Resolution Xo. 15, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution Xo. 18^ Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution Xo. 22, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution Xo. 26, Relating to Election of Representa- tives in Cities and Towns of less than 800 Inhabitants. Resolution Xo. 35, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Question being on the motion of Mr. Lyford, — Mr. Crawford of MancTwster. — I would like to inquire if this discussion will not include the question of increasing the Senate? Being- so closely united, it seems to me that both questions should be taken up together, not simply the House, but both branches of the legislature. The President. — The Chair will be obliged to rule that under the motion of the gentleman from Concord, only the subject of representation in the House of Representatives will be prop- erly before the Committee. An amendment to the motion will be proper, if that is the desire of the members, but, as the motion stands, only the matter of representation in the House of Representatives will be under consideration. Mr. Upham of Claremont moved to amend the foregoing motion so that it shall include all resolutions relating to representation in the Senate, the same being, — Resolution Xo. 2, Relating to the Senate. Resolution Xo. 19, Relating to the Senate. .Resolution Xo. 25, Relating to the Senate. Question being on the amendment, — Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 99 On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed. Question being on the motion of Mr. Lyford as amended, — On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed. In Committee oe the Whole. (Mr. Scammon of Exeter in the Chair.) Mr. Hnrd of Claremont moved that Resolution No. 19, Relating to the Senate, be reported to the Convention, that it is inexpedient to adopt. On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed. Mr. Neivell of Surry. — Gentlemen of the Committee, I am well aware that the subject which is now under consideration, is one of difficulty. It has been my privilege to be a member of three Constitutional Conventions, and in the two past Con- ventions this same subject has been brought up for considera- tion. In the Convention of 1889, an amendment was intro- duced by the late Hon. Charles J. Amidon of Hinsdale, bear- ing upon this same subject. That is, that every town and ward in the state should have one representative, the same as has been introduced in this Convention by the gentleman from Langdon, Mr. Winch. It is my privilege at this time to repre- sent one of the smaller towns in this state, a town that was represented in the Convention of 1876 and in 1889 by the late Hon. George K. Harvey. I am fully aware that any proposition that we may, at this time, present to this Convention will not be satisfactory to all concerned. It seems to be admitted that those who founded the government of our state did their work well. In the town system we have the actual existence of representative government. The proportionate system which gives a large representation to the towns has worked well. Does any one pretend to say that on the whole the legislatures of New Hampshire have not acted wisely in the various laws which they have passed? Does not the legislation of our state com- pare favorably ^vith that of other states? I contend, Mr. Chair- man and Gentlemen of the Committee, that the legislation of the State of New Hampshire is superior to any other New England state. I believe in a large House of Kepresentatives, a House of 300 members, and I have reason to believe that the 100 Journal of Constitutional Convention. people of New Hampshire want a House of that size. It is no good reason because Massachusetts, or some other st:ate, has a district system that we should pattern after it. It is our privilege to do things in our own way. That we should formu- late some plan that will make a reasonable reduction in the House of Representatives, is what is expected of us, and it is what we are here for. As one of the delegates from a pro- rated town, that has been pro-rated or classed for thirty-four years, — and we have become accustomed to being a pro-rated town, — I would like to see the present basis of 600 inhabitants for the first representative and 2400 for an additional repre- sentative adopted. But I believe that a proposition so one- sided would never be ratified by the voters of the State of New Hampshire. The towns must concede something, and a change of basis from six to eight hundred is a reasonable concession on the part of the towns. I have prepared a table, which has been submitted to the Convention, and I believe that most of you have, or ought to have, a copy of it. You will find in the summary on the last page, the number of representatives which each county will have on this basis of 800 for the first and two thousand for each additional, and you will find in each of the counties an explanation at the top of the page as to the three columns of figures. Rockingham County will have 41 and 62/800ths. Strafford County, 26 and 24/800ths. Belknap County, 15 and 364/800ths. Carroll County, 13 and 664/800ths. Merrimack County. 37 and 363/800ths. Hillsborough County, 73 and 594/800ths. Cheshire County, 22 and 60/800ths. Sullivan County, 14 and 284/800ths. Grafton County, 31 and 645/800ths. Coos County, 21 and 83/800ths. The total for the state is 296 and 743/800ths, or practically 297. There are ten towns which have a population of between seven and eight hundred that are reckoned as having one representative in this table, including Brentwood 778, North Hampton 783, Gilford 744, Moultonborough 783, Epsom 725, Rindge 706, Alstead 711, Westmoreland 758, Chesterfield 770, Warren 701. The aggregate population which is reckoned in this table is 7439. In this table these towns divided by 800 will have 9 and 236/800ths representatives. In the apportionment which has been a precedent in the past, and will probably be followed in the future, these ten towns would have one repre- Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 101 sentative each. The census of 1910 g-ives the number of towns less than 600, principally pro-rated towns, as 86. The number of pro-rated towns in the census of 1900 was 71. The increase in the number of pro-rated towns in 1910 over 1900 was 15. There is a paper, which has been widely circulated in this state, that gives the number of towns now pro-rated as 75 and states that a change of basis from six to eight hundred for the first representative, would pro-rate 40 more. The number now pro-rated is actually 86.*^ The actual situation is that under the basis of SOO for the first representative, there will be actually 22; that is, if the precedent that has ruled in the towns under the present census, subtracted from 118 will be 32. As I have stated, there are ten towns, which as they have been apportioned, will send a representative, lacking so little of the 800, and that will leave only 22. Therefore, you see this statement is somewhat out of the way. There are only two more than half as many towns that will be pro-rated under this apportionment. It states there are forty, when there will be actually 22; that is, if the precedent that has ruled in the past is followed in the future. Gentlemen from the pro-rated towns, it seems to me that if any proposition is to be ratified by the people, there must be a concession on your part; no one-sided proposition will ever be ratified by the voters of the State of New Hampshire. I understand under the present cen- sus, — I have not figured it, — that there will be 410 representa- tives in the next House. A House, on this proposed basis, giving 298 representatives, will be a reduction of 112. If the present ratio of representation continues, and the House con- tinues to grow as it has for the last twenty years, the time is coming, — it is certain, — when the district system will sooner or later be adopted by the people of 'New Hampshire, and the proportionate system, which has been so favorable to the towns, will be at an end. Mr. Batchelder of Portsmouth. — In connection with this sub- ject of representation, I should like to speak just a word in re- gard to the pamphlet printed in connection with amendment number 18, which was distributed some time last week. My at- tention was first struck by the remarkable fact that on page 13 it was stated that Resolution No. 18 resulted in a net loss to the whole state of 18, being the difference between thirty- seven net loss and nineteen net gain, but that the result ou the House of Eepresentatives was to reduce it from 405, — I think it is not 410, under the new apportionment, — to 350. That is, there is a loss of 55. On examination I find that my own county of Rockingham, for instance, is reduced from 51 102 Journal of Constitutional Contjcntion. to 46, yet it is in this schedule as gaining 7, and there are a number of mistakes through it. Two towns, Kingston and Merrimack, are entirely omitted. I have not had time to analyze it thoroughly, but I have the impression that the figures are inaccurate throughout. It is grossly inaccurate in regard to the total net loss, because there is no possible mathematical figuring by which you can reduce the House 55 without distributing a like loss throughout the sta*e. Mr. Crawford of Manchester. — I do not desire to encroach upon the time of this Committee, but I will ask for a few moments. When I first came to this Convention I formed a strong de- termination in my own mind that I would occupy its time but a small portion, compared with what I expected some others would occupy. I feel a great deal like a client I had up in Coos County, tried in Strafford before a referee. \Mien we got the evidence pretty much all in, the parties concluded that we lawyers might sit back and they would finish their own case. We did so, and my client arose to address the Court, and he said: "Your Honor, what is the use of my wast- ing my precious idle moments 'disgusting' this question?" Now, I am willing to waste my "precious idle moments," but I do not wish to do so to the "disgust" of the members of this Committee, and I would suggest that during the few moments I am occupying your time our "stenographette" should cease making her hieroglyphics and devote her time to sharpening pencils to report the sayings of the four hundred who may desire to discuss the question before you. I do not come here with any plan to fix a definite number in the House or in the Senate. Certainly the conditions that exist in this state demand a reduction in the House. With all the measures that are before the Convention, or before this Committee, some way should be devised by which the small towns can be protected, and the cities and larger towns not be deprived of a fair representation. If we should adopt the ratio of six hundred for the first representative as it exists now, none of the country towns will be deprived of any of their representation. Then take the second ratio of 2400, and the larger towns, perhaps, that now have three would have two. The towns of 3,000 would have 2. The cities would have less than they do now, but, while that ratio is extended over the whole state, it is fair and equal to all, both large towns and the cities. Now as the matter is before you, all the resolu- tions are open, not only for discussion, but for amendments and suggestions, that some resolution may be prepared that will embrace the wishes of the majority of this Committee; Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 103 and I wish it mig-ht embrace all, so that when this is sub- mitted to the people there will be no dang-er but that it may be adopted. The opposition which was raised to an increase in the Senate the last time this was discussed was when the gen- tleman from Newmarket, Mr. Morse, suggested that, if you increased the Senate, it would necessitate an appropriation for another enlargement of this Capitol. You will remember when the question of building a new Capitol or enlarging this was before the legislature, Manchester in its liberality offered one million dollars for the erection of the new Capitol, provided it should be located on one of the public squares in that city. This proposition, Gentlemen, was rejected, as every one sup- posed it would be. We are here for the purpose of proposing such amendments to our Constitution as will benefit our state, and satisfy, not only the small towns, but the cities and the larger towns. I am aware, although I reside in a city that sends up a great many to the legislature, that the country towns have fur- nished largely the brains that have controlled the legislation of the state. Whenever an important matter has come up that was in the interest of a city, — and I don't speak of one city, but all, — and some one was desired to advocate its inter- ests they have looked to the men from country towns. Now, without coming down definitely to any number, let's devise some way by which the House can be reduced, and the Senate increased to a reasonable number, so we may cease to be the laughing stock of the people of other states. Mr. Lamprey of Tiiftonhorough. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, I have a bill here, — a resolution, which was introduced by the gentleman from Manchester, Mr, Pattee. Now, I don't know the gentleman, and so far as the argu- ment is concerned it is not necessary that I should. I will read it; it is number 22. (Reads resolution). It leaves the representation at 304. Mr. President and Gentlemen, this bill, to my mind, is very satisfactory. It has been said here, and well said, that the towns of New Hampshire that have had representation here, have produced the brains for this House. Now, I don't suppose anybody will dispute that. But in order to keep those towns prosperous; in order for them to retain their present number of inhabitants; in order for them to be enabled to maintain themselves, and create an enthusiasm that will keep the inhabitants there, it seems to me that the state of New Hampshire must allow them certain privileges that will be advantageous to them in one way or another. Now, as there are 130 towns that come under that class, it is certainly 104 Journal of Constitutional Convention. quite a strength, and I believe, were it not for the towns, the towns throughout the state, or cities really, would -not be so well ofE as they are now under the present basis, if some other plan should be adopted reducing their representation. I live in a town where there are only 612 inhabitants. I do not wish to live in a town where there are less, for certainly I should feel badly to see my town get so low as not to have representa- tion in this legislature. I don't know but the time is coming, unless the people take hold, when we shall have less than 600 inhabitants. Now for the advantage of the state, for the advantage of the towns and for the advantage of all concerned, it seems to me that really we ought to keep the number as low as 600 for the first repre- sentative. It is my opinion that if it is made 800 when it comes before the people of New Hampshire, they will reject it. Unless we are granted these privileges, it seems to me certainly that it will be rejected, and there will not be any reduction whatever. Mr. Morse of Netcmarket. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Committee, I am opposed to the reduction of the House of Representatives, first, last and all the time. And I am sure, Sir, if that grand war horse who represented the shire town of Exeter was a member of this Convention you never. Sir, would pass an amendment to be submitted to the people of New Hampshire, calling for a reduction of the House of Repre- sentatives. I have waited patiently, Sir, to hear some gentle- man, who would speak in relation to the cost of this House, advocating its reduction because it would be cheaper. We have built an addition on to the State House to accommodate the representatives who are elected from the different towns and cities. If you increase the Senate some, — ^notwithstand- ing my distinguished friend, the patriarch at my left, — to thirty-two, or forty, or fifty, — you will have to build an addi- tion upon that room to accommodate the senators, and if there is any member of this Committee who does not believe that, let him go in and see how congested the Honorable Senate Chamber would be with any more than twenty-four senators. I believe. Gentlemen of the Committee, that my father was as wise as I am; that my grandfather was as wise as my father and as wise as I am, and I am willing to acknowledge they were a devilish sight more honest. I believe that the framers of the Constitution of New Hampshire knew what they were doing, and the less we monkey and amend the Con- stitution of New Hampshire, the better it is for the Constitu- tion, and the state, and for us. Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 105 The town of Newmarket, which I have the honor of repre- senting, has had in years past two representatives. Under the census that has been promulgated we shall have three in the next legislature of this state, unless you amend the Consti- tution, depriving us of one or more of those three. Do you suppose, Sir, I want to go back to my town and say, "You are going to have but one or two representatives in the next House?" No, Sir, never, and I will resort to every parliamen- tary tactic I know of, and I will put every member on record, before you shall reduce the House of Representatives. It has been well said that much of the brains of past Houses has come from the country towns. I was born, sir, within twenty miles of where I now stand, and I will never submit to the reduction of this House. They say it costs too much. Let any gentle- man who has had anything to do with town affairs look at the state tax that his town has paid the last year; compare that with what was paid five, ten, fifteen, twenty or twenty- five years ago, and see how it has increased. The money ex- pended for instruction to the young, middle-aged and old men who have been members of this House, is money mighty well expended, in my judgment. Every young man who has ambi- tion has a desire to represent his native or adopted town in the legislature of the state. It is a good school, and every man that comes here may have less money when he returns, but, unless his brain is thick, he knows more than when he came. I am opposed. Sir, to a reduction of this House. I believe we should let it alone and have the number of representatives seated in the next House that will be entitled to sit under the promulgation of the present census. Mr. Morse of Newmarket, moved that the Committee rec- ommend to the Convention that all resolutions relating to representation in the House of Representatives be indefinitely postponed. Question being on the moftion of Mr. Morse, — Mr. Rowe of Kensington. — Several years ago I was playing ball. I went to a strange town where I didn't know any one. Some one began to help me out by saying a few words in my behalf. On inquiry I found out that it was Dr. Morse of New- market. I was very grateful for the help he gave me, and if it is any pleasure to him to have me second his motion, or to say a few words in behalf of what he has said, I will say it now. I heartily coincide in everything he has said, and I hope the recommendation he has made will pass. 106 Journal of Constitutional Convention. On a viva voce vote the motion of Mr. Morse did not pre- vail. On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, that the Committee do now rise, recommend that Resolution No. 19, Relating to the Senate, be not adopted, report progress on other reso- lutions and ask leave to sit again, The motion prevailed. In Convention. (The President in the chair.) Mr. Scammon of Exeter, for the Committee of the Whole to whom was referred Resolution No. 19, Relating to the Senate, having considered the same, recommend that it is inexpedient for the Convention to adopt the resolution. The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted. Mr. Scammon of Exeter, for the Committee of the Whole, to whom were referred Resolutions Nos. 1, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22, 26, 35, 2, and 25, having considered the same, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The report was accepted and leave granted. Mr. Guptill of Portsmouth offered the following resolu- tion and moved its adoption: — Frederick Pickering, a member elect of this Convention from the town of Newington, died suddenly in that town, Saturday, June 1. Mr. Pickering was born in the town of Newington, May 29, 1849; educated there and at Hampton Academy; taught school for several years, and then took up the occupation of farming. He was a member of the Congregational church and a Patron of Husbandry. He held all the offices within the gift of the people of his native town, and all the duties Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 107 that he assumed were most faithfully performed. Thor- oughly honest and conscientious in all his dealings^ he al- ways maintained, also, that unassuming attitude which marks the true gentleman. A model in all the tender rela- tions of domestic life, a friend, loyal and true, he died as he had lived, a Christian. Resolved, therefore, That in the death of Frederick Picker- ing the state has lost a valuable citizen, and the community an interested friend; that, as a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, this memorial be placed upon the records of this Convention, and that a copy hereof be sent to his fam- Resolved, That, as an additional mark of respect to the memary of the deceased, this Convention be now adjourned. By a unanimous vote the resolution was adopted and the Convention adjourned at 12.30' o^clock. Aptedeinoon. The Convention met at 2 o'clock, according to adjourn- ment. (The President in the chair.) Mr. Upham of Claremont introduced the following resolu- tion: RBSOLTPrroN N"o. 41. Kelating to the Registers of Probate. Resolved, That Article 70 of Part Second of the Constitu- tion be amended by striking out the words "registers of pro- bate'' and that the following article be added to the Constitution: The registers of probate shall be appointed by the judges of probate of their respective counties, and shall hold office for a term of five years. The first appointments under this article shall be made to take effect on the first day of Janu- ary, 1915. 108 Journal of Constitutional Convention. The resalution was referred to the Committee on. Judicial Department. Mr. Upham of Claremont introduced the following reso- lution: Rbsoltption No. 42. Relating to the Registers of Deeds. Resolved, That Article 70 of Part Second of the Constitu- tion be amended by striking out the words '^registers of deeds/' and that the following article be added to the Consti- tution: The registers of deeds shall be appointed by the judges of the Superior Courts and shall hold office for a term of five years. They shall be subject to removal by the judges of the Superior Court for cause, after due notice and hearing. The first appointments under this article shall be made to take effect on the first day of January, 1915. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Judi- cial Department. Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro introduced the following reso- lution: REtsoLtmoiN No. 43. Relating to the Senate. Resolved, That Articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire shall be, and hereby are, amended to read as follows: Art. 24. The Senate shall consist of thirty-six mem- bers, 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 thirty-six districts of contiguous territory, as nearly equal as may be, without dividing towns and unin- Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 109 corporated places^ on the basis of population according to tlie last census of the United States or of this state. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legis- lative Department. Mr. Hurd of Claremont introduced the following resolu- tion: E.ESOIKJTION No. 44. Relating to Councillor Districts. Resolved, That Article 64 of Part Second of the Constitu- tion be amended by striking out the words "ratable polls and proportion of public taxes/' and inserting in place thereof the word "population/' so that Article 64 as amended shall read: Art. 64. The legislature may^ if the public good shall hereafter require it, divide the state into five districts, as nearly equal as may be^ governing themselves by the num- ber of population, each district to elect a councillor; and, in case of such division, the manner of the choice shall be con- formable to the present mode of election in counties. On motion of Mr. Hurd of Claremont, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the "Wihole. Mr. Updyke of Hanover introduced the following resolu- tion: Rbsoltjtion '^0. 45. Relating to Residence Qualification of Voters. Resolved, That Article 29, Part Second of the Constitu- tion be stricken out and that the following be inserted in lieu thereof: Every person qualified as the Constitution provides, and who shall have resided within this state for one year and within any town, city or unincorporated place six months 110 Journal of Constitutional Convention. preceding the day of any election shall be considered an in- habitant for the purpose of voting or being elected to any office or place within this state, in the town, city or unin- corporated place where he dwells and has his home, provided, however, that any legal voter moving from one ward to an- other ward in the same city of said state within six months next prior to any election shall not be deprived of his right of voting at such election in the ward from which he re- moved, if, prior to such removal, he shall file a declaration in writing with the city clerk of said city, that he intends to vote at such election in the ward from which he removed. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Bill of Eights and Executive Department. Mr. Updyke of Hanover introduced the following resolu- tion: ResoltjtiOiN No. 46. Eelating to the Qualification of Voters. Resolved, That Article 11 of the Bill of Rights be amended by adding at the end thereof the following: and provided, further, that no person shall have the right to vote, or be eligible to office under the Constitution of this state who shall have been convicted of treason, felony, bribery, larceny or any wilful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the General Court may, by vote of two-thirds of the members of each house restore the privi- leges of an elector to persons who may have forfeited them by conviction of such offences: so that Article 11 shall read: Akt. 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 prevented by a physical disability from complying with its Tuesday, June 11, 1912.' Ill 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; and provided further, that no person shall have the right to vote, or be eligible to office under the Constitution of this state who shall have been convicted of treason, felony, bribery, larceny or any wilful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the General Court may, by vote of two- thirds of the members of each house restore the privileges of an elector to persons who may have forfeited them by conviction of such offences. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department. Mr. Comings of Cornish introduced the following resolu- tion: RBSOLnanoN No. 47. Relating to the Initiative and Referendum. Resolved, That it is expedient that the Constitution of New Hampshire be amended as follows: Amend Art. 2 of Part Second by adding thereto the fol- lowing: But the people reserve to themselves the power to pro- pose legislative measures, resolutions and laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independently of the General Court; and also reserve power, at their own option, to ap- prove or reject at the polls any act, item, section or part of any resolution, act or measure passed by the General Court. The first power reserved by the people is the Initiative,* and a petition signed by qualified voters of the state equal in number to eight per cent of the total vote cast for gov- ernor at the last preceding state election shall be required to propose any measure by initiative petition, and every such petition shall include the full text of the measure so pro- posed. Initiative petitions ^hall be filed with the Secretary 112 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. of State not less than four months before the election at which they are to he voted upon. If conflicting measures submitted to the people shall be approved by a majority of the votes severally cast for and against the same, the one re- ceiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall thereby become law as to all conflicting provisions. The second reserved power is the Eeferendum^ and it may be ordered by the General Court, as other bills are enacted, or, except as to emergency measures, by petition of qualified voters of the state in number equal to five per cent of the total vote cast for governor at the last preceding state elec- tion, filed with the Secretary of State. ISlo law shall go into effect, except emergency measures, until sixty days after the final adjournment of the General Court passing the same; and if, within said sixty days, a referendum is demanded said law shall be suspended until the referendum vote shall de- termine whether or not the law is sustained or defeated. If it shall be necessary for the immediate preservation of public health, safety or peace, that a measure shall become effective without delay, such necessity shall be stated in one section, and if by vote of yeas and nays two-thirds of all the members elected to each house shall, on a separate roll-call, vote in favor of the measure going into immediate effect for such reason, such measure shall become operative upon being ap- proved by the governor; provided, that an emergency shall not be declared on any measure creating or abolishing any office, or to change the salary, term or duties of any officer, or for the grant of any franchise. If a referendum petition be filed against an emergency measure, such measure shall be law until it is voted upon by the people, and if it is then t rejected by a majority of those voting upon the question, such measure shall be thereby repealed. The filing of a referendum petition against one or more items, sections or parts of any act, legislative measure or resolve, shall suspend the operation of the same, but shall not delay the remainder of the measure from becoming operative. The veto power of the governor shall not extend to measures initiated by or Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 118 referred to the people. All elections on general^ local or special measures referred to the people of the state or of any locality, shall be had at regular biennial elections, un- less expressly otherwise ordered by the General Court. Any measure initiated by or referred to the people shall become law if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and not otherwise, and every such measure shall become law thirty days after the election at which it is approved. The Secretary of State shall submit all measures initiated by or referred to the people for adoption or rejection at the polls in compliance herewith. The petition shall consist of sheets having such general form printed or written at the top thereof as shall be designated or prescribed by the Secretary of State; such petitions shall be signed by qualified voters in their own proper persons only, to which shall be attac'hed the name of the place of residence of each and the date of signing the petition. The Secretary of State shall print and distribute to each voter a sample ballot, together with the text of every measure to be submitted to a vote of the peo- ple, and the General Court shall provide for public dissem- ination of information and arguments thereon. This article of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing, but laws may be enacted to aid its operation. Amend Art. 4 of Part Second by adding at the end thereof the follow^ing: Except as provided in Art. 2. Amend Art. 5 of Part Second by adding at the end thereof the following: Except as provided in Art. 2. Amend x\rt. 91 of Part Second by striking out the words, — "Senate and House of Eepresentatives in General Court convened," and insert in place thereof the words, — "people of the State of ^ew Hampshire," so that the same shall read: Art. 91. The enacting style, in making and passing acts, statutes and laws shall be. Be it enacted by the people of the State of New Hampshire. 114 Journal of Constitutional Convention. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legis- lative Department. Mr. Huid of Claremont introduced the following resolu- tion: Resolution Xo. 48. Relating to Roll-Call in the Legislature. Resolved, That Article 23 of Part Second of the Constitu- tion be amended by inserting after the words "any one mem- ber" the words "seconded by ten members/' so that said article as amended shall read: 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, seconded by ten members, 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 rights 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. On motion of Mr. Hurd of Claremont, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. On motion of Mr. Mitchell of Concord, the Convention re- solved itself into Committee of the WHiole for the purpose of considering Resolution No. 5, Relating to Taxation of Wild and Forest Lands and Money at Interest. In Committee of the Whole. (Mr. Young of Manchester in the chair.) Mr. Mitchell of Concord offered the following amendment: Amend Resolution No. 5, as follows: By substituting the words "growing wood and timber," for the words, "wild and forest/' in the fourth and fifth lines of said resolution; and Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 115 by inserting after the word "interest," and before the word "which" in line 5 of said resolution, the words, "including money in savings banks within this state and money de- posited by residents of this state in savings banks without the state;" and by adding, after the word "rated," in the sixth line of said resolution, the words, "and in the assess- ment and rating of either reasonable exemptions may be made," so that the article as amended shall read in part, as follows: Art. 5. And, further, full power and authority are here- by given and granted to the said General Court, from time to time, to impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates and taxes upon all the inhabi- tants of, and residents within, the said state and upon all estates within the same, except growing wood and timber lands and money at interest, including money in savings banks within this state and money deposited by residents of this state in savings banks without the state which may be specially assessed and rated and in the assessment and rating of either reasonable exemptions may be made. Question being on the adoption of the amendment to the resolution, — 3£r. Mitchell of Concord. — Mr. Chairman: It is nay desire, should it be the pleasure of the Convention, to have this amendment printed, and, at the convenience of the Convention, take it up for consideration. When it is under consideration, by the Convention, it is my purpose to attempt an explanation of what I regard as necessary changes, or amendments, in the resolution to which this is a proposed amendment. But, at this time, I desire only that it shall be presented to the Con- vention, that it may be printed and taken up for consideration in connection with the original resolution, and, also, in con- nection with the resolution proposed this morning by the gen- tleman from Tilton, that resolution which provides for author- ity to tax incomes; because the two propositions should be considered together being in relation, essentially, to the same subject. Mr. Fellows of Tilton accepted the amendment. 116 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr, Mitchell of Concord moved that the Committee do now rise^ report the foregoing amendment, that it had been accepted, recommend that it be printed, and then again re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole. On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed. In Contention. (The President in the chair.) Mr. Young of Manchester, for the Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred Resolution No. 5, Relating to Taxation of Wild and Forest Lands and Money at Interest, having considered the same, report that the foregoing amendment h'ad been accepted, recommend that it be printed and then again referred to the Committee of the A^Tiole. The report was accepted and the recommendations adopted. Mr. Connor of Ward 10, Manchester, introduced the fol- lowing resolution: Resolution No. 49. Relating to the Poll Tax of Female Voters. Resolved, That Article 6, Part Second, of the Constitution of New Hampshire be amended by adding at the end of said article the following: Provided, that no poll tax shall be as- sessed upon any female inhabitant who has not qualified to vote for senator. On motion of Mr. Connor of Ward 10, Manchester, the resolution was referred to the Special Committee on Woman's Suffrage. Presentation of Gavel to President Jones. Mr. Entivistle of Portsmouth.— ^ir. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, I do not wish to use up too much of your valuable time. On Wednesdav, June 3, when this Convention so Tuesday, June 11, 1912. IIT magnificently chose Hon. Edwin F. Jones, of Manchester, for its President, there was not a member of this Convention that spoke of his having any emblem of authority. When our great national parade of officers and men of our great naval battle- ships are ordered to different ports, they are laden down with emblems of authority, during times of peace, the same as they would be in times of war. I deem it a privilege and a per- sonal pleasure to present two unquestionable emblems of authority to our President, — the gavel being made from some of the same wood that the furniture for the battleship New Hampshire was. And when our President retires from this honorable Convention, he will have them to hang in his office or in his home, and gaze upon them, and realize with what a simple little weapon he controlled this large family. At this time I request our President to accept this gavel and American flag, with our best wishes for his success and happiness. TJie President. — The Chair would return his thanks to the gen- tleman from Portsmouth for the kind words and for the gift of the gavel and of the flag. The gavel may be called the em- blem of authority in this Convention while we are sitting here; but the flag is the emblem that we all, in the chair and on the floor, love and respect. Mr. Crawford of Manchester. — I have noticed in resolving our- selves into Committee of the Whole, that we are shifting back and forth, the Committee rising and sitting again, and it is entirely different from the ordinary parliamentary procedure in Committee of the Whole. Now, I move, Mr. President, that the Committee on Rules be instructed to report a rule whereby all matters referred to • the Committee of the Whole shall be placed on what they call a general order; then they can be taken up, and if we see fit to vote to pass one, we can take up the next, so we can devote our time without this constantly shifting from the Convention to the Committee of the Whole. Thus, the clerk will make out that list every day of what is on • the general order, (and then when the Convention resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, it will be on that general order, and they can take up and pass anything they want, or they can go through and discuss the whole list which may be upon that order. It seems to me it would be more systematic and save a good deal of time to have that rule and have the Committee of the Whole placed upon that order, so we can take up any of them or all of them in the Committee of the Whole at one sitting. The President. — The Chair would request the gentleman from Manchester to put his motion in writing. 118 Journal of Constitutional Convention. On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, the Convention re- solved itself into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering all resolutions relating to the apportionment of representation in the House of Eepresentatives and Sen- ate, the same being, Resolution No. 1^ Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution Xo. 13, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution No. 14, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution No. 15, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. • Resolution No. 18, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution No. 22, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution No. 26, Relating to the Election of Representa- tives in Cities and Towns of Less than 800 Inhabitants. Resolution No. 35, Relating to the House of Representa- tives. Resolution No. 2, Relating to the Senate. Resolution No. 25, Relating to the Senate. In Committee of the Whole. (Mr. Clifford of Franklin in the chair.) Mr. WMtcher of Haverhill. — Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee, I take it for g-ranted that a majority of the delegates of the Convention are impressed with the fact that there is a general expectation that something" will be done by this Constitutional Convention, proposing to the people of the state a reduction in the number of representatives. In fact, I Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 119 have seen in some of the public prints that that is what we are here for more than anything else, and if we do not do something we shall all be repudiated when we get home. I for one, do not sympathize with the sentiment that the present size of our House is a thing at all dangerous to the institutions of the state, and I think we shall survive, even if the next House, under a new apportionment, consists of 410 members and, if we had room, of 500 members. I am not at all troubled with the suggestion that is made that New Hamp- shire, with its large House, is the laughing stock of the people of the other states. I think we are capable of taking care of ourselves, and managing our own institutions and our own government, and, if others see fit to laugh, let them laugh. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that our large House will compare favorably in point of integrity, in point of intelligence, in point of results, with any of the small Houses of the larger states, and I am not one of those who believe that the character of our legislation would be improved, or the character of the personnel of the membership of the House would be improved by a small House. There is a demand, perhaps, and a general sentiment that the House should be somewhat smaller than it is, and, of the various propositions and resolutions that have been introduced, the one. No. 13, introduced by Mr. Pillsbury of Manchester, to my mind seems the best. I believe we should get a House with a fixed number. That proposed amendment places the membership of the House at 300. We may, perhaps, be agreed that it is expedient to reduce the size of the House, and the question comes as to the manner and the method. We have heard a great deal about preserving the representa- tion of the small towns. Now as I understand it, Mr. Chair- man, the State of New Hampshire is not a confederation of towns, never was and never was intended to be. The Consti- tution of 1784 that was adopted, was not adopted by a confed- eration of towns. Part Second of the preamble reads: "The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free sovereign in- dependent body politic, or state, by the name of the State of New Hampshire." It was the people within the confines of the State of New Hampshire that adopted our Constitution and formed a government, — a government of the people, not of the towns. The Constitution which is in force today is the same: "The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of New Hampshire do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sov- 120 Journal of Constitutional Convention. ereign body politic, or state, by the name of the State, of New Hampshire." It was the people, within the boundaries of New Hampshire, that formed and adopted, and have lived under, for a century and a quarter or more, this Constitution. I wish to emphasize the fact that our state is not a confederation of towns. We hear a great deal about the town being the unit of gov- ernment. We have our little republics that govern their own local affairs, and they will still be units of government under any system of representation that we may adopt for the legis- lature. We are not destroying the towns, we are not destroy- ing the unity of the towns. The legislature represents the people of the state, not the towns. The men that are sent here, they are sent by the towns for convenience' sake, but they are not sent here merely to look out for their little individual towns. They are sent here to legislate for the interests of the people of the state, the whole state. They are not sent here to represent counties or to represent towns. That theory may obtain in some of our sister states. It may obtain in Vermont where the representatives in the lower House are termed town representatives. New Hampshire is not a confederation of towns, — it is the people. Now if the people are to be represented here, there is but one fair, — we all agree to that I think, — there is but one fair, ideal system of representation, and that is by districts, a divi- sion of the state into districts. I heard it said that the peo- ple would not stand for that. How do we know? Has the proposition ever been submitted to the people to divide the state into representative districts? Various propositions have been submitted to continue our present system of town repre- sentation on a certain basis, and the attempt made ten years ago and submitted to the people was rejected by the people. The district system has never been presented to the people as yet, and this claim that is sometimes made that the interests of the small towns will suffer if representation is based upon a district system, why, it is a bugaboo. The system of district representation prevails in other states and prevails without damage to the small towns and the small communities. Why, take our sister state of Massachusetts. I had the misfortune, — or good fortune, whichever it may be called, — to reside for some 25 years in that state, and in three different classes of communities. My first residence in that state was in a district that was formed by three towns, a district that, under a system of reorganization after a census, now consists of six towns. None of those towns ever have been known to have suffered. Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 121 and the smaller towns in that district had equal rights with other towns. I was a resident for nearly 20 years in a district in that state consisting-, when I first became a resident there, of two towns entitled to two representatives. One town was nearly twice as large as the other. By a tacit understanding, that district was represented for two years in the legislature by members from that town, and for the next two years by one member from that town and one member from the smaller town. That district never had any difficulty in the matter of representation. It has changed since. One of those towns has become a city, and is now a representative district by itself and sends three representatives. The other town has become a district by itself and sends two representatives. We are living today when it is admitted that the people rule. The people are represented, not the towns. I have no fear then, Sir, that the small towns or the interests of the small towns will be in the least threatened, will be in the least dam- aged, by district representation. It is the fair system of representation. Our present system is unfair, and many of the propositions we have before us make it still more unfair. The only fair system of representation is to represent the peo- ple, and all the people. There has been no legislation for the past ten years when all the people have been represented here. Some towns have been unrepresented, and I presume, if we continue the present system, they will continue to be unrepre- sented. I am in favor of the district system, and in the main, of Resolution No. 13 which we have here before us. I do not believe, Sir, we need to be afraid of injuring the rights of the small towns by adopting district representation. We began in the colony of New Hampshire with four towns, and they added one town after another to it, but since our adoption of the Constitution it has been the people of the state of New Hamp- shire, and, as I said before, the men who come here come, not to represent towns, but to represent the people, and to legis- late for the people of the entire state as such. Mr. Win<^h of Langdon. — Gentlemen of the Convention, you have all been highly elated and highly entertained, and I pro- pose to add a little to it, although it will be in another direc- tion from what you have already listened to. As you know, I have put in one little resolution here. No. 15, which calls for a representative from every town and every ward ia the state of New Hampshire. I represent, as you all know, one of the small towns, and we all understand that when we were elected to come here, — or I might say when the agitation for calling the Constitutional Convention was in progress, — ^it was always 122 Journal of Constitutional Convention. spoken of that the House should be reduced and the Senate should be increased. It was with that idea that this Conven- tion was called by the people of Xew Hampshire. Every town had a voice in it. Every town in the state of New Hampshire cast its ballots for or against this Convention, and for that very purpose,— nothing else practically. The question has come down to this: How much shall the House be reduced? Of course it is not for me to say, — it is for this Convention to say. You, as delegates, must formulate some scheme that will, if possible, be acceptable to the people of New Hampshire, and that they will ratify after our adjourn- ment. Just what that scheme shall be, or what it can be and be ratified is a very, very difficult problem. We all know that from the beginning towns have rights. Every individual has rights in a township. The people have rights. There is no question about it. The question is, how shall the people be served so that these rights may be continued, — so that they can have the rights which belong to them, which our fore- fathers in the Constitution of the state of New Hampshire in- tended that they should have? It has been said to you that Vermont has a town system of representation. It certainly has, each town having one repre- sentative and each city one, — no ward has a representative. I did not feel, when I drew this resolution, that it would be right to draw it and confine it as the Vermont law does, for I believe that every ward in every city has rights. They have a right to say what laws shall govern them, how those laws shall be made, and they should have a right to a voice in the making of those laws. And as the proposition was made that the House should be reduced to the number of 300 at least, if not more, I cast myself about to see how that could be best accom- plished, and I found by taking the proposition that every town and ward have a voice in what laws should govern them, that we would get a representation of 290 members in the House. As you see, I made provision that if any of the larger towns should become cities and be divided into wards, those wards should have a representative. Now the question comes, is that right? Is that a basis which is worthy of accepta- tion? Is it a basis that the people will ratify? You may go into any other of the resolutions which have been advanced here, take any other resolution, and one or two come nearly on the same basis, but most of them come in a different way. And, as I said, it is for you to decide which one of these plans can be best adapted to the state of New Hampshire and its inhabitants. Some say that it is not fair that a ward and town Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 123 should have but one representative. Gentlemen, what does our United States g-overnment do? How Is the Senate com- posed? How many members has our state, how many mem- bers has the state of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, — just the same as we, a small state. Delaware has two. New Hampshire has two, no state in the Union has over two, but the representation is on a different basis, — more by popula- tion, and this state is fortunate enough to have two districts. Other states are larg-er. Now I have turned this right around. If you will notice, I give each town one, each ward one, on the same basis as the United States government gives each state in the Union two senators. Let each town have its one representative. Then if we increase the Senate to whatever number is decided upon here, if decided upon to increase, let those come from the dis- trict system. In the past legislature, 25 of our towns in the state were disfranchised, — that is, had no voice whatever. The district system, to a certain extent, was tried a few years ago, some of the smaller towns being classed together, and had to travel from one town to another to do their voting, and they got sick of it, — they didn't like it. If we are districted, it will be just exactly the same as we are at the present time with our senatorial business. In our part of the state, which is the western, it is about an impossibility for a small town to have a senator. I suppose they do not have brains enough, that is the trouble, but the small towns, I believe, have got some just as good men in them as the larger towns, but not one can get a representative in the Senate of the state of New Hampshire. It has been tried, — good and true men have tried to get the position, but no, they couldn't have it. The same system would come if the state was districted for representation. The larger towns would have the representa- tion if they had to take one from the opposite party to do it. That is the way it would go in many cases. There are ex- ceptions to all rules, and for that reason I believe that the peo- ple of every town, the people of New Hampshire, would be as well represented in the House if you reduce the House to a membership of 300 or thereabouts by having every town and ward have one. I further believe that the membership of the House would be of a higher standing. I was told by an officei* of this county since coming here, that he knew it to be a fact that in the ward in which he lives they are short of timber for representatives who are qualified to sit as rep- resentatives, and that sometimes a man of the opposite party gets the seat in preference to a man of his own, because he is 124 Journal of Constitutional Convention. a better qualified man. That is all right, I believe in" qualifi- cations, but it would work just the same if we were districted. If there was a man nominated for representative in a large town who was in the opposite party from what the district was, that larger town would get the representation and the smaller towns would go without. That is about the size of it, if you come into a district. That is the way it worked when we were classed, and I think the same thing would occur today that did at that ime. Now it seems to me, if you are getting ready to reduce the House to any such figure as 300, that this is one of the w^ays by which it can be done. There are other ways that are good, and jou never can get the good unless you have the whole to make an assortment from and pick out the best, and I think that is the only way you can get at it. If there was not a resolution put in here to have one, as I have done, it would not come before you at all. It may be the best way, — but you may think differently, — but there is one thing about it you all want, the larger places want, and I am sure we farmers feel that we have a pretty heavy burden of taxation to pay, and we feel that we should have representation in proportion to our taxation, and that we have a right, a legal right, one which has been handed down from time to time, to have our say in what laws shall govern us, and in all our affairs as municipalities. We are, as has been said, corporate places by ourselves. We have our little courts, as you may call it, our town meetings, and all that, but we have our rights, and it is for our rights that I plead and' for those I ask, and for no more. Mr. Carter of Lebanon. — I have listened with a great deal of attention to the gentleman who has just spoken, saying that we should report his amendment favorably to the people, and that it should become a law. I should like to ask him, what justice there would be in this case: The town which I repre- sent has 5700 inhabitants, according to the last census. The city of Franklin has 6100. The city of Franklin would have three representatives and- the town of Lebanon would have one. And here is another case, the city of Franklin has 6100, as I have already said, and under this amendment would have three representatives, while the town of Claremont, which has 7500 inhabitants, would have one representative. Mr. Winch of Langdon. — In reply to the gentleman, I will say: Lebanon will have the same rights that the State of New Hampshire has in our election of senators to Congress. That is not based on population. A certain district, as you may say a township, — a state, — has two, and so does Massachusetts, and Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 125 no more, no matter what the population is, no matter what the valuation is, each state has two senators. And I have turned it right around and let the state district for senators — and get your representation from the town system and your ward system — I can see the inequality. It is a hard matter to do and not have something unequal. It is diflftcult for me to plan the thing- in such a way it will come out absolutely equal. Mr. intone of Anctover. — In the Convention of 1902, and in prior Conventions, the question of town representation, and the dis- trict system, were thoroughly- discussed and threshed out, many apparent!}- seeing the injustice in the town system as not giving an equality of representation, biit behind the town system is a sentiment — the old New England town meeting — and if we do anything we should do something that can stand. The Convention of 1902, I think, was primarily called by the people for the purpose of reducing the House of Representa- tives. Many arguments were made as to the expense that would be necessary to enlarge the State house. That condi- tion has passed. There is not the necessity, at least it is not felt by the people at the present time, to reduce the House of Representatives. And no radical measure, in my judgment, will be adopted by the people. In fact, we might as well state it as it really is. We were not called here for that purpose; only a small proportion of the people of the state wanted a Convention. It was only through a mix-up on the "yes" and "no" on the license question that we came here. A great many people in New Hampshire did not see that any great change was necessary. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Langdon, Mr. Winch, is too radical. The larger towns will not stand it, the cities will not stand it. It is not necessary to talk about small towns. I believe the people of New Hampshire want to preserve our town system. Shall we reduce the representa- tion? The resolution introduced by the gentleman from Man- chester, seems very nearly to meet the demand. That reduces it nearly a hundred. Suppose we reduce it but fifty? I say, judging from the vote, and the Constitutional Convention in 1902, that no radical measure can ever pass the people of New Hampshire, but a measure preserving the town system. And if the small towns, and large towns, and the cities, each, should concede something, — giving them proper representation, as it seems to me some of these bills do, then the amendment will be adopted by the people of New Hampshire. Mr. Dean of Danhury. — The question of a reduction of the 126 Journal of Constitutional Convention. House of Representatives, and the maintenance of the town, or the adoption of the district, system has changed some in the past year. When large interests were dominant in this state, and' in other states, the basis of representation on an equal, or comparatively equal, division of population, — when the inter- ests were largely political, — had more weight than today. Today the business is of an industrial nature and is centered around certain localities; the town is built up, and the people vote, and taxes are based on our business centers. In that way our representation, which possibly might have been con- sidered unfair for the large towns, today is not unfair. I take for Illustration the adjoining towns of Bristol and Hill. Each one has a delegate in this Convention. Now, if we should divide the towns of the state into districts, do you be- lieve that Bristol, with its 1300 or 1400, if part of its district was joined with Hill, would consent? Either one of two things would happen, either Bristol or Hill would lose its representa- tive. If there is to be any reduction, as has been said by the previous speaker, we cannot make it radical. Either we must maintain the town system or adopt the district system. If we maintain the town system, the reduction must come from the cities. You are aware that brings you closer together, and after you get together your interests harmonize, and a few men can represent you people in the cities as well as many. If it is desired in any locality, or class of people in towns or cities, to maintain the balance, or maintain the preponderance, you are aware of the fact in the distribution of the Senators the cities must maintain the balances by their people or by the present method of the property basis. The loss from our rural population has been a loss to the state of New Hamp- shire, and the problem that confronts the people of New Hiampshire is one that many think can be solved. We believe the agricultural towns which still have the land for cultiva- tion will be repopulated. Many towns have advantages for agriculture and we believe that the time is coming when in- dustrious population is going to those towns tagain. We all recognize the value of that class of population. While we from the towns appreciate the little bouquets thrown at us, we keep in mind this one thing; That our cities in their pros- perity have been built up of men of ingenuity, intelligence and ability. With that fact before us, Gentlemen, we hope the cities with their ability to get together, their "ability to main- tain their interests by their ballots, will be willing to concede something, if we must reduce this representation, to still main- tain, if possible, the representation, as far as consistent, in Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 127 the rural towns. We hope the time is coming when the popu- lation will increase in these towns, so we can send down repre- sentation to work with you, — to work in harmony for the State of New Hampshire. Mj\ Bean of Belmont. — The remarks by the g-entleman from Andover, Mr. Stone, strike a responsive line of thought in my mind. I believe that the people of the state are in favor of a reduction in the size of the House of Representatives. To my mind that was the motive that prompted them when they voted in favor of calling this Constitutional Convention. I do not know about what mixup there may have been in some of the cities in voting upon this question, connecting it with the license question, but it is evident that the people voted to have this Constitutional Convention. And I believe the prime mo- tive of those who voted in favor was the reduction in the House of Representatives. So far as I have been able to test public sentiment in different sections, — whenever I have been brought in contact with any group of people upon any occa- sion, — I have found that the majority of those present thought that there should be a reduction in the size of the House of Representatives. But when it comes to the question of how that shall be done, that presents the difficulty. The towns want to retain their representation. They dislike to give that up. The cities do not want to lose their share in the legisla- tive influence of the state. Now, the question comes: If there is to be a reduction, how are we going to do it; how shall we bring it about? I know of no way, only a fair reduction — a fair projiortion between the cities and the towns. Now one bill that has been presented here by the gentleman from Surry — I don't remember his name — provides a basis of 800 inhabi- tants for the first representative and it uses 2,000 as the in- creasing mean — that reduces the House about 100 members, or a little more, perhaps. And, as I have hastily figured out how the reduction is borne by the cities and the towns, I find that about 42 or 43 per cent falls upon the cities, and 57 or 58 per cent upon the towns, judging, or using the size of the past House of Representatives. Now, in that case, the reduction falls very nearly equally upon the two sections. The per cent, in the past House, of the cities, I think, was about 37 or 38, and the towns 62 or 63 per cent, so that the reduction under the system presented by the gentleman from Surry does not work a great disadvantage. It is true that the cities might suffer a trifle more in the reduction than the towns, but it is almost impossible to provide any method by which the reduc- tion will fall just equally between the two sections. We hear a 128 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. great deal said about the district system. Now I am willing to concede personally, in considering representation, if we con- sider population, numbers alone, without anything else, then the district system is fair and all right. But somehow or other, at least I think that, a town containing one thousand inhabitants, we will say, with forty or fifty or sixty square miles of territory and embracing within its limits its varied interests, schools, highways, forestry conservation, transporta- tion, summer boarding business, and other interests, — it seems as though those one thousand people have more interest, more at stake in the legislation of New Hampshire, than one thousand people would have perhaps occiipying forty square rods of territory in some of our larger cities. And I say this, with all due respect to the people living in the city, but they live, as has been remarked here this afternoon, they live closer together, their interests are so woven and interwoven that it is not a difficult proposition for one man to represent them, but in the country town it is different, the interests of the two sections are not the same, and I believe that we should consider this, when trying to determine the basis of representation. Mr. Busiel of Laconia. — It is sometimes .good in the discussion of any question to try to see ourselves as others see us, and I make that remark in connection with what I see here in the Monitor of today, taken from the Lowell Courier-Citizen: "New Hampshire now has a chance, with a Constitutional Convention in session, to prepare for a better-balanced legis- lature to replace the present absurdity. As now constituted the Senate has 24 members and the House 400. Already a plan is before the Convention to increase the Senate to 50 and re- duce the House to about 260. This is nearly in line with the membership in this state. But New Hampshire, while she is about it, should cut the figure in both instances. Both houses might be made smaller than is proposed. There is no reason why every town in the state should have a representative; the district system as we have it here is better. That is based on population, which is the only fair way. That is even recog- nized in the New Hampshire proposal — " And I do not know to which proposal this refers — "which gives Claremont three representatives, while the rule is one, and Manchester live while all the other cities have three apiece. The Massachu- setts plan, with a similar ratio, would give New Hampshire an ideal legislature so far as size is concerned." I had the pleasure. Gentlemen, ten years ago of listening to the discussion of this whole question at the Convention which Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 129 was held at that time, and of which I was a member. I came here thoroughly imbued with the idea that the only fair, just and proper representation for any state is a representation based' upon population. I came here with the knowledge that the state of Xew^ Hampshire recognized it already in its Sen- ate. It is true in the case of senators, we take into account the question of property in the district, and that I would abolish, and there is a resolution before us to abolish it, but as near as ma^' be the districts are divided very closely for representation in our Senate as to population. I believe that is the only fair, true and just way, too. I was born in a town, which at the time of my birth was practically a farming town. It was the town of Gilford. And to show you that town lines have no sanctity, and that town lines have been made in the state of New Hampshire simply for the purpose of con- venience, and sometimes to suit the whim of some men, I call attention to the fact that the town of Gilford has been divided three times in my lifetime. The city of Laconia, when it was made Laconia, was taken from the town of Meredith. The town division there was made chiefly for convenience of voting, as. the larger number of voters were in the end of the town which is now Laconia, and had to travel nine miles in order to vote, and Gilford has been divided as suited men's con- venience. There is no such thing as sanctity in town lines. There is no such thing as depriving a man of his rights, or his privileges, by adopting in the state of Xew Hampshire a dis- trict system. The argument that has been made that it will deprive men in small towns of the privilege of coming to this legislature will not be borne out upon investigation. The men of ability in the small towns in a district, are just as sure to rise to the surface and be nominated to come to the Legis- lature, when the time comes, as a cork is to bob up out of the water. You cannot repress ability, you cannot repress fitness, you cannot help the men in the small towns which make np a district from asserting themselves, and coming to 3^our legislature, and having all the privileges they now have from the towns, but I trust not so man}^ of them. It is perfectly plain to any man who comes here and hears the arguments that are advanced by advocates of the town system like this, for example, that you get a better repre- sentation from the town than you do from the city, and that the character of the population in the towns is better than the character of the population in the cities (and therefore they should have more representatives), that such argument can proceed from onh' one direction that is, having the power. 130 Journal of Constitutional Convention. the small towns in the state of New Hampshire mean to hang on to it. If I were a politician instead of a business- man, and 1 wanted delegates from the small towns of New Hampshire to nominate me for some office, I should not come here and make any such argument as I am trying to make here, Gentle- men. But 1 come here as a business man, who has been in the habit of conducting his business with the least number of people that he can employ to conduct the business properly, and still do business to an advantage. And when I hear the arguments made that, in a state of 430,000 people, it is neces- sary to maintain a House of 400 and a Senate of 24, and then add to it up to the number of 50 in the Senate, as some have proposed, 1 say. Gentlemen, there is no reason in it, except there is, may be, some sentimental reason, and I expect before the arguments are over the sentimental reason will be ad- vanced, as it was when I was in the last Convention by an able man of that Convention, who is now dead, Hon. Henry O. Kent, and whose remarks were chiefly made up of sentimental rea- sons whj' the House should not be reduced. It is worthy of consideration by this Convention, that all our great states to the west of us, beyond New York, have been very largely set- tled, and their governments very largely established, by the men from New England — very largely from New Hampshire. Many of the greatest and brightest men that have come to our Congress from the western states, have come from the New England men, who went there and settled. It is a re- markable thing, and to my mind worthy of thought, that in those great states, where the population has gone on increas- ing until some of them count their population by the millions, the people haven't insisted upon town representation. Imagine what the state of Illinois would have today had it town and ward representaion, as has been proposed here. Imagine the size of its legislature. Those states out there have all found that they can get along and do their business with a much less number of people in their legislature than we have here. Now, Gentlemen, if you will stop and think of another aspect of this matter, and suppose you should adopt the district sys- tem in New Hampshire, and, in j'our first trial of it, you should say you would fix the number of people to serve as a district so that you would have 300 members in the House, then it is perfectly evident that in a town of about 1400 people you would have one representative. If you will go and look through the population of your towns, you will see you are not going to sacrifice such a great number of towns, even if you should adopt the district system in New Hampshire, which Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 131 would give the state a House of 300 members. If you should do anything- of that kind, you would at once have established a fixe^A number in your House, something greatly to be desired. You would not have this ever-reeurring problem as to what the size of your House is going to be. I don't think it is worthy of discussion here for a minute as to the question of the ability of the men from towns or the ability of men from the cities. I don't think that question enters into it. A man from the town moves into the city; if he has the ability he is going to be recognized immediately — and he always is. Now, I want to bring out another thing in my talk, and that is this, So far as representation and the smaller number 600 for a member is concerned, I should be bound in represent- ing my ward in my city, if I were representing it as a ward, to take into consideration the fact that I am in the smallest ward in Laconia. It has but one representative under any scheme that is proposed, and so far as my ward is concerned it would not be affected one way or the other. I do not take that into account. I think the city of Laconia under one bill may have six, and under another may have another number. I know the city of Laconia could get along if it had but six repre- sentatives. I think it would get along and do business if it only bad one. They have this system in Vermont and they have it in Connecticut, and they know it as the "rotten borough" system. But there is no such thing as equality about it and they cannot remedy it because the small towns have the majority the same as you from small towns have the majority here, and, having the majority, and, having a good thing, you are not going to give it up. That is the trouble- some matter with the whole problem. Now it is an unfor- tunate fact, Gentlemen, that in the state of New Hampshire, we are going to undergo a change towards the "rotten borough" system unless you adopt a district system. It is an unfortunate fact, — I regret it — that whatever gain the state of New Hampshire made in the last census was due to its gain in the cities and large towns, and it is an unfortunate fact that whatever loss it had was due to the loss in the small towns. In the year 1900, the city population was 41.7 per cent; the town population was 58.3 per cent of the whole population. In the year 1910, the city population had increased to 45.4 per cent, and the town population had decreased to 54.6 per cent. It has been stated here by one of the men, who made an argument in relation to this gain — I think the gentleman from Belmont, Mr. Bean, — in examining the ratio of representation between the city and the town, that the city had 38 per cent 132 Journal of Constitutional Convention. of representation, and the town 62 per cent of representation in 1900. In 1900 you will see the towns had 58 per cent, population, and the cities 41 per cent, and that the representation was relatively greater in the town than it was in the citj^ and you will see, too, that in comparison with 1910, the disparity will be still greater and worse for the cities. While the city repre- sentation is 38 and the town representation is 62, the town population is decreasing and the city population is increasing. The state of New Hampshire according to the last census in the cities gained 24,000 people. I haven't included in this the larger towns — there was a gain in the large towns. In the cities alone in New Hampshire the population increased 24,000. In the towns there was a loss of 5,000. It is perfectly plain that the logical result of this is going to be some time that there will be a greater disparity between the cities and the towns than there is now, because it is a fact that your cities and large towns are increasing, and it is -a fact that your small towns are decreasing in population. I have no prejudice against the small towns at all. I w^as born in a country town myself — what we called a country town. And I have sympathy with any movement on the part of the men living in the small towns to hold on to what they have got, if they won't be too unfair about it. If they think it is all right; if they think it is wise not to have a district system in New Hampshire, but to adhere to this old method, I have sympathy with them. But I don't think it is right. I don't think it is just. I don't think you can ever make inequality right. It is almost amusing to read the amendments introduced, and for the purpose of mak- ing this representation as nearly equal as possible, they go on so and so, and then one man says he wall have it 600 for one representative and 1,000 for the next, and one man says, "I will have it 800 for one," and so on. The thing is a joke. "In order to make things equal as we can," another says, "we -will nave 600 for one, and 3,000 for the next." Six hundred men shall choose one and 3,000 men shall choose the next. It takes five to one to choose the second. There is no such thing as equality about it, and, as I said before, it is almost a joke to see the language of the amendments that have been put in here relating to this matter of changing the representation. Now you cannot avoid that inequality, and it will grow worse. The only true remedy is a district system. Your cities and large towns will keep on growing; your smaller towns will not grow, but go on losing population. I know they are desirable for summer population. I yield to nobody in appreciation of what Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 133 the state of New Hampshire has to offer to the public in the way of our beautiful lakes and mountains. I live near the shores of the beautiful Lake Winnepesaukee, and have enjoyed some of the happiest hours of my life sailing on it, but we are here to look at things as they are. We are not here to look at this matter from a sentimental standpoint. We ar^i here to try to do things in a business way. We are here to do what the state of New Hampshire expects us to do, and the question is not in my mind at all as to which man's plan shall prevail here, and whether it shall be 600 for one and 2,000 for the next and 3,000 for the next, or anything of that kind. I repudiate utterly all such attempts to whittle this subject into shape. I say we are here to discuss the question simply on this ground: Are we prepared as members of this Convention to offer to the people of New Hampshire a district system, the only fair, square, honest way of representing the people of New Hampshire, or shall we recommend to them something which will maintain the present inequality, or make matters worse. To that I am opposed. I have no Interest in it except as a man desiring to see things done in a fair way in the state of New Hampshire. I know you cannot accomplish it under the present system. I am not particular what the number shall be, if you propose a district system. It may be 300, as has been suggested here, which would give a town of 1400 people one representative. I don't think it is necessary to have that at all. When the great state of New York with 8,000,000 people can do all its business, and do it satisfac- torily, in an assembly of 150 men, I say that the state of New Hampshire does not need any four or five hundred ])eo- ple to do its law making. I say it is a waste of good material; it is taking men from their business where they can be more profitably employed — wdth too many in the legislature, many are wasting their time in trying to legislate for the p'^'sople. I did not come here with the expectation that we should probably ett'ect such a revolution as a district system. Ten years ago I came here feeling just as I do today, that it is the only straight, square way to divide up representation in the state, and I ^vish it could be adopted. I know the men in the small towns are nourishing fears which would never mate- rialize. I know the men of ability in the small towns would get the nomination just the same as they do now, if they were living in a district made up of these towns. You cannot re- press a man who has got genius and power and ability; the people will see it, and the man in a district — no matter how small his town is — will come to the surface, and will get the IM Journal of Constitutional Convention. nomination. I do not regard that argument worthy of a thought. I have seen the small towns dictate the nomination in the counties. I think the men of the small towns are just as sharp and able to make political schemes as the men in cities, and they will hold up their end every time, and the man from the small town will get his chance of coming here just the same as he comes now. I do not think that argument is worthy of attention. I thank you, gentlemen, for your atten- tion. Mr. Towle of North/ioood. — I think this district system is just as fair as it would be to put a small fish in with a big one; it will work just the same; the large fish will eat the small one. We have the district system in senatorial representation. Last year the senator belonged in our town. We are a small town. Somersworth said: "It belongs to your town. There is no doubt about it." We had two men who wanted the office; the question was, which one should have it. Instead of letting US decide the question, Somersworth said, "You have got trou- ble in your town, and we have men to put in as candidates, a Eepublican and a Democrat." They elected the Democrat. Are you, who are Republicans, going to vote for a Democrat, for the sake of having a representative, and are you Democrats going to vote for a Republican with the same object? I was talking with a man from Massachusetts with regard to the Massachusetts laws. He is living there. I said: "How do you like the district .system down there?" He said, "It works very well." I said "Do you have any trouble with the smaller tov^ms getting any show?" "Well, sometimes," he said, "we do." I said, "What do you do?" "Well," he said, "We club together a few towns and elect a man on the other side to show them we are going to have our way, and then they come to time." Are you Republicans going to vote for a Democrat for the sake of getting your way? Are you Demo- crats going to vote for a Republican to get your way In your town? I say there is no reason in it. I say every country town, which has the ability, — which most have, — should be represented in the House. I for one would rather see it re- main as it is than to cut down. I do not see any reason why Manchester should send 60 representatives and I don't see any reason for the large towns to send two representatives when one would do. Cut the representation in the House to some- thing like 300; it seems as though that would be much better for the state. I don't like to make myself conspicuous on this line. I think it is the duty of every man from the coun- try towns, and every man from the cities to see it is fairly Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 135 represented in this matter. It is said one man can reprcsont a thousand better in the city than one man can represent three hundred in the town. There is no question about that; every- body knows it, and I hope we won't cut down the representa- tion so as to injure the cities or the country towns. Mr. Davis of New Ipswich. — ^Gentlemen, with all due respect to the honorable gentleman who enlightened us with news from Massachusetts, I feel in duty bound to say that in ray opinion, the press and the honorable gentlemen of New Hamp- shire are perfectly capable of advising the delegates how to act in this matter, without calling on the press of Massachu- setts, or any other state. Gentlemen, in justice to yourselves, to this cause, and to my- self, I feel I ought to say that though I am comparatively speaking a stranger to the majority of you, believ^ me, 1 am not a stranger to hundreds of thousand •» of men throughout this United States, for the very good reason that, for twenty- five years of my life, it was so ordered that I was obliged to come in daily contact with hundreds of different men and women. Of necessity. Gentlemen, I was obliged to study their characters, their tendencies, their desires and their needs. Gentlemen, I believe that I know men, and I believe that, because of that, I am competent in a way to counsel yen in this matter, and so. Gentlemen (I am going to be brief for there are others who want to speak), I will say that my ex- perience in the small towns, and in the cities, prompts me to declare that if the small town wants justice, cciuity, protec- tion and defence, she will see to it that she is individually represented in these legislative halls. Mr. Barney of Canaan. — I want to throw an idea into tliis debate which I believe has not yet been touched upon. You have talked about small towns and about cities, and about the representation. I will keep you but a minute, but I want to say just here the small towns are made up of farmers, the men who have got farms of fifty or one hundred acres, and some- times 150. Cities are made up largely of men who simply pay a poll tax, and those men are a great many of them foreigners, Poles and Greeks, and that class of people, who don't know what they are voting for, or who they are voting for very many times. Now, Gentlemen, I want to ask you, which class of people are most deserving of representation: The men in the towns who pay taxes on their larms and on their cattle, who have an inter- est in the welfare of their farms, who do everything to bring up their town to a higher standard, or the men in the cities who work in the mills, who think only of pay-day, and if they 136 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. are assessed a poll tax will often sneak out without paying It? I think a few men in a countrj^ town, say a hundred men in a country town, are more worthy of representation in this legislature than a thousand people in the city who simply pay poll taxes. I want to impress this little fact on you just now. Mr. Herbert of Rumiiey. — It seems to me the general idea of almost everybody here is that the House is too large, and that the small towns ought to be represented, which I agree to, as long as I am from one. It doesn't seem to me that it is neces- sary for the citj' of Manchester to have forty men to repre- sent it when the gentleman from Laconia says that thej^ would prosper fairly well if they didn't have but one. If they could get along with one, Manchester could with half of what they have, and so with all these other large cities. I want to say only just a word. It seems to be the idea of all that the House is too large. Now we have got resolutions of all kinds and sizes here, and it seems to me we might be smart enough to pick out one among them, and follow it, and cut down the House. We have tried it for a number of sessions, and never have made any headway; but it seems to be now more consistent with the whole feeling of the country than it has ever been before, and I hope that we may come to some conclusion whereby we can accept some amendment. I like the plan of the gentleman from Concord, but I am not particular. I would rather see the towns classed, if we can- not do any better, than not to have the representation cut down. I think that is what we are here for, and I hope that we can come to some satisfactory conclusion. Mr. Young of Manclwster. — Before this discussion goes any further, I should like to be enlightened on one point. I should like to have some member who favors the reduction inform me why the House is too large. Nearly everj^ speaker has said it is too large but none have told us how they came to that conclusion. Let us have something specific to argue upon other than the bare statement that the House is too large. Mr. Wason of Nashua. — The question asked by the gentleman from Manchester is easily answered. It costs us from $90,000 to $100,000 for our legislature. If we reduce the membership by 110, we shall be saving $22,000 to the taxpayers of New Hampshire, and get the same results. This is one reason. Mr. Shute of Wentioorth. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention, the first thing I want to call your attention to is the statement of the gentleman from Haverhill, that the state is not a confederation of towns. Now it is supposed that a Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 137 man of his learning and his physical dimensions would stand up here and tell the truth, but he didn't. The fact is the towns existed before the state. We were colonies and then we were a confederation of towns, and made a state of, the same as the United States were colonies, then a confederation of states, then followed the United States. When Congress makes laws for the United States it means each and every state. When it is legislation for the state of New Hampshire, it means every town in the state. That is what it means. When a man saj^s this is not a confederation of towns, it is contrary to the facts. Everybody who has read history, knows we were little commonwealths before there was ever any state, then to form the state we took in the confederation of the towns. So much for my view of what constitutes a state. Now I want to look at this question as a farmer from a pro-rated town. When you say that the pro-rated town has equal representation and equal taxation, 40,000 people by this proposition of 800 are going to be disfranchised. Yet there is a proposition here to enfranchise women; 40,000 men are go- ing to be disfranchised and we are going to enfranchise women. Good God! charity begins at home. We want the towns represented. Mr. Busiel says there is no such thing as town sentiment. Who composed "Home Sweet Home?" Who cheers the "Star Spangled Banner?" What carries New Hamp- shire into battle except the sentiment to maintain the honor of the state? Is that not sentiment? Who wrote the "Old Oaken Bucket?" Wasn't it sentiment? Certainly it was. We want to cultivate that sentiment. We want to cultivate it so the very edges of the commonwealth of New Hampshire will be just as much interested in the glory of the state as the cities. That is what we want, and although we are not al- lowed to come here and make the laws, you can appropriate a million dollars for roads to help the farmers, — as they say, — but in fact it is for the automobile interests, so they can run through the state dealing death, destruction and devastating doom as they go, which they did right here in this town last night, — murdered a man right on School street. Yet, it is said, they pay many thousand dollars for licenses and taxes. True, — it seems to me I have read of a betrayal for thirty pieces of silver. Have you not? Why go into the district system? Now I have lived in Massachusetts, and I do not hold up Massachusetts as an ex- ample. I think New Hampshire has a right to do as she pleases. If- 1 choose to have ham and eggs for my breakfast, it is nobody's business. It is nobody's business if we want 138 Journal of Constitutional Convention. 400 representatives in our House. I know the district system does not work well in Massachusetts. I have lived there. You take a large town in a district and it dictates who shall repre- sent that district. The small town has no rights in the dis- trict, — I can remember forty-o<3d years ago when there couldn't be a senator go from our part of the state unless he went from Littleton. Even I helped my friend Judge Mitchell to his first o£Bice, and I am proud of it, but there are lots I am not proud of. I believe in representation of every town, but I con- demn this district system from the word go. Yes, sir. There is no fair deal in it. The big ones, or the big towns, or the big men of the district, are going to determine, dictate who shall represent them, and it is no show for the small town. No, Sir, not much. Not a mite. Sir, and you want to cause New Hampshire to be proud of her record, and to be independent of all states. By the way, I want to mention one thing. New Hampshire has a record that no other state has, she ruled this Union in Jackson's administration. You read of the fact that Daniel Webster was there and Isaac Hill was there, and Levi Woodbury, and New Hampshire was the Nation, and yet peo- ple stand up here and talk about what Massachusetts does. At one time Michigan set herself up as being superior to the New England states. I remember I was out there, and I said to a man, "Why are you superior to us?" He said, "Won't you acknowledge we are more enterprising in coming out here?" I said, "Certainly you are." I said, "Some of you came because you were interested to escape the gallows, and some to escape your debts, and some to make good homes, but," I said "What is Michigan, what is her history? Your first gov- ernor was a New Hampshire man. And Zachariah Chandler, the state's idol, is a New Hampshire man." I want to tell you that New Hampshire is felt throughout the Union. Mr. Burnham of Dunharfon. — I trust the members of the Con- vention will pardon me if I make a repetition of what has been said, as my hearing is very poor and I may not have heard remarks that have been made, but, as far as I have been able to hear, the gentlemen have ignored the fact that men in the country towns are almost universally citizens, permanent citizens, who will act and' vote for just those things which they think will be for the benefit not only of their own town but of the whole state, while the population of our cities is to a large degree made up of a floating population, who have no interest in the welfare of the state, further than what little they individually can make, casting their vote one way or an- other for the merest trifle. Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 139 Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I had not contemplated making- any remarks here today upon this question. But, Sir, Mr. Chairman and Gentle- men of the Committee, I assure you that I am interested, and when the g-entleman from Manchester, Mr. Young-, asked the question, Why is it that we are calling for the reduction of the House of Eepresentatives of New Hampshire, I listened for the reply. The gentleman from Nashua, Mr. Wason, for whom we all have the greatest respect, replied that it was a money con- sideration. Mr. Chairman, I was a few days ago confronted with that very same argument in regard to expediting the business of this session. The payroll will run out in two or three weeks. I yield. Sir, to no man in my devotion to econ- omy in the state of New Hampshire, yet, Sir, I believe that we have other things to look to than the dollars and cents in our pockets. And, coming to that very question, it has been suggested to me that if we reduce the House we can increase the salaries of those who go there so that they may be re- spectably compensated. It has been my privilege to sit in the House of Representatives and receive a less sum than the pages. They earned their money. I hope I did. It is not a money consideration. Gentlemen, something more noble and higher than that, I feel. I was at one time upon the same side of the question that some of the gentlemen are who have preceded me. Right here I want to apologize for not having heard many gentlemen speak this afternoon on this question. I asked the gentleman from Haverhill, Mr. Whitcher, if he was not going to speak and he informed me that he had spoken. Unfortunately I come from away up in the backwoods and was unable to find a lawyer or someone else to draw resolutions which I think ought to come in here and which had not been introduced and I went to two law offices and from the two succeeded in get- ting whaf little I have, sometime after three o'clock, so I was not permitted to listen to some of the remarks. Equality and justice for all is the thing, however. Divide the state up into districts making 1,000 or 2,000 in population the basis for all representatives, then you have an equal representation, but until we come to that kind of a division, I am for leaving the membership of the House right where it is; for this reason, Mr, Chairman, if no other, it is educa- tional. I have received education at your hands. I come here and' listen to the many able debates and I gain knowledge, and knowledge is what we want, all of us, and if we can edu- cate a little here and in the legislature, I think it is dollars well spent. 140 Journal of Constitutional Convention. And ag-ain, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I used to say we wanted more intelligent, more able men in the House. Are there any men in your city, Mr. Chairman, or in your town, Mr. Delegate, who do not come here if their constituencj' wants them? Are there any of them who are so great, and if there are, will the cutting down of the House stimulate and bring them here any quicker than now? I believe not. A'.id again, Mr. Chairman, I have found that when you go before a party of men as large as the House of Repres-jntatives of New Hampshire, many of them from the plain, common walks of life seeking knowledge, and yoa can get the matter, the subject matter, the actual facts, before them intelligently ihey vote honestly and right. Let me call your attention, — and excuse me if I am per- sonal, to the other end (if we were in the legislature, I would say the other end of this House), the Senate of 1911. There we find a feeling of greater and abler men. We found men there, even though the honest facts were placed before them, even though they had solicited your vote, Mr. Chairman, and my vote, for certain things, who voted absolutely against them. Those were the big- men that you talk about, that you want to bring the legislature of New Hampshire up to, "The high standard of Massachusetts and New York." No sir, Mr. Chairman, no reduction. I am in favor of leav- ing the representation of the House just where it is, unless we can divide it upon a basis of equality, of right and justice to all, individual for individual, count noses. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I thank you for listening to me. Mr. Smith of Peterhorough. — I have but a word to say at this stage of the proceedings. I think it is very unfortunate for the interests of New Hampshire, to array the towns and cities against each other. I think it is very unfortunate for this reso- lution, to have it pass in any shape that will make the same arrayal between the towns and cities. If the purpose of this ar- rayal is to let the representation remain where it is today, you will accomplish your purpose. If it is to make a change you must meet the issue fairly and squarely and upon equitable terms. The cities must yield, the towns must yield, they must come together harmoniously, work in unison, and work for the in- terests of the towns, the cities and the state. I, for one, am opposed to a change which would make a district system. I do not believe in that system. I do believe personally in let- ting the representation remain where it is, 600, and increasing the ratio to a larger number, so as to take from the larger Tl^esdav, June 11, 1912. 141 towns and the larger wards in the cities some of their mem- bers. Manchester can just as safely and just as well and iust as truly be represented by 40 men on this floor as they can by 61. Peterborough can just as well be represented by one as it can by two, and I believe the larger towns and the larger wards should deduct from their number, a certain number to reduce the House to a smaller limit, — not to a large extent, but to a small extent. Now there is one reason why I believe this reduction should come from the larger towns and from the larger wards, — the manufacturing wards and the manufacturing towns. It is this: The proportion of population in the larger towns ind in the manufacturing cities is larger proportionately to the number of voters than in a small town. If based upon the number of voters in each town, you will find a greater dif- ference in the number from the cities and larger towns bhan what it is today. They are represented largely by those wh^ work in the mills, and one out of five may be a voter in thoso towns, and four out of five are either women or children, or not voters, who would count in the representation by popula- tion and would not count if you took the voting population into the question. I believe, if we meet this question fairly, squarely and honestly, we may agree to something that the people will ratify. If we create a division, as we are doing to- day, arraying the cities against the towns, the voters will say "no" so emphatically that no Convention need be called for twenty years with anj^ hope of trying to revise this list. Mr. Barton of Neuyport. — Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Committee, I intend to occupy jour time but for a moment this afternoon. Those of you who are acquainted vsdth me know what my position is with respect to the sub- ject under consideration. I am for maintaining the representa- tion in the towns. In our last Convention, I took that posi- tion, and thus far personally I favor, more than any other measure, the resolution offered by Mr. Pattee from Manches- ter, which is Resolution No. 22. I favor that measure because it does not raise the population now sufficient for the first representative. Right there, it seems to me, is an important matter for us to consider. It does not make any difference, or it makes less difference with me, if I have a case in court, whether or not I have one or five lawyers, than it does if I do not have any at all, and the case of a town in the pro-rated class, which has to O'bey law enacted where it is not repre- sented, is like unto a man w^ho has to take the judgment of a court without being represented at all. It isn't fair. 142 Journal of Constitutional Convention. If we submit to the people a resolution preserving the popu- lation basis of 600 for the first representative, we shall not receive the opposition from small towns, but only from large towns and cities. If we raise to 800 inhabitants, as one of these measures proposes, we shall get opposition in the small towns and the large towns and cities as well. Ten years ago we nearly got through a proposition keeping the basis of representation at 600 inhabitants. Then there was a sort of flurry in the Convention, an attempt to compromise, and they had a long session in Committee and it came back 800. A lot of the towns were against us, and all the cities were against us, and of course it didn't go through. Now let us not make the mistake of trying to raise that 600 up to any other figure. If we cannot do any better, let us keep that 600 right there. So far as the size of the House is concerned, I believe in cutting it down. It is unwieldy. We get a large number of good men, a large number of average men, but, as long as we have a House as large as this, I am in favor of having a Senate as small as the present one. The present Senate was a God-send to the state here two years ago. I heard a gentlemen in the Convention make some disparaging remarks in regard to the Senate. The Senate that served us two years ago saved this state thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, and, as long as we have a House that will listen to an orator's voice, and will appropriate thousands of dollars without even the call of the roll, it is necessary to have some branch of our legislature that will demand a reason why. Mr. Biisiel of Laconia. — I wish to ask the gentleman from Newport a question. He stated in his remarks that he did not think it was right that an^-one in the State of New Hamp- shire should go unrepresented. I should like to ask him if the district system would not secure perfectly the representation of everyone in New Hampshire. Mr. Barton of Newport. — Mr. Busiel, I would say that I think it does. I think it is theoretically perfectly sound and all right, but I do not think the people of New Hampshire want it. Mr. Busiel of Laconia. — I think it is pure presumption on the part of any delegate in this Convention to say what the peo- ple of New Hampshire want. The people of New Hampshire never have had an opportunity to express themselves on the question of district representation, and, from my knowledge of what they are thinking when I meet them all over this state, I have faith to believe that the people of New Hampshire, if they had a chance to express themselves, would vote for the district system. Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 143 Mr. Leighton of 1^'ewfields. — Is there not one phase of this question that has passed unnoticed? There are amendments proposed here to divide our towns and cities into precincts, or to establish precincts, in order that those voters in some of our towns need not travel so far. Now, if we establish the dis- trict system, isn't the very thing to be established which these amendments are trying- to overcome? Ought not that to be considered? Then again, does it stand to reason that, because we can gather the thousands in a limited space, that those individuals should have more right of representation than those who live in more sparsely settled districts? In other words, shall those individuals who live a dozen or fifteen or twenty- five families under one roof have representation, whereas we who live out in the country are deprived of our representa- tion? Now it seems to me, Gentlemen, you ought to consider that fact. It seems to me we ought to consider the fact too, that many of the permanent residents are those living in the country. Those who are living in our cities are transient to a very great extent. They are not actually so interested in the welfare and permanency of our state as are those who are out in the country. Should not then. Gentlemen, those people be considered? It seems to me it is well for us to pause and consider those things. We countrymen certainly do not wish to deprive the city of its rights. Neither does the city, I believe, want to deprive us countrymen of our rights, but let us weigh this matter carefully and candidlj'. It seems to me this Resolution No_. 22 most effectually aii(i fairly meets the present needs, and this which has been brought in about what other people think about us, as far as I am concerned, is all nonsense. I think New Hampsnire has been able to do its own business in a business-like waj-, and many of the sneers that have been cast at us have been cast simply because of some selfish or jealous motive. Let us go about our busi- ness as men of intelligence such as we are. Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — I am a delegate from a small town, a farming town and a pro-rated town, and I realize the senti- ment of most of the men who represent small towns, but I find myself obliged to support the measure which provides for representative districts, because sentiment is a poor thing to decide rights by. I believe the only principle we should con- sider here, in changing the present method, is the principle of justice, pure and simple. Every method that has been suggested in these amendments, save the one to create dis- tricts according to population, violates a fundamental prin- ciple of our government. I will go farther than that, and say ]44 Journal of Constitutional Convention. it violates the fundamental principle of our government, and that principle is that every person, irres^oective of how much property he owns, irrespective of his color, his race or religion, is entitled to equal representation in the government. That is the fundamental basis of our republican form of government, and I believe that our method of electing representatives should be based upon that principle of justice and equal repre- sentation to every citizen. It is a surprising thing to hear men argue in this country, in New Hampshire, and in America, that men, because they have propertj^ are entitled to more representation and power in the government. There is no man in the community who bears so large a burden of the charges for government in indirect taxes from the federal government, and indirect taxes from the state government as the man who has no property and pays only a poll tax. Every man who oou- sumes anything that is taxed, every man who uses anything that is taxed, every man who rents a house that is taxed, pays the burden of that taxation, and he is as much entitled lo representation in our form of government as a ma a with a million dollars. Now I do not know whether the people of my town would vote for any scheme that divided the state into districts, bat I do know that that scheme is just ana fundamentally right, and I hope that this Convention will adopt such a scheme. Further than that, I am opposed to any marked reduction in the size of the House. I believe a large House is a benefit to the people of the state of New Hampshire in a good many ways. The larger the House the more unwieldy it is, and that is the accusation made against our House of Representatives. It is unwieldy, which means it cannot be handled. I hope we shall keep a large House, from 350 to 400 members, and that the representation in it may be based upon justice, giving to every man an equal right to be represented here. On motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, that the com- mittee do now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, The affirmative prevailed. In Convention. (The President in the chair.) Mr. Clifford of Franklin, for the Committee of the Whole, to whom were referred all resolutions relating to the appor- Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 145 tionment of representation in the House of Representatives and Senate, having considered the same, report progress and ask leave to si't again. The report was accepted and leave granted. Mr. Hobhs of Wolfeboro introduced the following resolu- tion: — Ee SOLUTION No. 50. Relating to Taxes. Resolved, That Article 5, of Part Second of the Constitu-' tion be amended by striking ouJt the words "proportional and reasonable^' and inserting before the word "estates^^ the word such and add after the word "same" the words, as the General Court may deem wise and expedient. On motion of Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro, the resolution was referred to Ithe Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro introduced the following resolu- tion: — RESOLiPxroN No. 51. Relating to Taxation of Incomes. Resolved, That Article 6 of Part Second of the Constitu- tion be amended by inserting after the word "estates" the word "incomes." On motion of Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro introduced the following resolu- tion: Resolution No. 52. Relating to Beltterments. Resolved, That Part Second of the Constitution be amended by adding the following article: 146 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Cities and towns shall have the power to assess*, the cost of betiterments and improvements of highways upon the owners of property benefited thereby. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legisla- tive Department. Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro introduced the following resolu- tion: Resolution No. 53. Relating to the Council. Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by striking out Articles 59 to 65 inclusive of Part 2. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department. Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro introduced the following resolu- tion: Resolution No. 54. Relating to Election of Governor by Plurality Vote. Amend Part 2, Article 41 of the Constitution by striking out the words therein: "and, in the 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 elec- tors of the governor shall be same as those for senators; and, if no person shall have a majority of voltes, 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 substitute in place thereof the following: "the candidate who is eligible and who receives the highest number of votes through i^e state shall be de- clared governor, and the qualifications of electors for gov- ernor shall be the same as those for senators, and if no person shall have a plurality of votes 'the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives shall by a joint ballot elect one of the two persons Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 147 having the highest number of votes, who shall be declared governor," so that said article as amended shall read: "Akt. 41. The governor shall be chosen biennially, in the mon'th of November, and the votes for governor shall be re- ceived, 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 Eepresentatives on the firs't Wednesday of January, to be by them examined; and the candidate who is eligible and who receives the highest number of votes through the state shall be declared governor, and the qualifications of electors for governor shall be the same as those for senators; and if no person shall have a plu- rality 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. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department. Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro introduced the following resolu- tion: Resolutiok^ No. 55. Relating to Election of Senators. Resolved, That Part 2, Article 33 of the Constitution be amended by striking out the whole thereof, and substitute the following: "The person in each district receiving the highest number of votes for senator, eligible to said office shall be declared elected. All vacancies in the Senate arising by the death, removal out of the stait^ or otherwise shall be filled by new election by the people of the district upon the requisition of the governor as soon as may be after such vacancies shall happen." 148 Journal of Constitutional Convention. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Legisla- tive Department. Mr. Gaffney of Xashua introduced the following resolution: Eesolution Xio. 56. Eelatihg to Charters of Cities. Resolved, That the Constitution be amended by adding at the end of Article 5 of Part Second the following provision: The powers herein enumerated shall apply except as here- after in this form of government provided for. Akt. 6. Municipal corporations shall not be created by special laws, but ^ihe legislature^ by general laws, shall provide for the incorporation and organization of cities and towns and for the classification of such cities and towns in proportion to population, subject to the provisions of this ar'ticle. Aet. 7. Any city containing now or hereafter, a popula- tion of more than five thousand may frame a charter for its own government consistent with and subjedt to the Constitu- tion and laws of the state in the following manner: A board of freeholders composed of fourteen qualified electors of said city may be elected at large by the qualifieid electors thereof a't a general or special election, whose duty it shall be within six months after such election to prepare and propose a char- ter for such city. Such proposed charter shall be signed in duplicate by the members of such board, or a majority of them, and filed, one copy of the proposed charter with the dhief executive of such city and 'the other with the clerk of the superior court of the county in which said city shall be situated. Such proposed charter shall then be published in one or more newspapers published and of general circulation within said city for at least thirty d'ays, if in a daily paper, or in four consecutive issues if in a weekly paper, and the first publication shall be made within thirty days after the com- pletion of the proposed charter. "Within thirty days and not earlier than twenty days after such publication said proposed Tuesday, June 11, 1912. 149 charter shall be submitted to the vote of the qualified electors of said city at a general or special election. If a majority of such qualified electors voting thereon shall ratify such pro- posed charter, it shall thereupon be submitted 'to the governor for his approval, and the governor shall approve it if it shall not conflic't with this Convention or with the laws of the state. Upon such approval said charter shall become the or- ganic law of such city and supersede any charter then exist- ing ('and all amendments thereto) and all ordinances incon- sistent with said new charter. A copy of such charter, certiv fied by the chief executive officer, and authenticated by the seal of such city, together with a statement similarly certified and authenticated, setting forth the submission of such char- ter to the electors and its raltification by them, shall, after the approval of such charter by the governor, be made in dupli- cate and filed, one copy in the office of the secretary of state and the other in ithe archives of the city after being recorded in the office of said clerk of the superior court. Thereafter all courts shall take judicial notice of said charter. The charter so ratified may be amended by amendments proposed and submitted by the legislative authority of the city to the qualified electors thereof (or by petition as here- after provided) at a general or special election, and ratified by a majority of the qualified eledtors voting thereon, and ap- proved by the governor, as herein provided for the approval of the charter. Art. 8. An election of such board of freeholders may be called at any time by the legislative authority of any such city. Such election may be called by ithe chief executive of- ficer of any such city within twenty days after there shall have been filed with him a petition demanding such election, signed by a number of qualified electors residing within such city equal to twenty-five per centum of the total number of votes cast at the next preceding general municipal eledtion. Such election shall be held not later than thirty days after the call therefor. At such election a vote shall be taken 150 Journal of Constitutional Convention. upon the question whether further proceedings toward adopt- ing a charter shall be had in pursuance to the call, and unless a majority of the qualified electors vo'ting thereon shall vote to proceed, no further proceedings shall be had, and all pro- ceedings up to the time of said election shall be of no effect. Akt. 9. No municipal corporation shall ever grant, ex- tend or renew a franchise without the approval of a majority of 'the qualified electors residing within its corporate limits who shall vote thereon at a general or special election, and the legislative body of any such corporation shall submit any such matter for approval or disapproval to such electors at any general municipal election, or call a special election for such purpose at any time upon thii^ty days' notice. No franchise shall be granted, extended or renewed for a longer time than twenty-five years. Art. 10. Every muncipal corporation within this state shall have the right to engage in any business or enterprise which may be engaged in by a person, firm or corporation by virtue of a franchise from said municipal corporation. AUT. 11. No grant, extension, or renewal of any franchise or other use of the streets, alleys, or other public grounds, or ways, of any muncipality shall divest the state or any of its subdivisions of its or their control and regulation of such use and enjoyment; nor shall the power to regulate charges for public services be surrendered; and no exclusive franchise shall ever be granted. The reading of the resolution having begun, — On motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua, the further reading was dispensed with. The resolution was referred to the Commit'tee on Legisla- tive Department. Mr. Tracy of Plainfield introduced the following resolu- tion: Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 151 Resolution No. 57. Relating to the Council. Resolved, That the Constitii'tion be amended by striking out of Part 2, Articles 46, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65; and that all the powers and duties exercised heretofore by the council shall be conferred upon the governor. On motion of Mr. Tracy of Plainfield, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole. On motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua the Convention ad- journed at 4.44 o^clock. WEDNESDAY, June 12, 1912. The Convention met at 10.30 o'clock, according to ad- journment. (The President in the chair.) Prayer was offered by Rev. George E. Leighton, delegate in the Convention from Newfields. The reading of the Journal having begun, — On motion of Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey the further reading was dispensed wi'th. Leave of Absence. Mr, Kimball of Concord Was granted leave of absence for Wednesday morning, June 12, on account of important business. Mr. Cochran of Windham was granted leave of absence for the day on account of important business. Mr. Hall of Dover was granted leave of absence for Wednes- day morning, to 'attend the meeting of the New Hampshire Historical Socie'ty. On motion of Mr. Clifford of Franklin, — 152 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Resolved, That the roll of members as reported by the Com- mittee on Credentials, be conclusive as to the membership of this Convention. On motion of Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey, the Convention re- solved itself into Committee of the Whole, for the considera- tion of the special order of the day, the same being Resolu- tion No. 4, Relating to the Initiative and Referendum and Future Mode of Amending the Constitution. In Committee of the Whole. (Mr. Whittemore of Dover in the chair.) The Chairman. — 'Members of the Convention, we are met in Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering Eeso- lution No. 4, the Initiative and Referendum. Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — Mr. Chairman, as the introducer of this resolution, I crave your indulgence if I should speak at some length on this question, for the reason that it is a ques- tion which is unfamiliar to a great many of the people in the state of New HJampshire, and I apprehend it is perhaps un- familiar to many of the members of this Committee. I was chosen as a delegate to this Convention from a town which is normally two to one Republican, I being a Democrat, on inde- pendent nomination papers on a straight initiative and refer- endum platform. I told the people of that town that if they believed with me that the initiative and referendum was the most important question before the people of New Hampshire at this time, I should be pleased to be chosen a member of this Convention, that I might personally advocate those prin- ciples upon the floor of the Convention. As a result, I re- ceived the highest number of votes of any candidate for dele- gate from my town, which is entitled to two, and for which there were three candidates. In addition to that, upon the same day a resolution was offered in the Town Meeting that the delegates from our town should support an amendment embodying the principles of the initiative and referendum, and that resolution was endorsed by a vote of 72 to 17, so you see I have a very clear warrant for supporting, upon the floor of this Convention and before this Committee, the initiative and referendum. The title of this bill as printed is somewhat misleading due to no fault of anyone except a little misunderstanding of Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 153 what the measure contain. The title of the amendment as presented was "providing for the referendum on measures passed and rejected by the General Court, the legislative referendum and for the submission of constitutional amend- ments by the General Court, and by the initiative." You will note by that, that the initiative as such, on legislative mea- sures, has been cut out, and in its place we have inserted a referendum on measures which may be rejected by the legis- lature, thereby allowing the General Court to pass upon every measure before it is submitted to the people under the refer- endum. In principle, the referendum on rejected measures is the same as the initiative, with the additional change, as I stated before, that the legislature may have an opportunity to pass upon every measure before it goes to the people, where, under the initiative, measures go directly to the people with- out legislative discussion of the matter. This has been de- clared by a great many who have examined the amendment to be a much preferable form to that of the straight initiative, as in force in a good many states. Now let us consider what the initiative and referendum or the referendum on rejected measures and the referendum on measures passed by the legislature means to us. Legislation from its very nature deals with law. The laws under which we live are very vital to every citizen, every inhabitant of our state. In order that those laws may be absolutely fair, it is essential that laws which are enacted, which affect every one of us, should be enacted with absolute justice to all, — as the great Thomas Jefferson put it, "equal rights to all and special privileges to none." , The initiative and referendum are based upon a clause in our own Bill of Eights, Article 8, Part One of the Constitution, which states: "All power residing originally in, and being de- rived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of gov- ernment are their substitutes and agents, and at all times ac- countable to them." That places the control of the govern- ment under which we live directly in the hands of the people at all times. Now if the laws touch every one of us, it is necessary, to enable those laws to be enacted with justice to all, that the people should, as stated in the Bill of Rights, have control over all the officers and magistrates of govern- ment at all times. Under our present system that is not exactly true. We are supposed to have control of our magis- trates and officers at all times, but as a matter of actual fact we only have control of them once in two years when they come up for re-election. In the meantime they are subject 154- Journal of Constitutional Convention. only to our advice, and we have no way of making them ac- cept the advice of the people. This has brought about a situation, where, instead of repre- sentative government, we have, in a great many cases, mis- representative government. Every advocate of the initiative and referendum, so far as I know, believes that a representa- tive form of government is the only form of government which can be successfully applied to so large a community as a state. It is absolutely necessary that delegates, representa- tives, senators, call them what you will, shall be sent from different communities in the state to some central point, where they may consider and discuss matters with other dele- gates from other points in the state, and thereby unite upon some general laws which will be satisfactory to every one. No advocate of the initiative and referendum, so far as I know, has ever advocated doing away with representative govern- ment. We only ask that representative government shall be representative, of whom? Of the people of the state of New Hampshire, for all the people of the state in which we live, for whom government is instituted according to the first article of our Bill of Rights. In many cases, government has become misrepresentative. This is because the people, for whom the government was instituted, have not the effective control of results of legis- lation, or to put it in the words of the Constitution, have not control of their officers and magistrates at all times. The initiative and referendum is calculated to bring the legislative officers of the government under the control of the people at all times, and thereby make certain that the government may at all times be accountable to the people. I need not relate to you cases in which the legislature of our state has failed to interpret correctly the will of the people. Some such cases have occurred; most of you can remember what they are. Those examples of misrepresentative govern- ment are due, not to the fault or the dishonesty or the lack of good citizenship of those who compose our legislative bodies; they are due to the fact that legislators are not at all times accountable to the people, and specifically due to two reasons, — first, because the people have no authoritative way to know what their legislators are doing, and, second, because the legislators have no way to learn authoritatively what the people want. Of course you say, "Why, yes, we elect Repub- licans and Democrats upon party platforms." You know what one of the distinguished public servants of our state said aboiit party platforms, that while they are made to get in on they Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 155 are not to stand on. That is about as true as anything that was ever said. There are ten or twelve demands in each party platform; six or seven or eight hundred measures before the legislature. Do you consider that the ten or twelve demands laid down in each party platform, making 24 suggestions from the people, are a very broad guide for the legislators to follow? I think not. So then, what is the legislator to do when he comes down here to Concord to consider what is for the interest of the people of New Hampshire? He is left to his own judgment, as far as the demands of the people are concerned, beyond those principles which are laid down in the party platform. Then what has become of our representative government? Nothing ar all. We have an uncontrolled, delegated govern- ment. Now, as I say, the people have no way authoritatively to learn what the legislature is doing. Of course they can come down here and see what you are doing, but I have been in the legislature and I have watched a good deal, but 1 am sure, watching as close as I could, I could not find out what the legislature was doing all the time, so how much more difficult is it for the citizen who remains at home to find out what the legislature is doing? It is absolutely necessary, in order to have our government a truly representative government, that the legislators should know what the people want in the first instance, and the people should know what the legislature gives them afterwards. The witiative and the referendum fill this gap in our system of government. Every legislator who is honest, and they all are, every legis- lator who is honest welcomes suggestions from his constitu- ents. He does not necessarily follow those suggestions; con- ditions may be such that he believes it is not for the best in- terest of the state that those suggestions should be followed, but in the first instance he welcomes suggestions from his constituents. The initiative and referendum offer an oppor- tunity whereby every citizen of the state could advise every member of the legislature on every matter that comes before the legislature. Now that sounds like a pretty big program, but it is not so large as it seems, because probably in 498 cases out of 500, may be a larger per cent, may be a smaller per cent, but in a very large number of cases, the action of the legislature will be absolutely satisfactory to the people of the state, and therefore the advice in that case will consist simply in sitting tight and thus saying to the legislature, "we advise you that you have done just right," but in the two cases out 156 Journal of Constitutional Convention. of 500, more or less, in which the legislature misinterprets the will of the people, what redress have the people under our present system? Nothing- at all. They are bound to stand by what the legislature gives them under our present system, with nothing standing between them. The initiative, or as is proposed in this Convention, the referendum, on measures rejected by the legislature, provides the people of the state with an opportunity to correct mistakes of omission upon the part of the legislature. That is,- if the legislature says, we do not believe, in our judgment, that such a measure should take effect, the people, under the referen- dum for measures rejected by the legislature, may say, "you did not interpret the ideas of the people of the State of New Hampshire correctly, and we reserve the right to do ourselves what the legislature neglects to do, if we want it done." The referendum on measures passed by the legislature cor- rects mistakes of commission in situations in which the legis- lature may have passed laws which are not demanded for the welfare of our state. So we have corrected practically the only defect which occurs in making our government truly representative of the people. The longer the initiative and referendum is enforced the less it will be needed, for the reason that the legislature will always become more and more truly representative of the people, and that, I take it, is all we can ask in a system of popular government. This is simply the principle which every man of business in his own affairs uses, applied to the business of govern- ment. To apply it to personal affairs, let me take an instance. When I go to the dentist with an aching tooth, I reserve the right to say to the dentist, "You shall or you shall not pull that tooth." You would think I was ver^- foolish if 1 went to the dentist and said, "You look in my mouth and see what you think about it, and you may pull any tooth you wish." Y''ou would think me a fit subject for the insane asylum. When I go to the dentist, I take his advice as an expert on teeth, but it is my tooth which is aching apd is to be operated upon, and I reserve the right to say whether he shall extract the tooth or not. This is simply applied to the government. The gov- ernment of the State of New Hampshire is instituted for the people of New Hampshire. The people delegate or should dele- gate a part of their government to a legislature, but the legis- lature should not have the right to pull any tooth they wish in the body politic; they should be compelled to pull only such teeth as the body politic seems to think, or does think, need extracting. And to apply it further to the affairs of business, Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 157 suppose one of us decides to erect a building. We go to the expert architect. We tell him what we wish to have done, and he draws the plans for us, but we always reserve the right to accept or reject those plans. The people of New Hampshire should have a reserved opportunity to accept or reject the plans of government which are submitted to them by the legis- lature. A membership in the Constitutional Convention is one of the highest honors that can come to a citizen of New Hamp- shire. Why? Because a delegate to the Constitutional Con- vention realizes that every act of his will be submitted to the scrutiny of the people, and every act of the Convention will have to be passed upon by the people. It would add to the dignity of the legislature if they realized that every act of theirs would have to be referred and passed upon by the will ' of the people; not actively passed upon necessarily, but, as I suggested before, passed upon by a passive suggestion that the act of the legislature was correct. Now this is no new thing. The initiative and referendum, as I showed, is founded upon an article in our own Constitu- tion. In this Manual prepared by Professor Colby, which has been furnished to every one of us, I find a letter written to Meshech Weare, December 11, 1775, by Gen. John Sullivan of the Army, which puts forward a plan of government. I should advise every member of this Convention who believes in the future of New Hampshire to turn to that page of this Manual and read that letter. It is page 65 of Colby's Manual. He says: "And, as my ideas of government may in some measure differ from many others, I shall beg leave to premise some few things: and in the first place must observe that all governments are, or ought to be, instituted for the good of the people; and that form of government is most per- fect when that design is most nearly and effectually an- swered. . . . "Third. That no danger can arise to a state from giving the people a free and full voice in their own government. And that what is called the prerogative of the Crown, or checks upon the licentiousness of the people, are only the children of de- signing or ambitious men, no such thing being necessary; for, although many states have been overturned by the rage and violence of the people, yet that spirit of rage and violence has ever been awakened in the first place by the misconduct of their rulers. And, though often carried to the most dangerous heights, so far from being owing to too much power being lodged in the hands of the people, that it is clearly owing to 158 Journal of Constitutional Convention. their having- too small and their rulers too extensive, a power. . . . I am well convinced that people are too fond of their own ease and quiet to rise up in rebellion against govern- ment, unless when the tyranny becomes intolerable. And their fondness for government must clearly appear from their so often submitting to one tyrant after they had extirpated an- other, rather than live in a state of anarchy and con- fusion. . . . "And here I must beg leave to observe that however high other people's notions of government may run, and however much they may be disposed to worship a creature of their own creation, I can by no means consent to lodging too much power in the hands of one person, or suffering an interest in government to exist separate from that of the people, or • any man to hold an office for the execution of which he is not in some way or other answ^erable to that people to whom he owes his political existence." That is the foundation for initiative and referendum, writ- ten 142 years ago, and I believe the w'ords are just as true today as the day they were written, and the people who framed our Constitution evidently believed that w^as so, because as a matter of fact they embodied quite a number of the proposals submitted by General Sullivan in our own Constitution, par- ticularly in the Bill of Rights, and some of the proposals of Gen. John Sullivan appeared in the Declaration of Independ- ence. Now, as I say, the initiative and referendum is no new thing in New iiampshire, in principle; in practice, of course, we have never tried it directly. The initiative and referendum were first used in their mod- em form in certain cantons of Switzerland about fifty years ago, and since that time they have so successfully operated there that twenty-one out of twenty-two have the initiative and referendum in some form. Twelve states in the Union have the initiative and referendum in effect, most of them in operation; two, however, by the failure of their legislatures to give effect to the amendment to the Constitution, have it in the Constitution, but not in operation. Seven other states will vote upon the adoption of the initiative and referendum within a year, and I predict, if the delegates to this Constitutional Convention of 1912 in New Hampshire do not see fit to submit to the people of New Hampshire amendments providing for the initiative and referendum, that, when we do get around to submit to the people of New Hampshire the initiative and referendum, we will be bringing up the rear of the train of Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 159 the states. I need not dwell on the successful operation of the initiative and referendum in the states where it has been in effect. I will only state that no one has been able to point out one instance w^here the initiative and referendum as ap- plied has been a failure. Every state in the Union that has ever had a chance to adopt the initiative and referendum has adopted it, and in no state in which it has been in effect has a successful attempt to get rid of it been made. The proof of the pudding- is in the eating. Every state seems to be pretty well satisfied with the initiative and referendum where it is in effect. It is sometimes said that the people of the state do not take enough interest in the affairs of government to bring about the successful working of the initiative and referendum. The people in the state of Oregon have had a chance to vote upon sixty-four laws, and you can imagine how much interest the people of Oregon take in the laws under which they live when I tell you that three out of every four people who went to the polls in four successive elections have voted on every one of those sixty-four laws. If it is true that laws are in- teresting to every one because they have to live under them, then it is true that the more citizens understand about the laws under which they live, the better citizens they will be, and I take it that the chief ambitions of our government are to have good citizens, and to have laws obeyed. We find that four out of every five in the state of Oregon who went to the polls who voted for the four principal state officers have voted on these laws, — a tremendously important example of the in- terest the citizens will take in the affairs of government once given the chance. Progressive laws which have been adopted by states all over the Union have first been adopted by the people of Oregon under the initiative and referendum. Meas- ures which have been adopted by the people of Oregon are an issue in practically every state in the Union where they are not in operation. Now we come to some of the objections which will be raised to the initiative and referendum. I have heard most of them. A great many of them take the form of denunciation. They say the initiative and referendum is a political heresy. I imagine that George III thought of George Washington and the signers of the Declaration of Independence that way. I believe we should not be frightened by being called heretics; we should examine these matters for ourselves, and see whether these experiments are working out successfully in other places, whether the conditions are the same as in our 160 Journal of Constitutional Convention. own state, and whether we think they would work out well in our own state. One of the greatest arguments against the initiative and referendum is that it brings about mob rule. It is an awful thing- to be ruled by the mob, — that is true. If anyone can point out to me the slightest resemblance be- tween the initiative and referendum and mob rule, I would thank them to do so. In Resolution 4, providing for the initiative and referendum, no measure goes to the people unless the legislature has con- sidered it, and then it cannot go to the people until the next election. See what that means. Suppose a measure is intro- duced in the legislature of 1913 which goes to a referendum, either because it is rejected or because it is accepted, and the people think it is unsatisfactory. It lies on the table, so to speak, from the close of the Legislature of 1913 until the gen- eral election of 1914, when it is decided by the people, not in a mob but in the quiet and secrecy of the Australian bal- lot booth. Does that have any resemblance to the action of a mob? What is the action of the mob? It is hasty and ill- considered, here today and there tonight and gone tomorrow morning. Do the citizens of New Hampshire at their polling place bear the slightest resemblance to a mob? And the re- sult of their action at these polls wdll not bear the slightest resemblance to mob rule. We hear of taking away from the legislature the responsibility of final decision of questions; that it would be removing from them the incentive to be re- sponsible by allowing them to pass along to the people the decision of results. Now, there may be something to that. But I believe, on the other hand, there is an argument which in its proof shows that the responsibility of the legislature would be increased rather than diminished under any working of the initiative and referendum. That is, we would get bet- ter legislators under the initiative and referendum than at the present time. Suppose in my town, I being a Democrat, a Democrat who is a candidate for representative agrees with the principles with which I agree, but is not a responsible citizen, as I look at it. On the other hand, a Republican in my town is put up as a candidate for representative, for whom I have the greatest respect, who I believe should be a very capable legislator, yet for whom I hesitate to vote for the reason that he advocates principles in which I do not believe. What shall I do? Shall I sacrifice my own belief and vote for the better man, or shall I vote for ray own principles and send what has been known as the "yellow dog" to the legis- lature? The initiative and referendum would allow us at all Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 161 times to choose the best man for the legislature, knowing that if the results which we asked for did not come from the legis- lature, we and others who agreed with us could get these results from the people themselves, regardless of the legis- lature. So I think that the personnel, the membership of our legislative bodies, would all the time be improving if we had the initiative and referendum to allow the people to vote " on matters as they see fit, regardless, in some instances, of who represents them in the legislature. Now just an instance of how the referendum might have worked in New Hampshire. You remember the legislature of 1909 passed a law which was known as the "Three Trunk Line" bill, providing for the expenditure of a million dol- lars for state highways throughout the state, and the ex- penditure of another million by the towns and cities through which these highways run. The people of New Hampshire had not considered previous to that time that particular method of building highways. We all agree that the state of New Hampshire should have the best highways that it is possible to pay for and maintain. No one knew when that bill was passed in the legislature what the effect would be, whether a million or two million dollars would complete those high- ways, or whether there was money enough in the whole state of New Hampshire to keep them in repair after they were completed. That question was not an issue in the cam- paign in which that legislature was elected, and a change of twelve votes at one stage in the House would have defeated that measure. Now, I say that there was no demand for that particular measure passing the legislature, yet the people of New Hampshire have it settled upon them. They have no redress. They must pay the bill. We are tied up under that particular method of road-building, whether it is satisfactory or not. Now let us see what would have been the case if the referendum had been in force. I apprehend that a sufficient number of signers to a petition, asking that that law should not take effect, could have been found. The petition would have been filed with the secretary of state, pleading that that law should not go into effect until the people had talked over the question whether they wanted the expenditure of so much money made or not. The question would have been discussed up and down the state, in the Grange, in the boards of trade, in the labor unions, and in the homes all over New Hampshire for a year and a half. Then in 1910, after th'» people had had a chance for a 3'ear and a half's discussion over that matter, the}' could have gone and voted yes or no 162 Journal of Constitutional Convention. on that measure. And I do not believe there is a inan in the state of New Hampshire who would not then have considered himself competent, and 3'6u would have considered him so, to vote whether the state's money should be used in that specific way or not. That is the way the referendum works in actual practice. It doesn't mean that the people will hav^ to vote on every fish and game bill for the protection of horn- pout, or a bill to screen Webster Lake. It simply means thai important questions, all political questions in which the people should be intensely interested, should be at some time, if the legislature's action is not satisfactory, referred back to the people for their own decision. Another thing, you know that the story of railroad legis- lation in the state of New Hampshire is a rather black page of our history. We should dislike to see a repetition of some of the former railroad fights in the legislature. We have com- ing in New Hampshire what bids fair to be another railroad fight. It will not necessarily come to the legislature, but there is a very great possibility that it may come there. Now is it fair to the gentlemen whom we send here to Concord to represent us in the legislature to subject them to the tempta- tions to which they will be subjected if railroad legislation comes into the legislature? You know what the pressure is, many of you, that is brought to bear upon the senators and representatives to be false to their constituents. . It is not fair to the man who is sent to the legislature that we, the people of New Hampshire, should allow him to be subjected to that very great temptation, greater than any man should ever be required to withstand. If the initiative and refer- endum, as proposed by Eesolution No. 4, is inserted into the New Hampshire Constitution it will take away from the legislature, providing this question comes to it, the final decision of that question, and put the respcnsibility back on the people of the state, where it rightfully belongs. The de- cision of a question like giving a charter to the Grand Trunk Railroad, for instance, is not a question which vitally inter- ests the comparatively few who may be sent to the legis- lature, but it interests the people of the whole state of New Hampshire. The question that will be in issue in the grant- ing of that charter will be: "Is it for the welfare of the state of New Hampshire?" Not, "Is it for the welfare of the Bos- ton & Maine?" or, "Is it for the welfare of the Grand Trunk Railway?" but "Is it for the welfare of the people of New Hampshire?" And they should be the ones to finally decide that. They will not have an opportunity to do that unless we Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 163 submit this amendment, or some similar amendment, and the people adopt it. I believe for that reason alone the state of New Hampshire would be repaid in the increase in the man- hood of the men who are members of the legislature when that question is up, if we have an opportunity to relieve them of the final decision of that question. Now let us consider the specific measure before us, — "No act or resolve passed by the General Court shall take effect earlier than ninety days after the final adjournment of the General Court passing the same." That gives every one an opportunity to investigate the matters which are before the legislature, and passed by the legislature, and stir around and get signatures of 4,000 citizens, if any measure bids fair to be unsatisfactory to that number. "Except appropriation bills authorizing expenditures from the treasury of the state for purposes authorized by existing law," — which relates to routine appropriations, — "and excepting also acts or resolves declared to be emergency measures." Now the emergency measures have to have a two-thirds vote of each branch on a roll-call; then it can go into effect, but will be subject to the referendum and will remain in effect only until the people get a chance to vote; if the people say then they are in favor of it, it stays in effect; if they are not, it will be repealed. That is what is meant by the "emergency." "If within ninety days after the final adjournment of any General Court a referendum petition signed by not less than four thousand qualified voters of the state shall be filed with the secretary of state against any act or resolve passed by that General Court, except as above stated, such act or resolve shall not become law, but shall be submitted to the voters of the state at the ensuing state election." Under the legislative refer- endum the legislature says, "We don't know exactly what the people want, so we will let the people say for themselves." "In case an act or resolve proposed in the General Court fails to be passed by that General Court, then on petition of the number of voters last above stated, and filed with the sec- retary of state not less than four months previous to the next ensuing state election, said act or resolve in its original form or in such amended form proposed in the General Court as may be petitioned for by such petitioners shall be submitted to the voters at the next ensuing election." I will explain that. In any event, whether the legislature sees fit to adopt or to reject a proposed bill, it may be referred to the people, if rejected by the legislature, in any form in which it may have been introduced in the legislature, — in its original form 164 Journal of Constitutional Convention. or in an amended form, — which gives us the benefit of all leg- islative discussion. The legislature has not a bit of power faken away from it, except the final control of the result, which should rightfully belong to the people. It will be argued to you today that this is a change. Ad- mittedly it is a change. I would hardly agree with the gen- tleman from Newmarket, who spoke yesterdaj^ who said his father knew as much as he and his grandfather knew as much as he did. I would ask how the people of any com- munity are going to make progress unless somebody knows more than his father in the community, and how are we go- ing to get ahead any unless we make some changes? In the time when our New Hampshire Constitution was adopted business conditions, social conditions, economic con- ditions were entirely different from what they are today. When it took thirty days to get a letter from New York to Boston it was absolutely impossible to carry into effect any 6uch system as the modern initiative and referendum, but, when by means of telegraph, etc., we can learn, the next day, the result from California of an election, there is no ob- struction to carrj'ing into effect some modern form of the initiative and referendum. The people of New Hampshire, however, when they adopted the Constitution inserted the referendum in it. It has always been in effect in our own Con- stitution in spite of the difficulties which were originally en- countered in getting the popular vote of the people to en- dorse that Constitution. Any machine as time goes on de- velops defects which can be corrected. The vital defect which has developed in the machinery of our government is that the people have not the final control of the results of legisla- tion. We can correct that little defect by the adoption of the amendment proposed, and by the submission of that amend- ment to the people. It is a change, but we must make changes. The poet Lowell says, — "New times demand new measures and new men. The world advances, and in turn outgrows The laws that in our fathers' time were best. And doubtless after us some purer scheme Will be shaped out by wiser men than we. Made wiser by the endless growth of truth. The time is ripe, and rotten ripe, for change. Then let it come. I have no fear of what Is called for by the instinct of mankind, Nor think I that God's world would fall apart Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 165 Because we tear a parchment more or less. Truth is eternal; but her effluence. With endless change, is fitted to the hour. Her mirror is turned forward to reflect The promise of the future, not the past." Mr. Lyford of Coiword. — I would like to inquire of the gentle- man from Jaffrey, if it would be agreeable to him to have a time fixed for the vote on this matter, with the idea of ex- pediting the business of the session? Mr. DwiCttit of Jaffrey. — The only thing I hope for is that the question will have the freest and a full discussion in the Com- mittee, and the Convention, if it seems necessary, afterwards. With that in view I would have no objection to having a time fixed. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Some hour this afternoon be agree- able? If we give the whole daj^ to this, will that be enough? Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — I think that ought to be enough. Mr. Lyford of (Joncord. — I ask if the hour three o'clock would be agreeable? Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — Mr. Chairman, what would be the diffi- culty in determining that a little later when we find how the discussion is going to shape itself? Perhaps we shall be able to get to a vote earlier than that, and, if we want to, there would be no harm, — and three o'clock might be too early. It seems to me it would be satisfactory to leave the matter in abe3'ance. Mr. Roive of Kensington. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I realize that, as one of the younger members of this Committee, and this Convention, my province is probably to keep silent and not to speak, not only from the fact that this is my first experience in legislative matters, but also from the fact that here around me I see men who probably served in legislative assemblies before I was born. So, such being the case, I beg your humble pardon for being bold enough to raise my voice here for just a few minutes. I won't take much time and I will soon be through. I simply want to speak because I have a few ideas about this subject under discussion that I wish to mention; otherwise I would not be here. I heard about a man who once went to a banquet to make a speech, and, when called upon, got up and said: "When I came here only myself and God knew what I was going to say; now, gentlemen, God only knows and He won't tell!" Probably that is the way with me. I knew when I got up 166 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. here what I was going- to say; perhaps I don't now. How- ever, I am going to start in. Whenever I see a discussion starting in like this one I think of what Daniel Webster said as he arose to answer Rob- ert Hayne of South Carolina in the Senate of the United States. It was a time of great confusion in the Senate cham- ber, and quietness and silence were sadly needed that time might be gained to consider the question. Webster said: "Gentlemen, whenever anything arises like this I think of the captain at sea when a storm is raging. He does not sit silent on the deck and dream and think about something way up in the starry heavens. He consults his compass to see where he can get into harbor first and get there in safety." I think that is something as it is with us in this matter. I think it behooves us to look at our compass and see whether we can get to our port in safety. In a few moments I want to tell you why I am opposed to the initiative and referendum. First, I am opposed to the initiative and referendum because it is impossible to work out that system under a government as big and a country as wide as ours. The New England town meetings have been cited. That is all very well, but the New England town meet- ing does not compare with our state government. A matter that could easily be discussed and finally settled in town meeting could not possibly be discussed and settled in a vast state-wide debate. That is one reason why I claim the project cannot be worked out in practice under the idea, of the New Hampshire town meeting. Also, I claim if this is put in prac- tice there will be a general breaking down of the laws that have so long guided us in this country. I have great re- spect for the men who made those laws, and I shall cling to the things they said and the deeds they did for a long, long time, I assure you. Now to get right down to bed-rock, I claim in a hall like this you can clarify, you can clear out the essentials of a law better than you can when you take a petition and go up and down the streets getting enough signers to bring the matter before the people. Under such a method I claim it is practically impossible for the people to understand and get at the bottom of a thing the way they can through their representatives, who talk about it, and ■ talk about it, — perhaps all winter. You answer me that maybe the newspapers will clarify it. Oh, yes, they will clarify it! Show me one newspaper that from the start to the finish, clear through to the end, won't take sides one way or the other. I have not heard of one yet. So that is the Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 167 thing in a nutshell. As far as I am concerned, I will not bother you further. I claim, first, that the initiative and referendum cannot be carried out in practice; that it is physically impossible, men- tally impossible and dreamingiy impossible. Now, second, and this is my close, I claim that if this idea is put in practice it will mean a gradual breaking down of the law. I claim that the people will not have the same respect for the laws of this countrj^ as they have had in the past, if this is put in practice. You answer me, — we have heard the argument, — that the people don't know what their legislators are doing. Well, I suppose to some folks that seems to be an argument, but to me it proceeds upon the false idea that if you do not know enough to choose competent legislators who will do your business for you, you still know enough to do the business yourself. In other words, if you cannot get a doctor to cure you when you are sick, you can easily cure yourself. For my part, I don't believe in doing business that way. Now we have heard about dentists, about visiting dentists. I have had some teeth trouble myself, and I went to a dentist, but I didn't go and order him which tooth to pull; I asked him to do what was right, telling him I would abide by his judg- ment, because I realized that he knew more about the mat- ter than I did. Now your legislators, I will abide by their judgment in the House of the United States and in the Sen- ate of the United States, because I tEmk they know more about the matters coming before them than I do. I think that is about all I care to say. I probably am like that fel- low who got up in the banquet, there is more I would like to say but it has gone from me. However, I will say to you that you have got to go easily in this. If these things are to be put through, I want them to go slowly and carefully. I will close with this stanza of poetry I composed this morning: It's fun to dream, but dreams can't do it all, men; They help no doubt to cheer our saddened eyes. But, if we simply dream we're bound to fail, men. As sure as there's a God beyond the skies. Mr. Winch of Langdon. — Gentlemen of the Committee, it has been interesting indeed to hear what we have heard, and I am glad to hear both sides presented, although I am perhaps the "under dog," and perhaps I am the top one. We cannot tell how the thing is coming out. It must work itself out in this Convention. I was sorry when our friend from Jaffrey read portions of Mr. Sullivan's letter that he did not include another part of it. I have not read the whole, but it seems 168 Journal of Constitutional Convention. to me it is pertinent tb the question he has brought up before this Committee. It is on pag-e 67, commencing- in the second section, near the middle. "I would therefore advise such a form of g-oTernment as would admit of but one object to be kept in view, both by the governor and the governed, yiz., the good of the whole, that one interest should imite the sev- eral governing branches, and that the frequent choice of the rulers, by the people, should operate as a check upon their conduct and remind them that a new election would soon honor them for their good conduct, or disgrace them for be- traj'ing the trust reposed in them." He very wisely omitted that when he read a portion. Now he says that the legis- lators do not know what the people want. I, when I was in the legislature years ago, knew in some measure what the people wanted. If you don't believe it jou refer back to the legislature of 1895, and see how the petitions came in here for the agricultural course in the agricultural college. They came from almost every town in the state. We knew what the people wanted. The legislature acted upon it; it was an initiative pure and simple. The people wanted it in that form and they got it. They have the same privilege today. You have got the initiative right in your own hands, if you will use it. You can petition to your representative when at home over Sunday, or for the three days in the week, as he usually is; you can meet that man and he knows what you want in your own town, or should know, if yoti have interest enough in any measure before the legislature to go to him and tell him your w^ants. He says of the legislature, the people do not -know what they are doing. I am sorry that there is anybody in the state of New Hampshire who does not read the news- papers, so they do not know what the legislature is doing. There is hardly a newspaper in the state but weekly gives the doings of our legislature, when in session, and tells the important measures brought there for it to consider. The people should know what those measures are, and if each one of us will pay a dollar a session, as a rule, and get the daily paper, he may know every night what the doings of the legislature were the day before, what the measures were, the progress made, and the prospect that is in view. Now I claim that the people do know what is being done in the legislature. Of course, as our friend from Jaffrey said, legislators like suggestions. We do,— we did at that time. I won't say "we do" because I am not a member of the legislature, but we did at that time. It was good for us w^hen we received from our constituents throughout the state some response, and they Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 169 gave us information of what they wanted, what they de- sired. There are thing-s, of course, that come up. He spoke of the Three Trunk Line bill. That, I know% has been quite a bugbear to a portion of the state, but it is simply a question for the benefit of the state, for the increase of the revenue to the state by the summer travel and those things, to the mountain scenery, the better accommodations to the pub- lic, and for our own benefit. The state roads are kept up for us in our small towns, that they maj- be more suitable for travel, both in the springtime and in the fall. Of course we must advance, and it is progress, a road to progress, we are using in making the roads better and more suitable for farm- ers, and for the merchants and the citzens of New Hampshire, and those adjoining us when they come into it; and I think I am right when I say that the roads of Xew Hampshire com- pare very favorably with those of any other state in the Union. Now, it seems to me that we have all the referendum that we need. If there is any measure that needs to be referred to the people, that the people want referred to them, why, under the light of the sun don't you get up a petition and send to the legislature and ask them to refer it to the people. Your representative would heed such an admonition from your town. If there was an important measure that they wanted to vote upon, those people would send to you asking that you have this thing referred to them, and then they could decide whether they want it or not. Another thing, would a repre- sentative feel that he was honored by having such an umbrella thrown over his head when he comes up here, and acts from the purest and best motives to have laws passed that shall be beneficial to the whole people of the state of New Hamp- shire? Do you think he would feel the same care and dig- nity if he felt that perhaps four or five thousand of the, — I won't say w^hat class of people, — sought to get a referendum, and cast that thing before the people, w^hen he in his honest opinions had given to them the best he knew how? Gentler men, I think it would force an undignified position on our representatives. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the way it looks to me, and I hope this referendum and initiative will have the go-by in this Convention. Mr. Dutwan of Jaffrey. — I am glad to hear the gentleman make those remarks advocating the referendum. He suggested that the people could petition their representatives, their legis- lators, and have measures referred to them, if they wished. That is not so. It is not possible under our Constitution, and that is just what the advocates of this measure are trying to get. 170 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Morse of Neicmarket.—^ir. President and Gentlemen of the Committee, I am free to aeknowledg-e that I know" but little on this subject, and you will believe that and be able to say "Amen" after I have finished. From the housetops. Sir, from on level ground, and from underneath the ground we hear people shouting "Progress." The progressives are leading the line and they are calling for every Christian soldier to follow them. Now if the state of New Hampshire, through its legis- lators, or through its Constitutional Convention, is to be progressive, we have got to accept all these new-fangled fads and notions — the referendum, the initiative and the recall. Now, Mr. Chairman, if they would only make that plainer. Now the recall, as I understand it, is simply this: The gen- tleman from Claremont works for me, and I don't want him any longer, and instead of saying "skidoo" or "get out," I recall him. Now some people go so far as to want to recall the Courts, or their decisions. Well now, all judges are human; all judges don't know everything. They know much of law, a little smattering of other things, but they don't know very much about medicine and politics, unless they have been poli- ticians before they were admitted to the bar, or before they were appointed to the judgeship, and they don't know much about medicine unless they have studied it up, and I shall never vote to recall the decision of judges unless I have more light, and have become convinced that I know more than my father or my grandfather. New Hampshire is a small state. Were she ironed out as fiat as some of the states in the West, we should have more territory, but she is not small, Sir, in brains or intellect. And in the past the representatives of New Hampshire, men who are born here, have furnished more brains to the square inch to other states than any other state in the nation. We have sent men who were born in New Hampshire to other states for development, but if they had not been born with that trotting instinct they could not have developed into two-minute trotters. If they had not been born with brains they could not have had them developed. If the soil is not there you can plow and fertilize until you are black in the face, and you can never raise a crop in a stone heap. Now I am not sure, Gentlemen of the Committee, but the initiative is all right, and the referendum. The right of petition has been since Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. I think I am safe in saying I could go out and get a large number of the members of this Committee to sign a petition to hang themselves, if I said so. A good many of you would sign it because I said so. If I should tell you a Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 171 cyclone was on the way, which started from Washington, you would go to the cyclone cellar in a moment. Now people do not read, do not digest, do not assimilate petitions as they ought to. A friend of mine met me in the ante-room last week and said: "Doctor, I would like to have you sign this petition." I came pretty near signing it because he asked me. I looked at it and said: "Heavens! I think I have signed one on the other side." Now what would have been the re- sult had I signed both petitions? The men that knew me would think or would say, "He is a wishy-washy sort of fel- low, and his signature doesn't amount to anything." But I think, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, before we cast to the four winds of the earth, I would like to ask a question: Is the distinguished gentleman from Harvard Col- lege to speak on the referendum tonight or did he speak last night? Mr. Duncan, of Jaffrey. — I would say for the information of the gentleman from Newmarket that Professor Johnson spoke last night. Mr. Morse of Xeicmarket. — I didn't hear him. I am sorry. So you cannot say I am repeating what he said. I thought he was going to speak tonight. You who heard him are better qualified to vote upon that sometime within a short time, as my friend Lj'ford suggests, to get it out of the way, the same as I wanted all the amendments relative to the cutting down the House put out of the way yesterday, but you said "No," and I submitted. But I think I am going to trim you before I get through with you, because I don't think they are going to do anything. I think they are going to let well enough alone. Of all the gentlemen that offered arguments yesterday for cutting the House down not one presented a plan, no one said how you could do it. If a man is going to build a piazza on my house to improve it. I want him to tell me how he is going to build it, what to put on, and where to stop. "When you don't know what to do, buy of Osgood." I think we have discussed this matter carefully, and all these "Fines," as we always have some in the legislature — the gentleman from Jaffrey and the gentleman from Kensington, fine, sure gentle- men — if we get all the "Fines" upon the floor of the House and they tell us what we ought to do, I am in doubt but what I would be right in following their advice, if they are a good deal younger than I am. Mr. Clement of Warreji. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, this measure has been described as a radical, pro- gressive measure. Now as I understand this issue of initi- 172 Journal of Constitutional Convention. ative and referendum, it is not a radical measure. On. the con- trarj'^ it is a conservative measure. It has been adopted by a great many of our Western states, and our Western states have been settled by some of the best people of Newr Hamp- shire, and as a fruit of that people have come some of these so-called measures, and you have one of them that has been modified until it is no longer radical. Now in regard to my friend from Newmarket, who has just spoken and given an illustration, I would like to carry that illustration a little further regarding a physician being called in. Suppose my friend from Newmarket had been called into my family, and after he had doctored there six or eight months, and the patient didn't get any better, I go around and I take a referendum among my friends, and ask them what I had better do about it. I have some bright, scholarly people among them, whom I hope have horse sense, and they say, perhaps, "You ought to have a consultation of doctors." We have a consultation. After looking the case over and getting a different physician the patient gets well. Now that is rather bad for my friend from Newmarket, but it is a good thing for the patient. Once more, the gentleman has spoken here about being in the legislature of 1895. He says that the legis- lators usually know what they are doing when they pass bills. It was my fortune, or misfortune, to be in the legislature of 1897, and again in 1899. In the last days of the session of 1897 was introduced the measure entitled "Railroad Police, Etc.'* That was the nature of the title. It had no more to do with the bill than black does with white. That bill was taken up in the last days of the session and rushed through under its title, and what did it prove to be? It wiped off all the anti- pass legislation in New Hampshire. What did the legislators know about it? The majority of them absolutely nothing, absolutely fiothinff. Now, do you suppose that if we had had the referendum in the state of New Hampshire that would have stood there for six or eight years? It did create a good deal of stir among both parties. The Grange took it up, and both parties put it into their platform. And did they reform it in the next legislature? No, Sir, it was defeated. They referred it to the Constituional Convention, and the Consti- tutional Convention kicked it out — as I said they would — but after several years of agitation they have succeeded at last in wiping that blot off our statute books. How would it have stood under the referendum? Would they have been as long about it? I think not. Mr. Smith of Peterhr/rmiph. — I wish to say one word in regard Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 173 to this resolution. I don't propose to say a word in regard to the recall. It is not included in this. The word initiative does not apply to this resolution. If you examine every state in this Union where they have adopted the initiative, recall and referendum, you will find this is different from every one. TliPe referendum refers to acts passed by the legislature, empower- ing a certain number of voters to call for that act to be sub- mitted to the people. It is submitted and they have the right to say whether it shall be a law or not. The initiative in this resolution simply refers to the amendment of the Constitution, and I believe it is the most radical change and the most disas- trous change that can be made by any legislature or any Con- vention, to be submitted to the people for their approval. It provides in substance this, that 8,000 voters in this state can petition for any change in the Constitution that they see fit; then this is submitted to the people, and those who vote say "3'es" or "no," and it either becomes a part of the Constitution or not. I believe for several reasons that it is the most radical and most disastrous move we can make here today. Why, Mr. Debs or Mr. Ettor or Mr. Morgan, or anyone else, can come into this state and draft a resolution to amend the Constitu- tion of New Hampshire; they can present that petition to 8,000 voters of this state, an'd if they sign it, that petition is acted upon by the voters without any right to amend or change it in any way. Any man can draw a petition for a change in the Constitution of New Hampshire, and can get 8,000 voters in this state to sign that petition. It may be a radical change, it may be an important change, it may be a change w^hich will affect the welfare, interest and good of this state forever until it can again be changed, and there is no power in this state to change that bill after the petition is presented by this 8,000. Now I believe that of itself is enough to condemn this resolution and send it to oblivion. And I for one am willing to stand upon that one issue in this resolution, that one clause, and cast my vote to have it indefinitely postponed. Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — Mr. Chairman, with regard to that I would say that it seems to me if a majority of the citizens of New Hampshire wanted to have such a provision in their Constitution that they should be allowed to have it. It can- not be very dangerous if a majority of the people of New ^Hampshire wanted to have it, but I propose when this ques- tion comes to a vote under the laws of the Convention, under the rules of the Convention, to divide the resolution at line 88, because it should not, perhaps, have been combined in 174 Journal of Constitutional Convention. the one resolution, — the question dealing- with the -Constitu- tion and the question dealing with legislation. It was com- bined as a no^atter of convenience, that they might be consid- ered together, but when the time comes for voting I shall make a motion that the question be divided at that point. Mr. Smith of Peterhoroitgh. — One word in answer to that. I had occasion this morning to go into the State library and look over the votes of California and Oregon in regard to the question of submitting the laws to the voters for their rati- fication. I found that on every question submitted from Ore- gon in two succeeding years not enough members voted on the yea and nay to comprise one half of the legal voters of that state, as they voted for governor. There was not one single bill during those two years where one half of the vot- ers of Oregon either voted for or against the amendment, and I believe that would be the case here. I took occasion to look at the bills of California, and out of twenty-three bills that California submitted at one time not a single bill received the support of a majority of the voters of the state who voted for governor. Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — With all respect to the gentleman from Peterborough, I should like to ask for the exact figures he discovered. I have some that do not exactly agree with that. The Chairman . — Can the gentleman answer his question? Mr. Smith of Peterborough. — I will look for my figures. Mr. Morse of Nenymarlcct. — While the gentleman from Peter- borough is collecting his figures, I desire to make this state- ment because I believe It is correct: that the initiative and the referendum — and I was going to say the recall, but I will ex- clude that— has been in the platform of the Democratic party for a number of years. It is also in the platform in differ- ent states, — in the Progressive platform. I am not sure whether it was in the last Progressive platform. My friend Lyford says "No." It wouldn't have been in there if he could have helped it, I bet a cent. If that be the case, Gentlemen of the Committee we are not so crazy as some of the speak- ers that are opposed to this would have you believe. It will be, in my judgment. Sir, in all the platforms, both the Demo- cratic and Republican, ere long. That being the case, let New Hampshire start right and we will win. Mr. Herher^t of Rinmiey.—The gentleman from Jaffrey admits this is little known in the state, and even in the Convention. That is sufficient reason in itself why we should not pass it, because it is not known. He admits we have got along 142 Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 175 years splendidly as we are, and I think it is safe to risk it a while longer. Josh Billings says: "If j^ou are in a hurry, go slow." Mr. Martin of Concord. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I had no intention of speaking on this subject this morning, but I have listened attentively for some one who is in favor of this resolution to advance some reason why it should be incorporated into the Constitution of New Hamp- shire. Now I suppose we all agree that when a great change, a radical change, and an important change, is made in the Con- stitution of this state there should be some good reason for that change. I fail to discover in the remarks made by the gentleman from Jaffrey any reason why the state of New Hampshire needs this change at all. Now, unless we need this change in the Constitution, unless there. is some demand by the people of this state for it, then we should not present it to them. I take it there is no politics in this Convention. I take it there is no politics in this resolution. Consequently each man is at liberty to give his best thought and best de- cision to the question. Now let us see what this means. It means that, if the legislature, of New Hampshire passes a law, 4,000 voters can petition to have the measure sent to the peo- ple for ratification or rejection. What is the need of the initiative and referendum in a state which has a legislature of the size which New Hampshire has, — some 400 or more. We have a pretty good chance for the initiative and referendum in the House of Representatives itself. There is a representative practically to every 225 voters in the state of New Hampshire, and for God's sake what more representation do you want than that? What more representation does the state want than that? Now% what are the people electing representatives for? They are sending them here to Concord to pass such laws as the state needs, and nothing more and nothing less. They are selected from the people of the state for the reason that they have the ability to consider properly such measures as the state needs. I listened expecting that some in favor of this resolution would cite some statute law which was an out- rage on the people; that the legislature had done something which disgraced themselves and the people. Nothing of the kind has been presented, and for the more than thirty years that I have been familiar with the legislature and the laws passed by it not one law has been passed that would disgrace the people. One gentleman says that the railroad legislation has been a disgrace to New Hampshire. Why doesn't he cite the law and tell us what it was that disgraced the legislature? 176 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Sturtevant of Kcene. — The Salem race track bill. Mr. Martin of Concord. — The Salem race track bill was not a railroad measure. I presume that some men who were in the House at that time are members of this Convention and can explain it. But the Salem race track bill did not do any great harm because the Courts took care of it pretty spry when it reached them — the same Courts which some of our Progres- sive friends want to recall. The Courts could be trusted; the Courts took care oi that bill when the question reached them. Now, Gentlemen, 1 have great faith in the people. No man has greater faith in the judgment of the people than I have. It is my business to talk to jurors, and seldom, if ever, does a jury return a verdict which is wrong. Occasionally it may Jiappen. Now 3'ou are a jury, and what is there about the Constitution of New Hampshire with reference to passing our laws at the present time which is wrong? Who has pointed out anything that satisfies you that the legislature of Nevi^ Hampshire cannot be trusted as it has been trusted for more than one hundred years? Has it been pointed out here by any one that the people are not capable of returning men to the House who can safely be trusted? If anything has been ad- vanced, I have not heard it. Now, Gentlemen, as I look at this resolution it is the most miserable proposition that was ever put up to the people of New Hampshire. The gentleman from Peterborough spoke of the power of 8,000 voters to present an amendment to the Constitution. That is sufficient to destroy this whole resolu- tion, sufficient for every man to vote in the negative when it comes up for passage. Gentlemen, I want to call your attention again to the fact that no one has advanced any reason why this change should be made. When we talk about taxes, when we talk about the number of representatives that should come to this hall, then we have something that the people can understand that needs a remedy, perhaps; but this is all sentiment, it has grown up as a sentiment, and when they, the friends of this measure, cite what the Western states have done, what has that to do with us? Do we need the change because some far Western state has seen fit to pass it? That is no reason. How many of you know anything about the working of the initiative and referendum in the states where it has been passed? How many of you know whether the people are in favor of it or against it? If hasn't been tried out yet. We know nothing about it, and I assert that the people of New Hampshire can Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 177 still be trusted to return men to this hall, men who will pass all the laws we need, and not disgrace their constituents, themselves, or the state. Mr. Wolf of Berlin. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, we have heard some very interesting" discussions on this proposition, in a sort of general way. As far as I can find the opposition consists in generalities. We have heard the statement that this is an experimental measure, and a measure which is impracticable and will not work in the United States; that we know nothing- about it and it is en- tirely untried, etc., etc. I am sorry all of you gentlemen could not have heard Professor Johnson last night recite a few facts in connection with this issue. In the first place, he brought to the attention of the people last night the fact that Switzerland has had it in use, and in practical use, for the last fiftj- years, and that the conditions which led to its adoptioil in Switzerland are almost identical with the condi- tions that confront us today; also that Switzerland is as large as Massachusetts and Rhode Island and New Hampshire, and in population more than Xew Hampshire. Now the effect of putting this into operation in Switzerland has been that they have done awaj' with those conditions which existed, which were actually preventing the government from being representative, and he proved conclusively that this thing is practicable in its operation, and does accomplish what It is intended to accomplish. Furthermore, it is working and in successful operation in this country, and has been in some states as long as fifteen years. The gentleman who just spoke says he has not heard any argument in favor of it. I take it for granted he was not in here when Mr. Duncan spoke, or he could not positively have made that statement as he did. I got interested in this proposition as a business man. I happen to be fortunate enough to be in charge of one of the largest manufacturing interests in this state, and I want to sa}' right now I have faith in the people of this state. In our own establishment we have some thirty nationalities, and I for one do not fear this mob rule proposition that has been advanced. I believe when it comes to submitting any propo- sition to the people you will get a good, fair, equitable judg- ment. As a business man, I have used the initiative and referendum principle. If we have any important measure or change to make in our organization we refer it to the depart- ment heads, and the various ones that are interested, and in a good many instances to the individual workman, to get a collective judgment of what is best to do. 178 Journal of Constitutional Convention. There is one other argument which has been, brought up and was advanced by the gentleman from Manchester, namely, that this thing takes away from the legislature the power delegated to it by the people and prevents them from acting according to their best judgment. I wish to deny this and point out the fact that in actual practice it does not w^ork that way. You would not for a minute consider allowing an of- ficer in a bank to go unbonded. You g^ive him all the priv- ileges to exercise his right as an officer in the bank, and to use his good judgment to do the things that he should do. The fact that he is under bond does not give him any less freedom but merely assures the depositors that he can do them no harm through following his own selfish inclinations. He more truly represents the depositors by being held strictly accountable to them at all times. This is exactly how initi- ative and referendum works in safeguarding the people in our political world. Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, it is very nearly dinner-time, and I do not wish to take much time. However, I have two boj-^s in my family, ten and eleven years of age. One is a hot-headed advocate of the man from Oyster Bay and the other is for President Taft, and so be- tween them I get pretty well posted on the campaign. So in this discussion I am getting educated and posted on the question before us. I want to say as to the point made by the gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Smith, that I could not support that part of this resolution applying the initi- ative in making amendments to the Constitution, but I do feel inclined to support the first part of this resolution, the initi- ative and referendum as to legislation. I am surprised at the argument made by the last gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mar- tin. He asks: "What 'demand' is there for this?" I find his name in italics in the list of members, which means that he is a Democrat. I turn to his last Democratic platform, — Mr. Martin of Concord. — Not mine on that point. Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — "Which I understand he himself helped formulate as a member of the Committee on Reso- lutions, and find it says: "We demand the initiative and refer- endum." So I would refer him to his platform as one place of many to look for the "demand" for the initiative and ref- erendum. On motion of Mr. Hurd of Claremont, the Committee took a recess of one hour. Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 179 After K:boess. Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey moved to recommend to the Con- Yention the following amendment 'to the resolution: — Strike out all of the resolution after the words, — "Re-number Article Yl, making it Article VII, and like- wise re-number all succeeding articles of Part Second of the Consti'tution." By unanimous consent the amendment was recommended Mr. Oakes of Lisbon. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, as one of the Committee, when I came here I intended to say abso- lutely nothing, but to vote; but as the debate has progressed and men from one side and the other have expressed their viev^'s, I find my interest has become so aroused that the im- pulse to express my views has become too strong to resist. I claim no special knowledge of this subject, but I have read all the literature that has been sent out by the league in favor of initiative and referendum. I have read numberless maga- zine articles on the subject, and in every article we are pointed to Switzerland to learn how to run our government. I ca;re not whether Switzerland has the initiative and referendum. England has her king; Germany has her emperor, and Russia her czar, and their subjects live and exist under more or less satisfactory conditions, but to my mind that is no reason why we should change our form of government and adopt theirs. There is one thing that has impressed me in listening to the arguments in favor of this measure, and that is to see how the area of Switzerland has increased since I went to school, but that is neither here nor there. Last night Professor Johnson, in reading from the history of Switzerland, made the following statement: That eighteen years after Switzerland adopted her Constitution she found that it was impossible to exist thereunder as it stood, and they therefore called a Constitutional Convention and amended it to meet the conditions which they found existed. That, Gentle- men, is all well and good. Our Constitution has existed from 1798 with a good deal of success. Switzerland was only able to exist for eighteen years. Our Constitution has lasted longer than that. Because Switzerland could not draw a Constitution under which they could live for more than eighteen years, and had to adopt the 180 Journal of Constitutional Convention. initiative and referendum because of inherent weakness in their Constitution, is no reason why we should follow their example. We have drawn one that has lasted 120 j'ears. There is no comparison between the two. If we find that our Constitution is not working, as Switzerland found hers was not, I will gladly work and vote for the initiative and referendum, if that is what will save us. Until that time, I can see no reason nor cause for it. In a letter of General Sullivan to Mr. Weare, which was read this morning as an authority, General Sullivan in re- ferring to the Constitution of England says: "And I almost venture to prophesy that England will soon fall." England is still existing under her Constitution, so the General was not infallible, but he was prophesying then for England what the advocates of this measure are now prophesying for us. If we see within the next ten years that our government is about to totter and fall, then and then only, I think, should we tamper with the Constitution as it stands today to such a radical extent as is proposed, and trj' a remedy which has not been proved to be workable in our part of the country and under conditions which are familiar. Mr. Davis of ^eio Ipswich. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, as some of those who oppose us have found occasion to, in a way, criticise our amendments to the Constitution, and our action, I think it only just and fair to ourselves, and to you, that we in a way reply. One of the first was the honorable gentle- man from Kensington. Well, w^hen he appeared, from his La Follette appearance, I really looked for something good. He started in by saying that the Lord only knew what he was going to say, an'd although I listened attentively, and I be- lieve intelligently, to all his remarks, when he finished, so far as I could see, the Lord still kept his secret. Then came the honorable gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Smith. He is a good and capable man. He is a neighbor of mine. We are only nine miles apart. He is able and compe- tent, but though he has had this little amendment for some- thing like two weeks, and studied it carefully, with all his ability he could only find one little fault with it, and when he came to look for that the second time it was so small that it had gotten away from him. To his great relief, T believe we have removed that objection. Our third opponent was the legal gentleman from Concord. He looked quite formidable and I began to tremble in my shoes, but, with all due respect to him, he soon slopped over and ran against a question that was very hard for him to answer, something which cooled Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 181 him off wonderfully. He asks us for reasons, reasons why this amendment should be adopted. Why, Gentlemen of this Con- vention, there are so many reasons, and good reasons, that it would take me from sunrise to sunset to tell them, and I couldn't begin to do them justice. First let me make this statement, and I know it to be true. Gentlemen, if we adopt this amendment it will mean that the voice and the brains of the people of Xew Hampshire will be ever and eternally in the mind and conscience of its legis- lators. This measure, Gentlemen, is a preventive, a check, the one thing needful. Now, Gentlemen, if you think for a mo- ment that I consider that New Hampshire is any more po- litically or legislatively corrupt than any other state in this Union you are mistaken, for I do not; but I believe, Gentle- men, that there is need of a preventive, a check, and a third eye. Gentlemen, if I depart from the text just a mite you will pardon me. I ran across a little boy once to whom I said, "How would you like a third eye?" He replied, "I would like one." Then I said, "If I w^ere to give you one, where would you put it?r He answered, "I would put a third eye in the end of my finger so I could poke it through the knot-hole in the fence and see the ball game." Now we have not exactly a ball game to look after, but it may be that some time in the future there might be a political game going on behind the legislative fence and a third eye to poke through some crevice in that fence might be greatly to our advantage. Gen- tlemen, to bring this right home, — I am earnest about this, — so to bring it right home so we can all realize it I am going to tell you about a friend of mine who had a colt that was broken so he could be driven without rein, bit or bridle with perfect safety, ana he drove hinoi this way for years, but, Gentlemen, what happened one beautiful Sabbath afternoon? He was driving on a strange road and the unexpected occurred. There in the middle of the highway w^as a roaring, pawing bull. The poor horse lost his head entirely, the man had no check, no rein, and the horse became wild, turned around and ran. My friend hung on to the carriage, the horse went over a stone wall, left them upon the wall, and he kept on going. The next day my friend wrote me, saying: "Davis what you said was true. The unexpected has happened. Jerry got fright- ened, lost his head, ran away, hung us up on a wall, hurt us all, and pretty nearly killed my wife. I don't know where Jerry is, he may be running yet for all I know." They did not find the horse for a number of daj's. Then they learned he had gone over an embankment into the river and drowned 182 Journal of Constitutional Convention. himself. The man didn't have the control that he should, there- fore harm came to them all. Just one more point. Let us take for instance the frightful accident to the Titanic. Ismaj- said it was safe, people thought everything was all right, taut was ^t? Was it, Gentlemen? When the real crisis came there was no check, there was not the control, there was not the preventive of trouble that there should have been, and so every one that went down to death went because there was no preventive. Xow, Gentlemen, though we have sailed the seas in comparative safety for fifty years, let me ask you, how many of us today would take pas- sage on one of those ocean liners without knowing how manj' lifeboats she carried and whether or not her w^atertight com- partments were in good working order? Gentlemen, this lit- tle referendum amendment is a third eye, a lifeboat, and a watertight compartment, all rolled into one, for the benefit of every man, woman and child in New Hampshire now sailing on this good old ship of state. And I am impatiently await- ing the opportunity to go on record as voting "yea," and I believe that each and every one who does not do so will be grievously in error and live to regret it. Mr. Stevens of Lmidaff. — I shall confine my remarks entirely to the practical side of this question. I shall not discuss the theory. I shall not discuss Switzerland, Oregon or any othor state; 1 will discuss the state of New Hampshire, and try to answer a question that has been asked, What is the need of this legislation in this state at this time? We have been asked j^'hat bill has ever been passed by our legislatures that was a disgrace to the state and which ought to have been re- pealed. I will refer to one, Mr. Chairman. There w^as a law on our statute books from the time our railroads were in- corporated down to 1897, saying that no man should ride upon a pass except stockholders going to and from stockhcklers' meetings and directors, and persons engaged m the express business and mail business. The legislature of 1897 added this pretty little amendment, "and other persons to whom passes may be issued by the proper officers." In other words, ho man shall ride upon a free pass except a man who has a free pass. That law. Sir, was a disgrace to the legislature which passed it. Do you think it would have passed by the vote of the people of New Hampshire if we had had the initiative and referendum at that time? The gentlemen who got that bill through, the interests that got it through, composed of the peo- ple, who benefited by riding for nothing, and the corporation which benefited by having a cheap kind of influence to deal Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 183 out would never dare to go before the people of New Hamp- shire with such a proposition. We need it, not merely to repeal laws which are an injury- to the state, but we need it to get bills which the legislature, session after session, re- fuses to pass. When the Federal income tax measure was up before the last legislature it passed the House by practically a unanimous vote. When it went to the Senate a careful canvass was made. We had a small majority in its favor. It went to a committee of three men, two of whom were opposed to it, and they held it in that committee until they brought pressure enough to bear upon everj- man in that Senate to kill it. If the people could have had a chance to vote on it, it would have been adopted by a vote of twenty to one in favor. There was another bill providing for the election of the United States senator by the people, a bill demanded by the Democratic platform, I be- lieve demanded by the people almost unanimously. It passed this House. It went into the Senate and there thirteen men put a veto upon the wishes and the will and the decisions of the majority of this House, and the majority of this whole state. Now this sort of thing happened over and over again. I do not believe there has been a legislature in the state of New Hampshire for twenty-five years where good measures which were demanded by the people and which the people would have passed have not been killed by the special inter- est that were opposed to them. Now we want a chance when our representatives, our delegates, the men who use the power to pass laws, w^hich belongs to the people, use it against our interest, we want a right to exercise that power direcrly ourselves; not merely turn off that agent and get a new one. The state, Mr, Chairman, is nothing but a corporation, an organization. How long do you think any private "Hiisiness corporation would prosper, how long do you think thi' ifi- terests of the stockholders ,would prosper if they had abso- lutely no power directly to do a thing, but only the power to hire agents for two years, be bound by their acts, and at the end of the two years either hire them over or hire another agent. The power of the legislature comes from the people, and it is really a strange thing that the people haven't had the right to exercise directly the power which they had the right to delegate. Now one more suggestion. It has been said the people of the state do not want it. I believe they do. There are some of you gentlemen who believe they do not. There is one way to settle that question, — put it up to the people, and let them 184 Journal of Constitutional Convention. vote upon it themselves. If the}- turn it down, I will be sat- isfied; and, if they adopt it, you ought to be satisfied. We are told ihqt the people of New Hampshire are not qualified to pass on these legislative matters. It needs an expert. Well now, your representative bodies are no more experts than the rest of you; there are no experts of legislation, and the bills which would go before the people of the state of New Hampshire can be decided by them exactly as intelligently and honestly as they can by 3'ou or any other body of men. Does it need an expert's trained mind to say that the law which says no person shall ride upon passes except people who have passes is foolish? Do you need trained minds to decide that? Do you need trained, minds to say whether people ought to have a right to elect their own senators directly? These legislative matters can be decided by the intelligence of the average people, the people of the state of New Hampshire, just as well, and better, in some ways, than they can be by the legislature. You can log-roll in the legislature, you can bring pressure to bear, you can trade, but you cannot log-roll the whole state of New Hampshire. It is absolutely impossible ro do it. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this measure will pass. I hoped it might have passed in its original form. Let me refer to that pass law again. It got on to the statute books and it took twelve years of agitation to get it off. Twelve years! It stayed there from 1897 to 1909, although there wasn't a single year in which the people wouldn't have voted to strike it off by an overwhelming majority. In order to get legisla- tion enacted it requires three things, the House, the Senate, and the Governor; and any private interest that is opposed to anj' law can block it bj^ getting control of just one cog in the legislative machine, generally the Senate. I believe this reso- lution would be to the benefit of the people of the state of New Hampshire, and I believe thej- will adopt it. Mr. Barton of Newport. — This matter, gentlemen, is one on which I have spent a large amount of thought. It raises the question of whether or not we are ready to change our pres- ent form of government, and it behooves us well lo pause and think before taking any radical step in this line. It sometimes amuses me as I hear men like my Brother Stevens, who has just spoken, speak of the initiative and ref- erendum as though they were modern contrivances, and as though our forefathers had never heard anything about them and were not familiar with them at the time they drafted our Constitution. But history tells us that they are very old con- trivances; indeed, as old as democratic government. Pure Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 185 democracy has been demonstrated over and over again to be a failure, and this our forefathers well knew at the time they framed our Federal Constitution. It is safe to say that there never were men of sounder judgment on matters surround- ing the formation of our Federal Constitution. They had be- fore them the history of European countries; they had seen the pure democracy both in Greece and in Rome. They had seen pure democracy followed by emperors; they had learned that there was no tyrant worse than the people themselves when aroused, and they realized, when the}' came to make a Constitution which was to be the foundation of a great gov- ernment, that it must contain checks and balances to the end that the sober judgment of the people should be regarded in- stead of a judgment that was the product of the heated talk of an aroused populace. That our Federal Constitution is the result of great deliberation I do not need to demonstrate, nor need I quote to show that it has been approved by the fore- most statesmen of the last century. Our forefathers adopted a representative form of govern- ment, as jou know, composed of a legislative department, a judicial department, and an executive department. In the legislative department we have two branches, the House and the Senate. The Senate is supposed to be composed of a lit- tle choicer selection of men than is required for membership in the House, men who have had experience in legislative af- fairs. When a measure passes the House it goes to the Senate, where it can again be thrashed out. Thus we have a check on the action of the House. Beyond the Senate it meets the Gov- ernor. The Governor looks over the legislation that has passed the House and Senate, and, if it seems best to him that it should not become law, affixes his veto. Talk about checks! This government was framed with the very idea of providing checks. The gentleman who spoke, I think it was Mr. Davis, called the proposed measure a check in the hands of the people. The idea of the initiative and referendum being called a check! His illustrations could better be used by the opposition than by the side he represents. Of course a horse with neither check nor rein is liable to run away sometimes, and as a matter of fact there are many horses w^hich run away in spite of checks and strong harnesses. I am unable to see his point. His little lantern on the finger (his finger) may be the Senate or the Governor "poking through the fence" more truly than the great mass of voters acting upon half truths and misinformation. The gentlemen who introduce this measure are not novices; they are not fellows who were born yesterday, not by any 186 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. manner nor means. They have drawn a resolution jreally com- posed of two parts. One is a device for making laws, and the other for amending- the Constitution. They intended when they drew it that it would pass, unchallenged, as one propo- sition. Mr. Stevens said he hoped it would. They "tried it on" and when they saw it was going hard, got cold feet and asked permission to withdraw the second feature. They say it calls for the referendum only, and expressly disclaim that it embraces the initiative feature. A careful examination of the resolution reveals the fact that the initiative has been covered, for on page 4 it reads: "In case an act or resolve proposed in the General Court fails to be passed by that Gen- eral Court, then on petition of the number of voters last above stated, and filed with the Secretary of State not less than four months previous to the next ensuing state election, said act or resolve in its original form or in such amended form proposed in the General Court as may be petitioned for by such petitioners shall be submitted to the voters at the next ensuing state election." Now what do w^e need to do if we desire to start legislation by this initiative plan? We put a bill into the legislature, allow it to be defeated, then put it up to the people by petition. Any old scheme when it has been disapproved by the legislature is in order for the bal- lot, if endorsed by the required number of voters. So yon see they have incorporated the initiative indirect!}' in this resolution, as well as the referendum. This is the beginning. Gentlemen. We are told that this is just the referendum; that no attempt has been made to embrace the initiative; that no- body can object to the referendum only, and yet we can see what the plan really covers. This is the entering wedge. 11 successful here something else will be attempted, and New Hampshire must make her stand right here or go before socialism to the very limit. They do not attempt the recall at this time, but they are ready when the opportunity is ripe to advance this feature. It will be preceded by the usual cry, "All the people want it." "Will you not trust the people?" Thus they hope to embarrass us in our reply and to prejudice us in the minds of the ignorant even before we have had a chance to explain. The whole scheme is vicious unless we are ready to change our present form of government. We have rested secure as a state for more than one hundred j-ears. Do we want to change? We have probably made a few mistakes in New Hampshire, but they have pointed to but two in a period of one hundred years. Don't you think that if we miss fire only twice in the course of one hundred years it is a Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 187 pretty good record? They point to the old pass laws and saj-^ they were bad, and I dare say they are correct in this. The gentleman said the people would have repealed these years ago if they had only had a chance. How does he know but what the people thought they were a pretty good thing? I can remember when the people thought the pass system was a most excellent arrangement. There was a time when we paid our bills and had a little money to spare, but it now looks as though we were not going to have monej-^ much longer. I am not defenaing free passes, Gentlemen, but I have simply never taken any interest in the subject. When I was in the legislature, in common with the rest, I had a free pass, and, if the Boston & Maine had ever insinuated that I must stand up and be counted for them, we would have come to blows. But all this is a matter of history. The free pass was tolerated by the old school of politicians, who thought, I presume, they were making friends by it. The gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, says, most un- warrantably, as it seems to me, that the people of New Hamp- shire desire to have the United States senators elected by the people instead of by the legislature. He sajs the people all want the change. How does he know? It was my privilege to go before the committee of the House and Senate in 1911 and speak against it. I spoke for myself and for many others who thought as I did. I don't believe, just as strongly as Mr. Ste-vens does believe, that the people desire this change. I feel that we still have in our state a large number of people who be- lieve that the fathers were wise in the manner they selected for choosing United States senators, and, if that matter were in order for discussion at the present time, there are many things I would like to say. Suffice it to say that we don't pro- pose to let the subject go by default when it does come before the people, so my Brother Stevens cannot mention it as some- thing which shows how the people have been robbed. So I conclude that the history of the free pass is no argument, and the manner of electing United States senators cuts no figure in the present discussion. The bold assertions made by Mr. Stevens are supposed to draw some glory to the scheme of the initiative and referendum. Gentlemen, I am deeply interested in this matter, and I want to have New Hampshire take a stand that is compatible with the common, solid sense of the past intellect in our state. We are assembled here as a Constitutional Convention made up of delegates from all over the state, and we have amc^g our number those who have good, clear, strong intellects, and 188 Journal of Constitutional Convention. I crave their best judgment on this occasion. Let us not give hot-headed, impulsive judgment, whittled into shape by think- ing that some of our rights in the past have been taken from us, but let us, rather, realize that we are citizens of New Hampshire who have all had our rights under the law; who have had in our halls of legislation illustrious men, as gov- ernors fine types of manhood, and as judges men whose in- tegrity has never seriously been questioned. In this manner then let us proceed, not seeking some new device, not trying to catch on to some new fashion, not look- ing for some sort of change, but attending to our duties in a clean, manly, straightforward manner, proud of our his- tory which exhorts such a course. Mr. Drake of Pittsflcld. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, for the benefit of those members who do not seem to know that the initiative and referendum is operative any- where else than in Switzerland, I will read you an extract showing w^here it is in operation here in the United States. "The first state to vote upon the initiative and referendum was South Dakota in 1897. Jackpot senators and partners in legal graft denounced the fad and predicted its repudiation at the polls. The vote stood 23,000 for and 16,000 against it. "The second time the idea was submitted to an American electorate was in Oregon in 1902. There were the same tear- ful appeals to the ways of the fathers, the same gnashing of political teeth. But the people smiled and calmly voted the new heresy into their Constitution by a majority of 10 to 1. "Nevada came next in 1904. The 'interests' snarled as usual and with the same result. It was a 6 to 1 majority for the new doctrine. "The fourth state was Montana, in 1906. The returns showed that there were 36,374 voters who were tired of representatives that did not represent. There were 6,616 meek persons who thought that they had better be ruled by the legislature. "Oklahoma, in 1907, was the fifth state to raise the issue. Immediately a chorus went up against putting the initiative and referendum in the Constitution. 'It will drag the Con- stitution down to defeat,' they said. 'Congress will reject it.* 'The President will not sanction it.' The initiative and ref- erendum were written into the new charter, which was adopted by a majority of over 100,000. "After five unbroken victories the idea moved East. Maine was the next battleground. In September of 1908 the question was submitted there. On the Saturday before election glaring advertisements and paid editorials were run in the newspapers Wednesday, June 12, 19.12. 189 all over the state, telling what a calamity it would be to adopt the initiative and referendum. It was a clever stroke, and it secured 23,712 votes against the proposition. But there were .51,991 votes for it. "Six victories and no defeat was the record. Then in No- vember of this same year the popularity of the idea was tested in Missouri. There were eight constitutional amendments sub- mitted. Only two of them carried. One was a good roads measure, which had a majority of 20,000. The other was the initiative and referendum, which had a majority of 31,000. "In 1910 two more states were added to the list, — Arkansas, by a vote of 91,000 to 39,000, and Colorado, by a vote of 89,- 000 to 28,000." Since then the voters of Arizona and California have adopted the initiative and referendum by large majorities; and, in ad- dition to these, seven other states will have the question sub- mitted to the voters during this year, and in this connection I will say that in everj^ state where the initiative and refer- endum amendments have been submitted to the people thus far they have been adopted. In Maine, where the amendment was adopted in 1908, tne people last year for the first time used the initiative. They wanted a direct primary law which the legislature had re- fused to enact, so they got up initiative petitions which were signed by over 15,000 voters, asking that a direct primary measure be submitted to the people to be voted upon and the result was that the voters adopted it by a large majority, and they now have the direct primary, and it will be used for the first time there within a few days. So you see that the initiative and referendum is not entirely a foreign or "Wild Western" scheme, but is working admir- ably right here in Xew England. I will read what a few noted men say of it in the states where it has been adopted. Robert L. Owen, United States senator from Oklahoma, says: "The initiative and referendum is the soul of the democracy, the means by which majority rule can be established over a minority using machine politics and corrupt practices. By the initiative the people can get any law they do want; and by the referendum veto any law they do not want. You will find all the special interests and perhaps a few good men mis- led and all the crooks in the state ojiposed to the initiative and referendum." William D. Stephens, representative in Congress from Cal- ifornia, saj's: "In the city of Los Angeles we have had the 190 Journal of Constitutional Convention. initiative, the referendum, and the recall for almost ten years, and each succeeding- election has shown that the people of my city are more strongly in favor of all of these proposi- tions than they were at the previous election."' Herbert C. Libby, president Maine Keferendum League: "It is an historical fact that no body of people once adopting the principle of direct legislation, as embodied in the initiative and referendum, has ever cast it aside, and this fact is ex- tremely suggestive and prophetic in so far as the state of Maine is concerned. Now that the principle of direct legisla- tion has been adopted there is no likelihood whatever that the people of this state will ever vote it out of the Consti- tution. It has come to stay. The people are coming to like the idea that they have power of a positive kind over the leg- islature, and they are already using that power." Now if this referendum amendment is adopted, what changes will it make in our present system of legislation? At the present time the most of the acts passed by our legislature take effect immediately. If we adopt the referendum, as it is called, none of the acts (except appropriation bills and laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety) take effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the session. If during these ninety days any voter discovers that any act or any section, item or part of any act is objectionable, all he has to do is to copy the act or the part of the same to which he objects, and state that the undersigned protests against the same, then sign it and get as many of his neighbors to sign it as he chooses to, and then send it to the Secretary of State. If 4,000 of the voters enter their protest against any act, or part of any act, during the said ninety days, then that act, or part, protested against does not become a law, but is held up until the next general election. Two months before the general election the Secretary of State will have a leaflet printed containing the proposed legislation with the best argument that its friends care to make for it, also the best argument that its op- ponents care to make against it. Thus the voter has the pro- posed law, together with the arguments for and against the measure, right before him, and can form his opinion, go to the polls and vote "yes" if he favors the measure, or "no" if he opposes it, voting in the same manner that he would vote on a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Legislatures sometimes refuse to pass desirable laws. The people in this case have no redress except to wait and try to elect a legislature that will yield to public opinion. To remedy this we propose the following: Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 191 "In case an act or resolve proposed in the General Court fails to be passed by that General Court, then on petition of the number of voters last above stated, and filed with the Secretary of State not less than four months previous to the next ensuing- election, said act or resolve in its original form or in such amended form proposed in the General Court as may be petitioned for by such petitioners shall be submitted to the voters at the next ensuing state election, and shall take effect if a majoritj^ of the votes cast thereon is in the af- firmative; otherwise it shall not take effect. If accepted by the voters, such measure shall become law in thirty days after the said state election." This will do away with the spectacle of seeing our House of Representatives, consisting of about four hundred mem- bers, pass measures practically unanimously, only to have those same measures held up and defeated by a dozen or more men in the Senate. I have had a little experience with legislation of this kind myself, for at the last session of our legislature Mr. Upton and mj'self introduced bills "To prohibit the transmission of electric power beyond the confines of the state," when gen- erated by water power within the state. These bills meant more to the future welfare of the state than any law that has been passed for years, because if we can only retain our water power in the state, New Hampshire is destined to be- come the wealthiest state in the Union. The average citizen, who has made no study in regard to the water powers of the state, has no conception of the vast amount of wealth which they contain. It is said that the horse power of the water powers of this state is more than that of any available equal area anywhere else in the civilized world, for the western boundary of our state is the west bank of the Connecticut. This river, with its vast water powers added to the water power of our other rivers and streams, both developed and undeveloped, affords a stupendous amount of water power worth millions of dollars and is constantly becoming more valuable as the knowledge of electricity and its transmission increases. Mr. Wa^on of Nashua. — I rise to a point of order. I don't know anything about the water powers, or what that has to do with the initiative and referendum. Mr. Drake of Pittsfield. — Mr. Chairman, I think I will show I was not out of order. I was only showing what became of this bill. 192 Journal OF Constitutional Convention. Mr. Wason of Nashua.— I call for a ruling-, if the gentleman persists. The Chairma n.-^The gentleman will proceed, bearing in mind the subject matter. I think I will not rule he is out of order as j-et. Mr. Drake of Pittsfield. — I was only going to show an instance of where the referendum would have been of much importance. I will simply say that it is a matter of record. You can see what became of this bill. Here is the Senate amendment. In the Senate it was simply turned down and certain parts of it cut out. Well, enough for that. At the annual session of our State Grange last December it became my dutj', as chairman of the committee on resolu- tions, to present to the meeting a series of resolutions. Among these resolutions was one favoring the initiative and referendum, which w^as adopted without a word of dissension. It was as follows: "Resolved, That we, the members of the New Hampshire State Grange, in thirty-eighth annual session assembled, hereby urge the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1912 to sub- mit to the voters of New Hampshire a constitutional amend- ment embodying the principles of the initiative and referendum, that the sense of the voters maj^ be taken thereon." This resolution was passed without a word of discussion, although there were a thousand or more members of the Grange present at that time. Our worthy master of the State Grange w^as so fearful that they did not fully understand the matter that, the next day, he had this resolution reconsidered and referred to the sub- ordinate granges, as I will read from the records: "State Master Pattee moved and it was voted that the section or resolution in the report dealing with the initiative and referendum be referred to the subordinate Granges, with in- structions to act thereon, and that the policy of the State Grange, in reference thereto, be determined by the action taken in the subordinate Granges." The report of the committee on resolutions, as amended, was adopted, thus putting into practice the very principle of ref- erendum. I have just received a letter from the secretary of the State Grange, saying that the vote of the Subordinate Granges heard from throughout the state was over three to one in favor of the measure. The executive committee of the State Grange met in this city last Friday and endorsed the nction of the Subordinate Granges, and requested the legisla- tive committee to work for the initiative and referendum. Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 193 The initiative and referendum is sometimes called progres- sive legislation, but, in fact, here in New Hampshire it is more than a centurj^ and a quarter old, for we have had com- pulsorj' referendum on all constitutional amendments for the past one hundred and twenty-nine years. This Convention is an initiative and referendum body. The people took the initi- ative and voted to call a Convention, and every amendment which we adopt here has the referendum attached to it, and must be referred to and voted upon by the people who say whether it shall or shall not become a part of our State Con- stitution. The men who framed our Constitution were Progressives of the most radical type and were more than fifty years ahead of the times in which they lived, as shown by no amendments being made to the Constitution for sixty years after its adoption. If, instead of being such thorough Progressives, they had been as conservative and reactionary as some men with whom I have talked since this Convention opened, we should today be under British rule and paying tribute to the throne of England. Mr. FillsMry of LorKtooidetTy. — It isn't my purpose in making this motion to stifle anj' debate, but we have debated this question pretty fulh% it seems to me. We spent all day yes- terday on a question onlj' yet partially discussed. We have spent fifteen thousand dollars or more of the twent^'^-five thou- sand provided. We have already introduced fifty-seven amend- ments to the Constitution, and if we do not get a vote pretty soon we shall be here next fall, and I think we should begin to do business. Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry moved that the Committee proceed to vote. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Does the gentleman desire to press his motion at this time? Mr. Pillsbnry of Londonderry withdrew his motion. Mr. Lyford of Concm'd. — It would be presumption on my part to say that I did not propose to waste time. I hardly think the gentleman realized the import of his remarks. Mr. PUlsMry of Londonderry. — I will say for the information of the gentleman that I supposed we were to have a fair amount of discussion on these questions. I do not believe we can fully discuss fifty-seven questions and allow a day on 194 Journal of Constitutional Convention. each question, on twenty-five thousand dollars, and when the $3.00 a day has expired it will be more inconvenient for some of us to come, 1 presume. We are sent here to use, it seems to me, a fair amount pf time on each question, but we have only discussed two this week and they are not yet fully dis- cussed, and it is Wednesday, nearly Wednesday night; and if we do not beg-in to vote, or limit the time of discussion to five minutes under the five-minute rule which previous Con- ventions have adopted, we won't get through the business of this Convention. I will withdraw my remarks and my mo- tion for the benefit of the gentleman that he may discuss this question, but I think we should have a definite time when we are going to do business. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Mr. Chairman Mr. Morse of Neiomarket. — Mr. Chairman, I rise for an in- quiry. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I yield to the gentleman. Mr. Morse of Netamarket. — Wouldn't it be more fair to all par- ties that we vote on this as some special order, say tomorrow at 12 o'clock? That will give all of those who are for and against the proposed amendment an opportunity to be here, and some are absent. Mr. W7 who leported to the legislature of 1909, it was found that timber lands, when assessed, were only assessed at about thirty per cent of their value; and that not one-tenth of the money at interest and securities representing that money was taxed at all. S'o that the state is now confronted with the proposition that under the Constitution and under the existing law, all properties must bear the same proportionate part of the public burdens, with- out reference to their character or quality. That the owners Thuksday, June 13, 1912. 209 of timber lands cannot, or, clearly, will not continue their standing" timber, yielding but a small percentage of growth to bear the proportionate part of the public burden required by the existing constitutional requirement, must be manifest to us all. And monej- at interest is so elusive and so easily trans- ferred and transformed into a form where the taxgatherer cannot reach it, it is useless to expect that this class of prop- erty-, if it may properly be designated as property, wall con- tinue to be held by its present owners, unless there is some equitable method adopted for placing upon it a different rate, or a different burden is imposed from that upon other kinds of property. I favor the classification of these two general classes of prop- erty. I do not thus favor their classification because it is to extend to these properties special privileges or special immuni- ties, but because I believe it is the only practical way, through taxation, to promote and subserve, as well as conserve, the In- terests of the state. I do not believe, as a general proposition, in the relief of one class of people, through taxation, for the benefit of others. I believe in absolutely unqualified equality of burden wherever that is practicable. Taxation is the method provided by the state to secure from each person his equitable contribution towards the mainte- nance of the government. The taxpayer makes his contribu- tion in consideration of the protection he receives for his life, for his liberty, and for his property. The tax a man pays is not a gift to some unknown, imaginary being, or entity. It is simply the price that that man pays for the maintenance of the government, in consideration for which the government is obliged in return to protect him in his life, in his liberty and in the possession of his property. The eontribution by the citizen for this purpose and govern- mental protection, in consideration of it, are reciprocal. And any man who pays more than his proportionate part of the burden, as indicated by the organic law, is paying not alone for his own protection but for that of another; while any man who pays less than his proportionate, equitable part of the public burden is simply getting, without contribution, and Avithout consideration, protecton of his life, liberty and property. Therefore, there is no proposition here involved, and should not be, for the relief of any person, or any class of persons, or any property, or any class of property, from bearmg its fair and equitable proportion of the public burden. 210 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention. Under this method of classification, the timber lands of the state can be equitably and reasonably taxed, without oppress- ing their owners, and without forcing their owners to strip the lands of the forests, which should be continued growing for many years to come. It is not for this bo^y to prescribe any rule whereby this result can be accomplished. It is simply for us to recommend to the people the adoption of a general principle whereby the legislature will be permitted to equitably and reasonably class- ify and impose such a reasonable burden upon this class of property that the owners will feel justified in continuing its existence and paying an equitable contribution for the protec- tion that is afforded them. In the case of money at interest, it is manifest, from the ex- perience of the past, that the owner of this form of property will not continue to hold the securities in which it is invested subject to that rule of taxation which now exists. The money can be converted, and, of course, the interest of the parties will prompt them to convert it, into securities that are non-taxable. In the past, there is no question but that, conservatively esti- mated, there has been in this state, $100,000,000 of taxable in- tangibles. While during the years that this, or the money that was thus invested, existed, the records show that less than eight per cent, and, in many instances, only about five per cent of it, has been taxed. This being so, it is manifest, simply from the standpoint of securing revenue, that it wdll be better for the state to have a moderate percentage, say one-half of one per cent imposed upon property of this character rather than drive it out of the state, or into non-taxable securities. There is an- other feature which should not be overlooked, and that is, that the holding of securities, such as bonds at a comparatively low rate of interest should not be discouraged. There is a large body of people, including trustees and persons whose business capacity is more or less limited, who, if not permitted to own bonds of a high grade, bearing a reasonable rate of taxation, will be forced to invest their money in questionable securities, and that certainly will be not only individually unfortunate but collectively Injurious to the best interests of the people of the state. Therefore, it is better to permit the legislature to use its sound judgment ^vith respect to this class of property, as well as wood and timber lands. This authorization does not compel the legislature to make the classification of both, or either, but it grants them permis- sion, in case the well-being of the state, in their judgment, justifies and requires it. This is all that this provision would result in. Thursday, June 13, 1912. 211 In another resolution, pending- before the Convention, and now before this Committee for discussion, it is proposed to in- clude, for taxation, and classification, stocks in corporations, as well as loans, or other money at interest. The amendment to which I direct your attention does not go to this extent; nor am I in favor of going to such an extent, be- cause to tax stock, the property it represents already being taxed, here or elsewhere, would be, as held by our Court, double taxation. To tax the stock, the property it represents being already taxed, or taxable, would not only be double taxa- tion, but would violate the principle of our Bill of Rights, which requires, as interpreted by the Court, that taxation shall be "reasonable." So it would not be just, because not reasonable, J;o tax both. A certificate of stock, as every one knows, and must recognize, is merely evidence of title. A corporation is nothing but an incorporated co-partnership. It is a mere ag- gregation of individuals who combine their property and give certificates of stock to evidence the title of the respective stock- holders to their proportionate part of the property of the cor- poration. The certificate of stock in a corporation is no more property than a deed to land is property, — each is a mere piece of evidence, — the evidence of title to the property which it represents. While it might be justifiable, if constitutionally permissible, to tax the income from stocks, a proposition which I would favor, I would not favor the taxation of the certificate of stock, or the double taxation of the property which it represents. And for this reason, the subject of stock taxation should not be considered or conjoined with the subject of the taxation of money at interest. Bach sbould stand upon its own basis, because it represents different elements of property. And for the reasons suggested, I trust the Committee will consider favorably the amendment which I propose, and in the form in which it now stands. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important questions that is to come before this Convention, for it relates to the fiscal policy of this state. My colleague from Ward 4. Concord, has explained the legal aspect of this amend- ment most clearly. I desire to address myself to the practical side of the question. So far as it relates to intangibles, that is to say, money at interest, bonds, mortgages and credits, the experience of this state is no different from the experience of other states, in attempting to tax these evidences of debt at the eame rate that property is taxed. It has been the experience of this state for years, as it has been the experience of other states. In 1878, the legislature of this state passed what 212 Journal of Constitutional Convention. was known as the inventory law, which was rigidly enforced the first year after its adoption, and the returns from intangi- bles, which had been about four millions up to that time, jumped to seventeen millions, — as I recall the figures. The next year they fell to fifteen or twelve millions, and within five years the amount of intangibles returned had decreased to the sum that existed before the law was passed. The reason for this was that people who held bonds bearing a low rate of interest, either did not return them, or, if forced to return, lied about their property, or they sold the property, or they moved out of the state. In the state of Ohio they have resorted to all kinds of drastic methods, except physical torture, to force people to disclose this kind of property, so that it should be taxed at the same rate as tangible property, and the experience- of that state is the experience of all other states in that re- spect. The Tax Commission of the state of Ohio summarized the result by saying it had driven property out of the state, and that where it had not driven property out of the state it has made of the people who held it a commonwealth of per- jurers. The reason is not far to see, when you take from fifty to seventy-five per cent of the income of property for taxes, it becomes confiscation of that income. This method strikes not at the wealthy man, he can look out for himself, but at the widow and the orphan, whose inherited property having to go through the Probate Court is discovered by the assessors. The practical question is brought home to a person of limited means. A man has a life insurance of ten thousand dollars. He dies and leaves a widow and children. The only investment for a woman to make in such circum- stances would be in some safe security, municipal bonds that would pay only four per cent interest. *S'he would thus have an income of $400, yet, taxed at the same rate that other prop- erty is taxed, you immediately take from her one-half of that income, and in some towns of this state you would take three- quarters of the income. Now people are willing to bear their fair share of the public burden, and in the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania, where their Constitutions are not drawn ex- actly like ours, they have been able to classify intangibles. They did that years ago in the city of Baltimore. Before the classification took place, when all property was taxed at the same rate, there were voluntarily returned to the assessors $6,000,000 of intangibles. In twelve years after the classifica- tion, by which intangibles, instead of being taxed two per cent, were taxed at the rate of four mills, the amount had increased by voluntary return to $160,000,000. Now as a practical ques- Thursday, June 13, 1912. 213 tion, wasn't it better for the state of Maryland to tax these evidences of debt at the rate of four mills, and receive taxes on $1(30,000,000, than it was to tax them at the same rate as prop- erty, and receive taxes only on six millions of dollars? Why, the best illustration of the practical effect of the classi- fication of this kind of property is shown in the growth of the savings bank deposits of this state. Within twenty-five years they have more than doubled, and during- that time we had a panic that took several million dollars out of the banks. Do you suppose that if we undertook to tax savings bank deposits at the same rate that we tax other property that you could hold ninety to a hundred millions of accumulations in the savings banks? Not by a good deal. Within a few years, if the sav- ings banks paid such a tax, they would have to reduce the divi- dends, and within a few years you would have drawn out of the savings bank more than half, if not three-quarters, of the deposits, and they would be invested somewhere else. I say to you that this is a practical question going to the revenue of the state. The question came up before the legislatures of this state, and if I mistake not, the last legislative body asked the opinion of the Supreme Court in regard to whether the legislature had the right to classify property, because this very subject was under consideration, and the Supreme Court de- cided in the negative. I ask my colleague from Ward 4, Mr. Mitchell, if this is not a fact. Mr. Mitchell of Concwd. — The legislature certainly has not that right. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — The opinion of the Court was given at that time as stated by my colleague from Concord. You are asked, in considering this amendment, to give power to the leg-islatiire to deal with this question in a practical and sensible way. You are not establishing the classification of property here, but you are giving to the legislature, which is representa- tive of the people, the right to determine whether it is good policy or not to classify this kind of ' property, that there may be honesty on the part of individuals who hold it, and that the local communities may derive more revenue therefrom. Mr. Boynton of Portsmonth. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, the gentlemen who have preceded me stated es- sentially the facts relative to the tax problem in this state at this time. I desire to speak on the resolution relative to tax- ation which I have introduced, and also cover certain other con- ditions not previously referred to. This resolution in form is the same as the one introduced by the gentleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, with the exception 214 Journal of Constitutional Convention. that there is added after the words "wild and forest lands" the words "stock, stock in public funds, bonds," and there is also added the following paragraph, providing for an income tax: ". . . and also to impose and levy an income tax (not exceeding ten per cent) on the income from any or all the kinds or classes of intangible property last mentioned, and it may graduate the tax according to the amount of the income and may grant reasonable exemptions; provided that if such tax be levied on the income from any such intangible property, no other tax shall be levied on such stocks, stock in public funds, bonds, money at interest, or any other intangible property against the owner or holder thereof." The amendment, if adopted, will allow^ the legislature to clas- sify and specially rate and assess wild and forest lands, stock, stock in public funds, bonds, and money at interest, or it may assess an income tax on intangible propertj^ in lieu of a direct tax, as provided. During the period between the time of the adoption of the first Constitution and the year 1875, property, both tangible and intangible, was on a comparatively equal basis for purposes of taxation, interest rates on both bonds and notes ruling at 6 per cent to 10 per cent as late as 1875. Since the last-named date interest rates have been gradually decreasing. In recent years the rates on United States Government bonds have been 2 per cent and 3 per cent. State bonds 3 per cent and 31/2 per cent. Municipal and Railroad bonds sy, and 4 per cent, and mortgage loans in this state generallj^ at 5 per cent. In the period previous to 1875 it was not unreasonable to as- sess property, both tangible and intangible, on the same basis. With the reduction in rate of interest since 1875, that plan has become more and more unjust, until at the present time it amounts substantially to confiscation, as it takes more than 50 per cent of the income to pay taxes on intangible property when returned. Stock is added to the taxable list and may be subject to some criticism. It would appear necessarj', as under present laws some New Hampshire and foreign stocks are taxed and the legislature should have power to tax, or exempt, stock as conditions may require to make assessments of property equit- able. At the present time stocks are generally exempt in the hands of individuals. In the hands of savings banks, however, by reason of taxing the deposits and not the property itself, the banks are not allowed to take exemption for stock, but there would appear to be no reason why securities of that class should Thursday, June 13, 1912. 215 be exempt in the hands of individuals and not exempt in the hands of savings banks representing deposits of small amounts averaging $400 to $500 in money, icJien it is proposed to specially rate and assess tliis class of pwperty. You must bear in mind that the present method of assess- ing this tax on savings bank deposits is open to question, and this amendment, in part, is intended to correct that defect. Now, as to the amount of intangible property returned and taxed. The report of the tax commission for the year 1911 gives the following totals: Stock in public funds $1,873,413 Stock in banks and other corporations in this state.. 3,331,655 Stock in corporations out of this state 294,140 Money on hand, at interest, or on deposit 3,403,180 Total $8,902,388 On a total assessment of $263,074,386 for that year this is only .0338 per cent of the total rate. , At the average rate taxed, 2.101 per cent the amount of taxes received from intangible property under present laws is only $187,039. The savings deposits amount approximately to one hundred million dollars. An income tax of 10 per cent levied thereon would return to the state substantially the same rev- enue it now receives. I believe I am conservative in stating that there is an equal amount of intangible property in the state in the hands of in- dividuals, which, if assessed on an income basis, would give the cities and towns a revenue equal to five hundred thousand dol- lars, instead of $187,039, which is now realized under present laws. The enforcement of the law is now driving the most conserva- tive investments out of the state and holders are compelled to shift their investments into stock equities, some of them none too good, as I have reason to know. iVs an economic proposition, it would be better not to tax in- tangibles rather than continue present methods. Now, if this resolution is adopted and the legislature spe- cially rates intangibles, or assesses an income tax thereon, the revenue from that source will increase, will reduce changes on real estate and business and save a situation which is becoming acute in all sections of the state. I am opposed to an income tax which will involve taxing the income from real property, business, or salaries, as this class of property is now fully burdened. 216 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — The provisions, in amendments, au- thorizing exemptions within the income tax provisions, author- ize what the gentleman from Portsmouth desires, assuming that the legislature adopts his views. In other words, I had in mind what the gentleman suggested and provided for and I have failed to properly express my purpose, unless I have suc- ceeded in accomplishing what he suggests, — that is, giving to the legislature authority to tax, indirectl3% through the taxa- tion of the income, instead of taxing directly the property, the principal. Mr. Crawford of Manchester moved th'at the Committee recommend that the Convention agree to Resolution No. 5, Relating to Taxation of AVild and Forest Lands and Money at Interest, as amended by Mr. Mitchell of Concord. Question being on the motion of Mr. Crawford of Man- chester,^ — Mr. Crawford of Manchester'. — I do not want to discuss this question at all. My motion will bring the resolution, as I un- derstand it, in some shape for discussion. Resolution No. 39 seems to me not an amendment to Resolution No. 5, but comes in as a substitute for the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows. Now this firing at all of these without coming to any point, not only in discussion, but our action, and to make some progress in our work I make the motion. Of course it will be open then for discussion that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, be adopted. Mr. Boynton of Poi^tsmouth moved to amend the motion of Mr. Crawford of Manchester by substituting Resolution No. 39, Relating to the Taxation of Wild Lands, for Reso- lution No. 5, Relating to the Taxation of Wild and Forest Lands and Money at Interest. Question being on the amendment of Mr. Boynton to the motion of Mr. Crawford, — Mr. Fuller of Exeter.— li seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is not wise for us to be too precipitate. It certainly is not wise that we should make haste in a matter of this kind, too much haste. The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, has reminded us of Thursday, June 13, 1912. 217 the extreme importance of this subject. Not only is the subject important, but to get it in the right shape is impor- tant, and every detail of it is important. This is a matter of an amendment to the fundamental law of the state. If any one of these resolutions we are considering" is adopted, we are aban- doning absolutely all the constitutional laws we huve had, all the fundamental law we have had on the subject of taxation, the onlj^ question being how far we shall go from it, and it does not seem to me it is wise for us to do that after merely hearing the remarks of two or three gentlemen. There are one or two things that strike me. One is this, that while we are told we must not have any double taxation, one of the gentlemen who spoke said that one reason for the form in which his motion was put was to avoid double taxa- tion, his motion itself creates double taxation within the deci- sions of the same Court to which his Court succeeded, the Supreme Court of Xew Hampshire. That is to say, if I under- stood it right, it empowers the legislature to tax money In sav- ings banks outside this state. If that is not double taxation, then let it go as absolutely wrong as to what constitutes dou- ble taxation. He said it was the typical example of double taxation. He said it was the same to tax here my money in a Massachusetts savings bank, as it is to tax my horse in a Massachusetts pasture. It strikes me Judge Doe is right, and if he was and we are going to strike it out, let us find out whether this creates double taxation. Let us consider whether other parts of this same amendment are not authorizing double taxation, or authorize the legislature to create double taxation and it seems to me there is doubt enough in this situation to warrant us in spending at least another day or two in thinking it over, in secret if not debating it here any further, and I hope the motion to report this will be debated. In short, 1 hope that motion will not prevail. Mr. Stevens of Landaff.—I hope the resolution to report the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tilton will not pre- vail at this time, for this reason. There are several amend- ments, I believe, that are in, all covering the subject of taxa- tion. Now Resolution No. 33 is broader than any other resolu- tion oifered. It includes practically every other amendment, and if it were adopted it would make unnecessary any vote upon the other amendments, and it seems to me the logical way to go about the voting is to take first the broadest amend- ment that is offered and consider that, and then take up in turn the others. 218 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — I hope the amendment proposed by the g-entleman from Portsmouth, Mr. Boynton, will not be adopted. In that amendment we find the words "except wild and forest lands." In the amendment as proposed by Mr. Mitchell of Concord the words "g-rowing wood and timber" are substituted. The langnag-e of the Mitchell amendment seems more apt to express the intention of the friends of the resolu- tion and was adopted after a conference with Mr. Fellows, who introduced the first resolution. The proposed change in the language of the original resolu- tion is important. The words "wild land" have been construed by the court and have a limited meaning, while the words "forest lands" are generally construed to refer only to large tracts of timber land. It is intended to cover the small tract of growing timber that may have been sometime connected with tillage land as well as the large areas of forest lands. This part of the proposed amendment is of vital interest to the farmer who has a small tract of growing timber that he wants' to preserve; it is of interest to every man who is en- gaged in the summer hotel business, and to the farmer who finds a market for his produce at such hotels. It is of interest to the large timber owners in the state; and of vital interest to the manufacturers who are dependent for power upon a steady flow of the streams in New Hampshire. It is in the line of forest preservation. We know the state is expending a large sum of money in the purchase of Crawford Notch, and the United States government is also spending large sums of money in the purchase of large areas of forest land, in the White Mountains and elsewhere, in the interest of forest preservation. This resolution is along the same line. The change irf language, as proposed in the Boynton amend- ment, touches all of us who are interested in the proposed change in the Constitution. The words "growing wood and timber" seem to express the purpose to be gained better than the words, "wild and forest lands." I hope the Boynton amendment Avill not be adopted. Mr. Bottnton of Portsmouth. — I would not object to that sub- stitution if the gentleman desires it. Mr. Jones of Manchester. — It seems to me, Gentlemen of the Committee, that it would be the height of folly for this Com- mittee at this time to report to the Convention a recommenda- tion that any particular amendment be agreed to. Here are five or six, all looking toward the same subject, and they are all open to discussion by this Committee while in session. It Thursday, June 13, 1912. 219 is a very, very important thing indeed that if the Convention is to propose an amendment to the Constitution regarding the taxation of property, it should be put in the right shape, so that when it goes to the people, the people may know what they are voting upon, and the officers of the state, both execu- tive and judicial, may know what the people have voted on af- terwards. Now there seem to be here two propositions, or three propositions. One is that the legislature shall be al- lowed to classify intangibles; another, that the legislature shall be allowed to classify growing wood and timberland, and the third that the legislature shall be allowed to impose a tax upon the income of various intangibles. Now it seems to me that instead of making a motion and passing it in this Committee, that we recommend to the Con- vention that the proposed amendments to the Cons,titution of- fered by Mr. Fellows of Tilton, as amended by Judge Mitchell of Concord, be agreed to; or that the proposed amendment of Mr. Boj^nton of Portsmouth be substituted for them, and then recommend that to the Convention, so that when we get into the Convention the vote will be, shall we agree to this and submit this to the people, another course is preferable. I do not think that is the way to go to work. Here are, as I say, these amendments. Now it is pretty easy to make a motion which will bring before this Convention just what everybody wants to find out, and that is, is the Committee in favor of giving to the legislature the opportunity, if in its judgment it sees fit to do so, to classify intangibles, growing wood and timber, and impose a tax upon the income from intangibles. It seems to me that if the two motions which are before the Committee could be withdrawn, and another motion made that it is the sense of this Committee that the legislature be given the power to classify intangibles and growing wood and tim- ber, and to impose an income tax upon the income from in- tangibles, then we have got the thing where the Committee is recommending something. Then if that motion should pre- vail, — I don't know whether it will or not, — but if it should be the opinion of the Committee that it is advisable to give these powers to the legislature, then this Committee can report to the Convention all these proposed amendments, with the rec- ommendation to the Convention that the whole matter be referred to the proper Standing Committee with instructions to that Committee to report back to the Convention, as soon as possible, an amendment to the Constitution which will em- body the things which the Committee here have voted they 220 Journal of Constitutional Convention. want to give to the legislature the power to do: and it seems to me if the two motions made could be withdrawn and a motion made whereby we can get an expression of opinion here, we shall get along much faster and the thing will be in shape where, when we get into Convention, we can have something tangible to vote upon, rather than to have all these things to consider together. Mr. Crawford of Manchester. — ^My motion was for the purpose of accomplishing the very object which the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Jones, has suggested. I realize that in the Committee of the Whole, questions before it are not only open for discussion, but they are open for amendment. Resolu- tion No. 5, introduced by Mr. Fellows, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, is the only thing there is before this Committee touching an amend- ment. Now I understand that this Committee can make any amendments or changes they desire, and when they rise and report to the Convention, the report would be that they have had under consideration the several resolutions, and direct the Chairman to report back the recommendation. Therefore, they have something in shape, and it then goes to the Stand- ing Committee, and they can put it in form to suit the wishes of the Convention. My motion accomplishes just the same as what has been suggested by the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Jones. It is only to get something into shape to report a recommendation to the Convention. I am not particular about how that is reached. My motion was simply to reach it according to the ordinary parliamentary rule and manage- ment of Committees of the Whole, but, if it is desired, and our President wishes that I should withdraw that motion, I will do it. I made it in order that we might accomplish the work some time in the course of the next month or two, about a question we are discussing here at random, and it seems to me that a motion simply to embody the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, to the original Resolution No. 5, will bring it in shape for us to recommend just what we have done here. Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth withdrew his amendment to the motion of Mr. Crawford. Question being on the motion of Mr. Crawford of Man- chester, — Mr. Crawford of Manchester withdrew his motion. Thursday, June 13, 191tJ. 221 Mr. Jones of Manchester. — Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the motion of the gentleman from Manchester, and the proposed amendment thereto of the g-entleman from Portsmouth, is withdrawn, I, for the purpose of getting- the thing before the Convention, desire to offer a resolution. Mr. Jones of Manchester offered the following resolu- tion: — Resolved, That it is the sense of this Committee that an amendment to the Constitution of the state be submitted 'to the people which will give to the legislature the right 'to classify intangibles and growing wood and timber, for the purposes of taxation, and to make reasonable exemptions, and further, to impose a tax upon the incomes from intangible property. , Question being on 'the adoption of the resolution of Mr. Jones of Manchester, — Mr. Young of Laccmla. — It is apparent to my mind that there are differences of opinion upon the three subjects which have been submitted here. I find some members of the Convention are in favor of classifying intangibles, and are not in favor of classifying timberland, and I have thought that possibly that opinion obtains among other members, and therefore I would ask if it would not be well to take a vote upon these three separate propositions, that is, individual votes upon each proposition, as to whether it is the majority sentiment that we classify timberlands, and then if it is the majority senti- ment that we classify intangibles, and if it is the majority sentiment that we recommend the income tax. Some would vote in favor of one who would not vote in favor of another. Mr. Hohbs of Wolfeboro. — Mr. Chairman, to get to this matter very quickly and clarify the air: There are several of these resolutions here. Two of them I introduced. I have not had an opportunity to examine all of them. I went to my attor- neys and told them what I wanted, and they drew them up. I have not examined them, and do not know that they are just right (drawn as thej' should be). There is a differe,nce of opinion as to where we may stop. I think that some of us who have introduced these resolutions, and others who are particularly interested, can get together 222 Journal of Constitutional Convention. and agree to put some of them into the waste basket without any discussion. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I also think that we have not analyzed these matters to the extent that we should to make any recommendations at this time, and I hope we may be able to g*et at this matter by conferring- and agree upon some con- certed action. Many of us here w'ho are in the same line, and desire the same results, could get together. It will be a sav- ing of time and discussion if we can do this and agree on some thlng-s and not be in a squabble on all. Mr. Crawford of Manchester. — It seems to me the resolution offered by the g-entleman from Manchester, Mr. Jones, will cure all of our troubles. That is a resolution which will naturally leave the whole matter to a standing committee, where they can hear the different views. It can be discussed there, and they can formulate some resolution or amendment covering the point which we are now discussing*. It seems to me, to save time, it would be better for us to recommend to the Convention the resolution offered by the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Jones, and get it before the Standing Commit- tee, where undoubtedly it can be brought into shape to the satisfaction of all those who have introduced the several resolu- tions. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — The motion made by the gentleman from Manchester isn't made, as I understand It, to cirt off discussion. The whole purpose of it is, after we have dis- cussed this as much as we desire, and every man who has a proposition, including my friend from Wolfeboro, has an op- portunity to explain it, that we may then have something tangible to vote upon, and we can go on with this discussion under that motion until it comes time for dinner and then take a recess, as we did yesterday, and come in and vote upon it. Mr. Jones of Manchester. — That was precisely the object I had in view when I introduced the resolution, and that was to get a proposition definitely before this Committee for you to talk about and consider. You have got something now that is definite. Mr. Craioford of Manchester. — A% I understand it, we recom- mend that this matter will go to a Standing Committee and then that Standing Committee makes its rejDort, and it is then within the province of the Convention to refer it again to this Committee of the Whole and we shall have something to talk about. Mr. Jones of Manchester. — I will try to make it as plain as pos- Thursday, June 13, 1912. 223 sible. If the motion which I have made is adopted, this Com.- mittee will have said that it is it's opinion that the Convention oug-ht to submit to the people of the state a proposed amend- ment which will give to the legislature the power to classify intangible property and growing wood and timberland, and impose a tax upon the income from intangible property. Then if the Committee votes that way, it will be proper, and some gentleman w^ould make a motion, that this Committee rise and make report to the Convention that it has come to that con- clusion and recommends that all the matters, all the proposed amendments relating to taxation, be referred to the Standing Committee appropriate for the purpose, with instructions to report back to the. Convention a proposed amendment of the Constitution which will, if adopted by the people, give the legislature the power which you decide you want them to have, and then there will be no more need of the Committee of the Whole after that, but, upon the question of agreeing to the proposed amendment which the Standing Committee may bring before the House, there ^vill be ample opportunity for debate in the Convention and chances for the yeas and nays to be called on any amendment or amendments that may be offered, and upon the final passage, and we may have a full, free, fair discussion in the Convention, if we fail to get all we want here, and everybody will be taken care of. And if, on the other hand, the Committee is not of the opinion that the legislature should be given these powers, then you will report back that fact to the Convention, and then recommend what- ever you see fit to do upon that. Now I hope it is all plain. This motion which I have made before the Committee is here for discussion. Do you want to give the legislature this power or don't you want to give it? Now any man who wants to give it can speak in favor and any man Avho does not want it can speak against, and he is talking to the motion which I have made. And if no other gentleman will make the motion that it is the sense of the Committee it will give the legislature these powers, I will un- dertake to make a motion which will cover the proper report of the Committee to the Convention. Mr. Broderick of Manchester. — iMr. Chairman, I find myself in this difficulty. Supposing we adopt the resolution just sub- mitted by the gentleman from -Manchester, Mr. Jones, and w^e proceed to vote upon that resolution and adopt it. How may those of us who do not favor opening the door to classification of property, but do favor an income tax on intangibles, ex- 224 Journal of Constitutional Convention. press our opinion? If the resolution passes, shall we not have to reconsider the vote we shall have just taken? Mr. Lyford of Concord. — If we should vote on the entire ques- tion, and it should be referred to a Standing Committee, and that Standing- Committee following the instructions of the Con- vention, should report all three of these j)ropositions, — then it is in the power of any member of the Convention, when that report is presented, to move to strike out any one of them. Do I make it clear? Mr. BrodetHck of Manchester. — ^Yes, that amounts to a reconsid- eration of the action taken here. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — ^Not at all. You simply move to strike out or to amend. Mr. Qulmhy of Concord. — It seems to me 'there are so many differences of opinion, — we have three questions submitted by the Convention before this Committee for consideration, three distinct questions, — that while the Committee is in session, we ought to consider the question intelligently so we can all un- derstand what we want to do, if it is possible, and to that end that the question should be divided so as to g^t expression of the Committee on each proposition. If we vote now and re- port this back to the Convention, we report on three subjects. Why not allow the Convention to consider each one separately, so we can understand what we are voting on and what we are doing. Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — That is just what the Convention will be able to do if we adopt the resolution of the gentleman from 'Manchester, Mr. Jones. We are in Committee now, not in Convention. His proposition is, this Committee do rise, if the resolution is adopted, report it to the Convention; it then goes to the Standing Committee with instructions to bring in these three propositions, but, when they are brought in by the Committee and are before the Convention, we can reject the whole, we can defeat, amend, discuss, do anything we please with the matter as a Convention, and it seems to me the proper place for any division will be when the matter comes before the Convention. The proposition is simply to get the matter in its three aspects before the Convention. This is a Com- mittee with limited powers in the iliatter. Mr. Hayden of Hollis moved the previous question. Question being, Shall the previous question he ordered, — Mr. Stevens of Landaff raised the point that the previous question is not in order. Thursday, June 13, 1912. 225 The Chair ruled the point well taken. Ques'tion being on the resolution of Mr. Jones of Man- chester, — Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — I hope Mr. Jones will withdraw his motion. We have lost half an hour in talking- about the ques- tion of procedure. At some time, the three principal questions before this body have got to be thrashed out. It might just as well be done now, while we are in Committee, as to report and go to a Standing Committee and come back here then and be talked about. There are just three things before this Committee. Mr. Stevens of Landatf wants to cut out of the Constitution any restriction relative to taxation of property of all kinds, intangibles or anything else. That is Mr. Stevens' proposition. It includes all these others. His resolution is a great deal broader than the one proposed by Mr. Mitchell and myself. The difference between the Mitchell resolution and Mr. Boynton's resolution is whether you will put in the class of intangibles to be taxed, stocks of corporations. That is the only difference between Mr. Boynton's and Mr. Mitchell's reso- lutions. Now there are the three ideas, the broad one of Mr. Stevens, the narrower one of Mr. Mitchell and myself, and the broader one of Mr. Boynton. These things can be discussed here now, when we are in Committee, and report can be made along any of these lines, while to go through this formality of reporting to the Convention, going to a Standing Committee, coming back and all being discussed again, seems to me a loss of time. If we go right on, Mr. Stevens can make his argument, and the others can argue their propositions, and then we have the three phases of the question before the Con- vention. Mr. Henneberry of Concord. — As I understand it, this Commit- tee of the Whole is not confined to the discussion of the merits of this particular amendment i^resented by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell. If that is the case, why should the other gentlemen who have proposed amendments to this Constitution, be denied the right of having their proposed amendments discussed b}' this Committee of the Whole? The Chmrman. — The Chair will state that nobody is denied the right to discuss. Mr. Whittemoi'e of Dover. — Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I have listened attentively, for the last thirty minutes, thinking that the members, if there was a disposi- 226 Journal of Constitutional Convention. tion to discuss this proposition further, would go back to the issues contained in the resolution, and continue the discussion, but instead of discussing- the merits of the question they have devoted the time to the discussion of the parliamentary situ- ation and a discussion of parliamentarj^ procedure. It seems to me that the Convention would make more progress if the resolution offered by the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Jones, was adopted, and that the Committee to whom the same is referred formulate a resolution embodying the different propositions, report the same to the Convention, then the dif- ferent propositions can be discussed separately or collectively, and be amended to conform to the sentiment of a majority of the members of the Convention. Mr. Whittemore of Dover moved that the Committee do now proceed to take a vote on the resolution of Mr. Jones of Manchester. Mr. Lyford of Concord. — That motion isn't necessary and I should hope that it would not prevail if it were necessary. There are several gentlemen who desire to be heard upon this question, and they can Just as well be heard with this proposi- tion of the gentleman from Manchester pending, as they can be heard any other way. All that it needs is for somebody to get the atiention of the Chair and proceed to the discussion of the main question. Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — All I wished was to have a chance to discuss the different propositions before the full Committee, and I did fear a little that if this matter was referred now to the Standing Committee, and that Committee discussed it, and the report of that Committee came back at the verj' end of the Convention, when time was short and our money was all gone, and we had adopted a five minute rule and the previous question was in order, that a good many men who want to be heard here, and heard at as much length as other men who have addressed the Committee on these questions, would be shut out. I am perfectly willing to say what I have to say here and now, and if it is in order I will proceed with my re- marks. Mr. Whittemore of Dover. — Mr. Chairman, I made that motion for the purpose of starting some man in with this discussion. Question being on the motion of Mr. Whi'ttemore of Dover, — Mr. Whittemore of Dovfr witlidrcw hi> Miotion. Thursd^% June 13, 1912. 227 Question being on the resolution of Mr. Jones of Man- chester, — Mr. Stevens of Landaff.—^^lr. Chairman, I have been ready at any moment to discuss the question. I wish to discuss parti- cularly Kesolution No. 33. That resolution, as the gentleman from Tilton sug-g-ests, if adopted by the Convention and adopted by the people, would confer upon the legislature very ^ wide powers on the question of taxation. It would not remove all restrictions. There would be three restrictions upon the tax- ing power. One is that my resolution retains the word "reasonable." The legislature shall have power to levy reason- able taxes. The other restriction upon the power of the legis- lature to levy taxes is contained in the Bill of Rig-hts of the state of New Hampshire, and will still be there after this amendment is adopted, if it is adopted, and, as the gentleman from Concord has pointed out, there is a further restriction upon the taxing- power of any state, and that is the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which says no man's property shall be taken away from him without due process of law, so that this amendment, though wide, and intended to be wide, and intended to confer power upon the leg-islature, is subject to certain restrictions. Now the special commission appointed by the Governor vo investigate the question of taxation in this state, made a thor- ough investigation and report of the question and in that re- port they pointed out that there were certain inequalities in the law in the state of New Hampshire, and in the practical application of that law, that were due to constitutional re- strictions, and to cure those inequalities it would be necessary to amend the Constitution of the state. Now I want to point out first, what those constitutional resrictions were, and how they prevented equal taxation. The Constitution, as orig-inally adopted, provided that taxes should be proportional. The Constitution specified that taxes might be upon persons and estates. Now the Court ruled that to state in the Constitution what might be taxed, excluded all other property. Consequently, the only subjects of taxation in the state of New Hampshire are estates, property, and polls. They further ruled that the word "proportional" meant that all property must be assessed alike. Now at the time that Con- stitution was made, and the time that the Court began to put Liiat interpretation and that restriction upon the power of the legislature, saying to the legislature, "You must ireai 228 Journal of Constitutional Convention. all property absolutely alike, without regard to its kind or nature," at that time what was the actual condition in the state of New Hampshire? Practically all the taxable property consisted of live stock, farms and village property. The tim- ber lands of this state were worth absolutely nothing. Tim- ber was worth nothing. There was not a corporation in the state of New Hampshire, there was not a savings bank, an in- surance company, a railroad, an express compan3% or a large corporation doing business. Now, within 100 j-ears we have developed an entirely new class of property, complex, and diffi- cult to estimate, and we have attempted here for years to tax that kind of property under the restrictions laid down 125 years ago, and under the narrow interpretation put by the Courts upon the powers of the legislature, and every inequalitj' in our tax laws today springs from the fact that the people have not had full power to tax property. They have not had the power - to deal with the situation as it exists. Furthermore, the deci- sions of the Courts are full of inconsistencies. The Court decided that a tax on stock was double taxation, and consequently unconstitutional. That same Court declared that a tax upon a mortgage note and a bond was double taxa- tion, but nevertheless constitutional. A tax upon a bond or note or upon a stock is double taxation. The Court, during the very last session of the legislature, rendered this deci- sion: they said that the legislature had no power to classify in- tangibles and tax them at a low, flat rate. Yet in spite of that decision there has been a law enforced in this state for years taxing savings bank deposits three-quarters of one per cent. That is a fixed, flat rate, and savings bank deposits are cer- tainly intangibles. No one can read the decisions, and tell how the Court are likely to decide the next tax question That is put up to them. As the gentleman from Concord states, the last Constitu- tional Convention thought they had adopted an amendment that would allow the legislature to levy a graded inheritance tax. The last legislature had under consideration such a bill, and there was doubt whether we had the power, and the Supreme Court were asked that particular question, whether we had the power, and after considering the question for some time they sent back this answer: "We find ourselves unable to agree." So that neither the legislature nor the Court knows today where we stand on the question of having a graduated inheritance tax. Now my proposition proposes to cut out all restrictions on taxation except one, the word "reasonable," and the protec- Thursday, Juxne 13, 1912. 22^ tion of property in the Constitution, and in the Federal Con- stitution. Every arg-ument that has been made by the gen- tleman from Concord in favor of classifying timberland can be made in favor of my amendment, because under my resolution you can classify timberlands. Under this amendment you can classify bonds and notes if you see fit. The legislature can put an income tax upon stocks or bonds, or any other form of in- vestment. The legislature can pass other law^s for which the other amendments do not provide. Some years ago the legislature of the state of New Hamp- shire passed this law: "All express companies shall pay a tax into the state treasury of two per cent upon their gross revenue." Now, I do not believe there is any man who will dispute this statement, that this is the fairest and easiest and best way to tax an express company. What man is there here who can tell what the property of an express company is worth? They have little property, — actual, tangible property. They use the property of the railroad, and the most valuable asset that an express company owns is its exclusive contract with a railroad to do an express business over it. How is a man go- ing to weigh that kind of property? Can you value it in the same way you can a cow or a horse? Under this amendment as I have drawn it, the legislature could not only tax insur- ance companies and express companies upon their gross re- ceipts, but it could deal with the railroad tax by a much more sensible method than is now provided by the state, — not only provided, but made absolutely necessary by the Constitution. At the present time, every assessment made by the state upon the railroad can be questioned. In order to find out what the railroad property should be assessed, the Court muf^t find out how much every other class of property in the whole state is assessed. In the last contest over taxation, the coun- sel for the railroad stated before the legislative committee that the railroad had spent over $75,000 preparing its case. They had experts in every town and city in the state of New Hampshire, finding out how much stock in trade, timberland, farms, horses and cows were taxed. In order to meet any such case as that, ^vith a fair show at all, the state must send experts all through New Hampshire to find out how much property is taxed. This question can come up on every as- sessment. That is not a sensible, reasonable way to tax a rail- road company. A good manj' states have adopted the plan I have already suggested for the taxation of express companies. The best method of taxing public service corporations is to put 280 Journal of Constitutional Convention. a flat, fixed rate upon their gross income. Tliey_ cannot dodge that tax. It can be assessed bj^ any one in three minutes, and is subject to no constitutional questions, if this amend- ment were adopted. Their accounts alwaj's show and always will have to show what their gross income is. The telephone companies, the express companies and railroad companies are required today to keep their accounts in such a way as to show what their receipts are from the state of New Hampshire, and that report is made out every year, and a man can sit down with a pencil and figure out the tax in a few minutes. And now in place of that simple and fair way to tax, we have this com- plicated question of taxation of everybody else's property all over the state, creating a lawsuit every few years that costs the state and the railroads a vast amount of money. Now this amendment strikes out of the Constitution the word "proportional." That is a vague word under any circum- stances. It is pretty hard work to say what "proportional" means, and when j'^ou have read the decision of the Court about it you won't get a great deal of light. It has been interpreted to mean that all property must be treated alike. That word has caused trouble, and consequentlj'- in my proposed amend- ment, it is struck out, and all the Constitution would say about taxation in Article 5 would be this: "The General Court has power to impose and levy reasonable assessments, rates and taxes." I believe they ought to have that power. Furthermore, it would strike out of Article 6, Part Second, the part that now enumerates the things that may be taxed. It cuts that out, and substitutes therefor these words: "The public charges of government or any part thereof, may be raised by taxation." That far it is just the same. Now I stop there, and by stopping there it means that the legislature can tax any kind of property it sees fit, that is reasonable, and not in violation of the Bill of Rights or of the Constitution of the United States. It leaves our hands free to deal with these dif- ferent kinds of property in a way that will be fair, and a way that the tax can be collected. If the amendments should all be adopted, our Constitution, instead of being a general grant of power, would be one long list of possible tax laws, and we have been discussing a great many of these questions here, not as if we were a Constitutional Convention, but as if we were a legislature. I personally would vote to give the legislature power, if it saw fit, to pass certain tax laws, which, if I were a member of the legislature, I should vote against. I do not believe in re- Thursday, June 13, 1912. 231 stricting the powers. I do not believe you can get any re- sults from anybody or anything- unless j^ou give them adequate power. The restrictions of the Federal Constitution and the further restriction or safety that lies in intelligence, and the insight and fairness of the people of Xew Hampshire, is a far greater protection from unjust taxes than arbitrary restric- tions put in a Constitution. This amendment, I believe, would do more to clear up the whole subject of taxation than any other amendment offered. It has caused the state of New Hampshire more trouble in the past, — the restriction of the Constitution, — questions of taxation have been taken to the Courts oftener than any other questions, and the decisions are more inconsistent than they are probably on any other matter in our Constitution or before our Courts. I think the only argument that can be made against this amendment, is that it is too broad. That is the argument that will be made, that it opens the door wide. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is the strongest argument in favor of it. We have been going along here for years trying to ^eal wdth the difficult subject of taxation and the complex questions of property with our hands tied, being able to move them just a little. Loosen the bands and allow the legislature to levy taxes that are reasonable, and I believe we will have a very much better sj'stem of taxation than we have at present. On motion of Mr. George W. FowJer of Pembroke, the Committee took a recess until 1.55 o'clock. After Eecess. The question being on the resolution of Mr. Jone^ of Manchester, — Mr. Fuller of Exeter. — 'As I understand it, the purpose of the motion which is now before us was, or its effect is, to enable everybody to speak on every subject that is embraced in any of these tax amendments proposed, and I do not propose to exercise that license to its utmost limit. I do wish to make two or three suggestions, good or bad, and the bad ones will not receive any acceptance in this body, I am sure. The last speaker, — unless somebody spoke after I started for lunch, — was the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, who advanced substantially the abolition of all limitations of tax power of the legislature, — all limitation except what we have without 232 Journal of Constitutional Convention. any legislative act. That is, lie says he would let the legisla- ture impose such taxes as the legislature might see fit, classify as they see fit, exempt as they see fit; that may not be the exact wording of his amendment, but that is the substance. We have lived thus far under a system involving a written Con- stitution containing limitations upon the power of the legisla- ture because it is thought there should be some limitation, because of the danger that the legislators possibly might do something, inadvertently, or otherwise, which they ought not to do. And yesterday the gentleman from Landaff was here advocating a plan under which every act of the legislature would be subjected, or could be subjected, to a popular vote, and he said he wanted it, because the legislators do things they ought never to have done, and he instanced some things they have done, which he disapproved. Some of the things he disap- proved, I might not; some of the things I disapproved, he might not; but the fact remains that legislators, like all other bodies of human beings, do commit errors, and do things which they themselves afterwards wish they had not done. And it ' is also a fact that whatever Constitutional limitations j^ou have should be written. You may have prescribed limitations which the legislature shall not transcend, the legislature will from time to time transcend those limitations, and then we have recourse to the Courts, — an expensive recourse ordi- narily, — to undo some part of the mischief. Some suffer the mischief without appeal to the Court, because it would cost more to get redress than to suffer, but nevertheless the Court is supposed to furnish some remedy against wrong committed by the legislature, and the Court can do it, simply because we have a Constitution. The Court can in 10 way impose a rem- edy upon the legislature except what the Constitution has im- posed. It seems to be the proposition to remove from the legislative power all constitutional restrictions, save such as may be implied by the word "proportional", — a very loose word in our Constitution, — and abide by the power of the Federal Court to undo any legislation which conflicts with the Fed- eral, — the National Constitution. That the projyosal to abolish all limitation but those two will hardly find favor in a Conven- tion of this character, — because this Convention is cognizant of the fact that we ought to have the Constitution. We were' not sent here to abolish the Constitution absolutely, but simply to recommend such changes as we thought were called for. So I think that the proposal of the gentleman from Landaff, probably will not meet approval in the Convention, — it does: Thursday, June 13, 1912. 233 not meet with mine, and I hope it will not meet that of the others. There are other proposals before us, and one of them is by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, and in that we find specificallj' conferred upon the legislature the power to tax deposits made by citizens of this state in savings banks without the state, and the reason given for giving that power is that Massachusetts treats her folks that way, and therefore we ought to treat our folks that way. Massachusetts treats her citizens that way, punishes them for putting their money in our savings banks, therefore we ought to punish our citizens for putting their money in Massachusetts banks. A man who lives in Concord, and whose means are almost unlimited, is not to be compared with the old lady who lives in South Hamp- ton, and who is within five minutes' walk of Amesbury. There is some temptation to put her money m a safe place, that is reasonably accessible. There being no savings bank nearer than Portsmouth or Exeter, unless she crosses the Massachusetts line, that imaginary line so near her house, she deposits her money in Amesbury. She gets it divided up be- tween Amesbury and Xewburyport, and she gets somewhere from four per cent — between three and four per cent. Are we going to tell the old lady because she does not travel up to Exeter or Portsmouth, we will confiscate a part of her property? It is probably in conflict with the Constitution of the United States which limits the power of the state to tax, — limits it in this way, at least, — it says the state of New Hamp- (shire has no right to impose a tax on properties which are not theoretically, or otherwise, wdthin the limits of New Hamp- shire. We cannot tax the Boston & Maine Railroad upon its coal in its coal pockets in Massachusetts, nor can Massachu- setts, if it undertakes such a thing, tax the coal pockets in New Hampshire. That is a just limitation of the tax, which probably could be sustained under the Federal Constitution, provided the old lady had the money to invoke the protection of the Courts of the United States; but most of the savings banks' depositors would not have the money, and they would have to take what the legislature gave them, no matter whether the action of the legislature met with the approval of the gentleman from Concord, and seemed to him reasonable or not, unless a majority of his colleagues on the bench hap- pened to concur that that loose word "proportional" should be stripped from the Constitution, — and protect her against the thing that is manifestly unjust, although it was authorized by 234: Journal of Constitutional Convention. the amendment which he, himself, introduced. I do not think that this Convention ought to go ahead and specifically author- ize a thing so unjust, or a thing so harsh, as that. There are certain other proposals here that require attention, and will receive attention in due time; there are several of them com- bined in one to be considered by this Committee. There is a proposal by the gentleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, an expert on taxation, en taxation of all kinds, and on evasion of taxation, and the way to prevent evasion of taxation, and the way to get the most out of those who should pay taxes. This amendment of his, if I remember rightly, imposes three different methods of taxation. Three different schemes, one being the taxation, the graded taxation, — if I may call it that, — of intangibles, an- other the graded taxation or exemption of forest lands, wood- lands, whatever it is, — we all know what it means. It makes no difference whether I use th« correct word or not. That is en- tirely dift'erent from the gradation of intangibles. The third is the income tax. These are in no sense so knit together by their nature, that they must nedessarily fall or stand together. They are not so closely bound together that they ought to fall or stand together. Perhaps many of us might have serious ob- jection, ill or well founded, to an income tax, who would very much favor a wise exemption or partial exemption of wood- lands, growing wood-lands, from taxation. Many of us might favor the other, the taxation of intangibles by a sort of graded system of taxing them, according to how much you think you can get. They who would not favor income tax, — some would perhaps favor the income tax and the intangible scheme, who would not favor exempting the woodlands, but the three things ought not to be all in one, and we be compelled either to accept them all in a lump or reject them all in a lump, like a piece of buttered bread, in which case you have got to take the bread and butter or go without the bread. Now I understand that these things will be separated before we are through with them, and as there was an invitation extended to every one who had any ideas on the subject, — on any branch of the sub- ject, — to express those ideas, is why I am addressing this as- sembly a little bit. As to income tax I say my objection is not that it is not theoretically as just a thing as could be devised, but, in my opinion, an income tax, a state income tax, is not workable, and it is subject to precisely the same objection as the system of taxation which we are now trying to change. Thirty-odd years we have had the same laws on our statute books which have caused no such squirming during the thirty- Thursday, June 13, 1912. 235 odd years preceding this, as they have during the last month or two in this state, and why? Simply because it had failed, — the selectmen finding- that they could not enforce it, the taxpayers being" bound it should not be enforced ag-ainst them. And it being" a general feeling, I do not say the feeling of the major- ity, but a very widespread feeling, that the requiring of that inventor}' from me, not from you but from me, I felt that it was an outrage, not because you are not to be made to return an inventory, but because you didn't, or the inventory w^hich you did return you didn't get stuck on half as bad as I did. A law that is not approved, that is disapproved, and is success- fully evaded by a considerable portion of the community, is a very undesirable law. It is like a law we used to have here and which we have superceded, — the liquor law. While we might admit that the prohibitory liquor law, if enforceable, would be the most excellent thing that could be devised in the way of liquor legislation, the most of us thought the liquor law was a good thing to get rid of, and we have superceded it, substi- tuting a different thing in its place. The tax law works the same way as the jjrohibitory liquor law, although more so. It is evaded by a good many more who feel that they are justified in evading it, some of them because they say it works injustice. The whole scheme of taxing their bonds is an outrage anyway, and thej' ought not to be required to subject themselves to that which is unjust, and others because they say they have the same rights that the others exercise, the right of evading the law, and our Supreme Court has solemnly decided that the provision of our tax law, which says a man who has given a false inventory shall not have the privilege of asking an abatement. That provision does not apply to a case of the man who undervalued himself because, he says, the other folks were doing it. In other words, the Court itself has not enforced the law, and it is a law which is not obeyed by the people and not enforced by the Court when brought to their attention, and which a good many who do obey it feel to be a very harsh law. The income tax is open to that objection, that it w^ill not be respected by those who can evade it, and a state income tax can be evaded because you cannot find out, — how are you going to find out, — what my income is, unless you know the property from which my income is derived. If you can find my bonds yielding four per cent and good ones, you will know how much of my income is derived from them. If they are in a Boston savings deposit box and you cannot find them, and I say I have not got them and never did have them, what are you going to 236 Journal of Constitutional Convention. do about it? When you call for an income tax, the men j'ou are most after will succeed in evading the law, — part of them for the sake of evading- the payment of the tax, which they do not want to pay because it is money, and they wish to keep it; and another part because they do not wish to make known their business. There are a good many people that object to the income tax because they do object to making their business affairs public. I say then that the income tax is not workable, and its effect will be imjust, and therefore ought not to be in- cluded in our scheme, and, as I said a minute ago, I trust these propositions will be divided up, and acted upon separately. Be- fore one Committee in this Convention there is pending, unless they have come back to this body, — there is pending a resolu- tion to enable the Governor to veto separately clauses in the appropriation bill that was introduced. The reason why it was introduced is plain enough, because in appropriation bills more than in other bills, — although the same things are possible in bills of different character, but especially in appropriation bills, — it is common to find combined together a large number, — here is my pet scheme, here is yours, and here is his, and his and his, and we will pull together, although I say all four of these others ought to be kicked out, mine ought to stand, but mine is going to topple over unless I consent to yours, and therefore we join forces, embody all our proposals in one ap- propriation bill, and force the Governor either to accept the whole, good and bad, or leave the state without money for cur- rent expenses. To prevent this vicious practice is the object of allowing the Governor to veto different clauses in the ap- propriation bill. Now it is just as bad to combine three dis- tinct propositions m regard to a constitutional amendment, which is just as inherently an act of legislation, as it is to in- clude two or three mountain road bills in one act in order that each one of them may prop up the other, and sometimes it re- sults, — sometimes it has been known to result in the case of an appropriation bill, — in the fall of all the schemes that were so united. I don't think that is so as to these three measures that are combined in this one bill here. My opinion is, first, I am in favor of two of them in a general sense, that is to the classified taxation of intangibles, and also giving the legislature power to favor wood-lands, but I am not in favor of an income tax, and don't want to have to vote in favor of the income tax, or else have to vote against the other two, nor do I wish to put anybody else in the same dilemma. I want to have these things which are entirely distinct from Thursday, June 13, 1912. 237 each other considered separately. I have spoken in this ram- bling- way on this hotchpotch matter because nobody else seemed to be tn iking and most of you had not got here to hear what 1 had to saj'. Mr. Header of Rochester. — I want to speak in favor of our Pres- ident, Mr. Jones' resolution, and more specifically in favor of Hesolution No. 5, offered by Judge Fellows. I wish to speak about the grouting wood and timber lands. It seems to me that we ought to be very careful about opening the door too wide in regard to legislation on this subject. I have been studying our old Constitution, and I have a tremendous admira- tion for it, and I think we never ought to make a change in it unless we see it works some injustice or is detrimental, to the interests of our state, and I think these three subjects that are brought up' are the only ones which have been shown to be detrimental, or to work any injustice. But in the matter of forest lands it does work injustice to the owners of these lands, and also is detrimental to the interests of our state, and I wish in just a word to see if I can show that. You know almost every farm has a back pasture, or wood lot, that is growing up. It is considered scrub land and is taxed, has been in the past taxed in that way, and there is no particular value to it, no market value to the lumber on it until it reaches about the age of forty years' growth, and then all of a sudden some match comp)any, or some box lumber man, comes around and makes an offer for this small lumber at forty years of age. The point is it is only from 6 to 12 inches in diameter, and is only fit for box lumber, and is just beginning to be of interest to the peo- ple of the state, — it is just beginning to be a beautiful grove, and to add something to the value of the town where it grows, — and so, as I said before, the assessors usually tax it very low until about that age, but when the offer is made by the lumberman, every one sees the value, and the assessors see it and immediately the valuation must be put up and the tempta- tion is overwhelming for the poor farmer who has had all he can do to make a living anyway and perhaps is in debt, — the temptation, I say, to sell that lumber and pay his mortgage and live in ease is overwhelming, if it is to be taxed at its full value. If we can take away that temptation, if we can see that after forty years' growth it is growing three times as fast as it was before that, that, when the diameter of the tree is twice as great, the board measure is increasing three times as fast, and not only that but the value of the lumber is increasing, for if he leaves it until it is 70 or 80 years of age, it will not be 238 Journal of Constit[]tional Convention. only box lumber, but it will be finish lumber of greater value, surely we ought to let the farmer keep it and get the increased growth and the increased valuation of the lumber. And for the sake of the tax collector and the town, — they must be considered, — the town has got to have an income, — it is better also for the town not to have the lumber cut off just as it is becoming of some value, just as this valuation is put up. Is it for the interest of the town to have the lumber cut as soon as it begins to be valuable and get only one or two years' taxation, or to have it grow for forty years more and have a smaller rate of taxation? If it continues for forty years, will it not be better for the assessor and the town, as it is for the farmer? And then look at the interest of the state. Among our greatest assets in this state are our beautiful pine lands. There is nothing that adds more to the beauty of the scenery, or the health of the summer resort, than the pine trees, the pine groves of our state. And do the pines have any great value during the first forty years? They have nothing to be desired until they get some growth, and just when they begin to be a great asset for the state, and are working for the health of the community, as well as for a profit, tnen our temp- tation is to cut them off, and get the money on them. I say we ought to encourage people to keep their pine growth until it reaches the age of eighty years, the growth from forty to eighty is so much better in every respect, — grows so much faster,— for the farmer. It gives the tax that the town would lose, and is a beautiful and health-giving asset to the state. Now let us remember that every division of the community is benefited by keeping our pine forests until they are at least eighty years old, and, if we have in our Constitution that which compels the poor man to sell his lumber at forty years, we lose all those benefits, and I say that this portion of our Constitution does work injustice to the owners of timber lands, to all our farmers, and it is detrimental to the interests of the state. And, therefore, I feel that we are justified in sending down to the people this proposition to amend our Constitution in this respect. I am in favor of the whole measure offered by our President, Mr. Jones of Manchester, but especially am I in favor of this part of it referring to growing wood and forest lands. Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey.—l take it that this Constitutional Con- vention will be best satisfied with its work, if the amendments which are to be submitted to the people of the state shall be adopted by the people when they vote upon them. We have Thursday, June 13, 1912. 239 already voted to submit to the people of the state, Resolution No. 6, which provides for a graded inheritance tax. We have before us at the present time propositions which will provide, if adopted, for allowing the legislature to classify money at interest and timber lands in various forms. We also have another proposition, which will allow the legislature to tax incomes. Xow it is a well-recognized fact that the people of this state will probably not adopt a great number of amendments, so if we wish to have the amendments, which we submit, adopted, it will be necessary that we make them as few, as concise, and as clear as possible. For that reason, I stand here to support the resolution offered by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, allowing the legislature to deal with all these questions as they come up, that we may thereby be enabled to submit to the people of this state only one amendment, which can be easily understood by every citizen of the state of New Hamp- shire, — which is that the legislature may deal with questions of taxation as the public good requires. And, Gentlemen of this Committee, none of you who were here yesterday and heard the eloquent pleas made for the integrity and good sense of our present uncontrolled, representative form of government would ever hesitate, I believe, to leave all questions of taxation with our very estimable legislature. I wish, however, to point out to the members of this Commit- tee that the suggestion of the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, is in absolute line with every taxation authority in the United States and for that matter in the whole world; that is, that there should be no restriction on the right of the legis- lature to enact laws relating to taxation. We have had pointed out to us this morning ways in which the restrictions on legis- lative power in taxation matters have acted in the past very unjusth', and instances have been mentioned where that re- striction has acted unjustly. We cannot foresee the future. Suppose we remove these restrictions to the extent which is suggested in Resolutions No. 5 and No. 37, and allow the classifi- cation of certain classes of property, how long will it be before injustice will appear in the tax levying power under the Con- stitution, relating to other classes of property? None of us can tell. Suppose other injustices do appear, if we have not left the power of taxation to the legislature, we must wait and bear those unjust burdens until we can have another Constitu- tional Convention. B3' putting into the Constitution class after class which can be exempted, finally w^e will have a Constitu- 240 Journal of Constitutional Convention. tion as long as your arm. I believe that the Constitution should contain just the fundamental facts, the plan of government, and the details should be left to the legislature. As I said before, this is entirely in line with all tax authori- ties of the United States and all over the world. I hold in my hand the report of the 5th National Conference on Taxation, which says this: "The First National Conference on state and local taxation held in 1907 at which 33 states were represented by delegates in this way appointed by the governors of the sev- eral states, unanimously adopted the following resolution: "Whereas, The greatest inequalities have arisen from laws designed to tax all the \videly differing classes of property in the same way and such laws have been ineffective in the pro- duction of revenue; and "Whekeas, The appropriate taxation of various forms of property is rendered impossible by the restrictions upon the taxing power contained in the Constitution of many of the states: "Resolved, That all State Constitutions requiring the same tax- ation of all property, or otherwise imposing restraints upon the reasonable classification of property, should be amended by the repeal of such restrictive provisions." The resolution under consideration, No. 33, provides for that very thing, and all restrictions upon the reasonable classifica- tion of property should be taken out of the Constitution. I wish to refer to other authorities on taxation. First, I would quote from the supreme judicial body of the United States, the United States Supreme Court, a case in which Mr. Justice Lamar in delivering the opinion said: "A system which imposes the same tax upon every class of property is unjust, and re- sults in unequal burdens on the different classes." Adding: "This Court has repeatedly laid down this doctrine." I think we can safely follow in this respect the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of Pennsylva- nia has rendered a similar decision. Professor Bullock of Harvard College, an authority on tax- ation, sajs: "The immediate result has been to drive people of wealth from states where the general property tax has been enforced, and into other states which have imposed taxes less burtlensome." I wish once more to refer to an authority which cannot be gainsaid, one in which, I believe, we have the greatest amount of confidence. I refer to the 1911 report of the New Hamp- shire Tax Commission, which reads as follows: "The members Thursday, June 13, 1912. 241 of this Commission are unanimous in urging upon the Consti- tutional Convention the vital importance of presenting- to the people an amendment, or amendments, which, if ratified, will permit the legislature to separate property into different classes for taxation and impose uniform assessments, rates, and taxes on property in the same class, and graduate inheri- tance taxes according to the amount of property passing." It seems to me. Gentlemen, that the weight of all authority in taxation is right back of the amendment, No. 33, offered by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, allo\ving the legis- lature free course in dealing with all questions of taxation. Mr. Sullivan of Berlin. — I am opposed to the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Landaff, and which has been re- ferred to by the gentleman from Jaffrey. We all know that our form of government in theory, and in practice, guarantees pro- •tection to life, liberty and property; that for that guarantee each citizen pays in the form of a tax his proportionate part of the expense of maintaining the government. The Constitu- tion provides that his taxes shall be assessed on a proportional basis. Now on this theory and on these lines the government has prospered for one hundred and twenty years. I believe no fairer way, no better way, was ever devised to pay the expenses of a government than by compelling each citizen to bear his share of the burden in proportion to the property which he owns. It has worked out satisfactorily. If a man is overtaxed he appeals to the Court, and, if it appears that his property is taxed higher than other property of the same class, his taxes are abated to an extent necessary to make his taxes only equi- table and proportional. This amendment is intended to strike out of the Constitution the words "reasonable and proportional," and, instead of hav- ing taxes assessed on that basis it authorizes the legislature to classify property and also fix the rate on each class. If this practice is adopted it seems to me the effect will be to array one class of property owners against another. The farmers, the mill owners, and all owners of the many different classes of property would all come before the legislature and each class would claim they were overtaxed. The legislature would be obliged to work it out. Taking into account these various con- flicting interests, would not the lesrislature be very likely to classify' the property on a basis that would be inequi-Lable and disproportional rather than on: the fair basis of reasonable and proportional? I think it would. 242 Journal of Constitutional Convention. Now coming to the forestry question, which is covered by the main resolution that is before the Convention, I am in favor of the legislature classifying this property, because I believe there is occasion to conserve our woodlands as much as possi- ble. In the discussions carried on in the national government, scientists tell us that preserving the forests has a tendency to equalize the rainfall and maintain the capacity of our streams, so that they can be used for useful purposes. They also tell us, what some of us already know, that cutting off the forests has a tendency to dry up our streams and to injure our water powers. If some arrangement could be made so that timber down to a definite size could be yearly cut so that enough would be left to hold the moisture on our mountains and val- leys, and not appreciably affect our water pow-ers, the result would be very beneficial to the state. Another thing to be considered is the scenic beauty of the state. The last session of the legislature appropriated one hundred thousand dollars to buy Crawford Notch in Hart's Lo- cation, for the purpose of preventing the cutting off of the tim- ber and permanently preserving the place as a scenic attraction. Is it not better to encourage people by legislation to hold their timberland so they will gradually cut the timber off than to tax them to such an extent that they will be almost forced to cut it off? Now as to the matter of classifying bonds, many interesting arguments have been made in favor of and against this propo- sition. And I believe that there is merit in both sides of the proposition. However, it is quite difficult for me to see just what the ultimate result will be if you lighten the tax on bonds or money at interest, and then impose a tax on the income of these same bonds and this same money. Will not the result then be exactly the same as it is now? But possibly the standing Committee, to whom this resolution is likely to be referred, will work out some result that will be satisfactory to the people. I think, too, that the three questions ought to be separated; there are many here who are in favor of one of these proposi- tions, who are not in favor of the others and vice versa, and sometime before the matter comes up for final action, I hope those three questions will be separated so that the members will have an opportunity to vote on them separately. Mr. Smith of Peterborough. — I recognize the fact in speaking on this question that it is a question that touches the pocket of every individual in New Hampshire, and, when you touch the pocket of an individual, you touch that man. The Constitution Thursday, June 13, 1912. 248 was drafted by those before ii^, and I think they wisely saw what results would follow their action, and provided for its rem- edy b}' putting in that very word "proportional." They pro- vided that the state should guarantee protection to every indi- vidual in the state, and in order to protect them they further provided that property shouid pay its proportional part of the taxes in order to carry out the first proposition, — those two propositions are linked together; they were linked together purposely by those who drafted this Constitution to show the fact that taxation should correspond with protection. Some make objections, two or three reasons are given why intangible property should be exempt, one is, it isn't property, it is simply evidence of some property. Another reason is, it bears unjust- ly upon different individuals. Now I believe if you could lOok over the laws of this state and the work of the institutions un- der those laws, you would find that intangibles in every place and at every time are reckoned property, except for taxation. I don't believe you will find an instance where intangible prop- erty is not treated as property. If a man dies and leaves prop- erty, did you ever hear of any of the heirs complaining that part of it was in bonds and part of it in notes, and consequent- ly was not property? Did you ever hear the State Tax Commis- sion, or those who collect the inheritance tax, say that, when a person dies and leaves money to be distributed, part of it going to the state, that because some of it was in bonds and notes they couldn't have any share of it, because it was not property? Did you ever hear that suggestion? 1 never did. I don't believe you ever will. There isn't a thing in this world that touches a man closer, that touches a man more feelingly than when he is called upon to pay taxes. A good many con- sider it a gift, and, in my position as one of the selectmen in Peterborough, one year a man came to me to have an abate- ment of the tax on his sheep as one of the sheep had died two or three days after it was taxed. The tax at that time was ten cents. That man wanted ten cents abated because it was a tax. I believe you touch any man's pocket when you tax him. It appears to me this way: Three men may have three hundred thousand dollars given to them. Those three men may take that money, one may buy real estate, another may put that money into bonds, another may loan that money at interest, and why should two men be exempted from taxation entirely, and the other man pay fully on his money invested? It is un- just. Now I have heard a good deal about double taxation. What is donble taxation? I tell you one man that never pays 244 JOCTRNAI- OF CONSTITUTJONAL CONVENTION. double taxation, and that is the man that loans the money. You never knew him to. You let a man buy a farm, — let a man buy real estate anywhere for two thousand dollars, run- ning in debt one thousand dollars for that, when the tax asses- sors come around thej' will tax him for the full value of that property. If any one pays double taxation he does. But let the man loan him that thousand dollars and by these amend- ments that man will not pay a tax on a dollar. The man may be worth one hundred thousand dollars of property and still not pay one single dollar of taxes under these amendments if they become law. Now there is another thing. I don't believe, — I may stand alone, — I don't believe that it is wise to tinker very much with the Constitution of New Hampshire. I don't think it is wise to let down the bars; I don't think it is wise to leave it discretionary with the legislature or the people, or any one to say from j^ear to year what those laws shall be without some safeguard. I believe we should have a safeguard. I believe we should have protection. That was the understanding when our Constitution was drafted, and that was provided for. ex- plicitly, so that the minority and the weak might be protected against the majority and against the strong. If I stand alone today I stand upon that proposition, — that wherever property exists it should pay its proportion of the taxes and the state should not exempt one and leave another to pay the taxes. Two things are certain, one is that taxes will always be required, the other is that somebody has got to pay the taxes. Now those two things are certain. You relieve one class of property and you place the burden on another. You relieve one individ- ual and you place the burden somewhere else. It has got to be borne by some one, and it is a little amusing to me, — I will put it in that form, — it is a little amusing to me to have persons try- to get rid of paying the tax by introducing the interests of the widow and children, as objects to look after. Did you ever hear a person upon this floor, or anywhere else, object or ever claim the right to have the legislature abate taxes on the intangibles because it would affect them? No. They will say: "Here is some widow with one thousand dollars in bonds; you are bear- ing on her, you are pressing hard upon her. Here are some minor children who have inherited bonds or property, you are placing the burden upon them"; when, if the truth were told, it would be like this: "I am worth one hundred thousand dollars in bonds, and I want you to legalize some means whereby I can escape taxation." ; Mr. Busiel of Laoonia. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I want to say that I sympathize very much with Thursday, June 13, 1912. 245 what the g-entleman from Peterborough, Mr. Smith, has said. I want to say, also, that I am glad to see, in accordance with the suggestion I made before dinner, the opportunity to discuss this question is to be improved; and as the discussion goes on we are all going to be better prepared to act intelligently upon this subject. If the Constitution of New Hampshire is to stand, and if the present system of taxation is not going to be revolu- tionized by the resolution which has been introduced here by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, — and there are many things that can be said in its favor, — then I say that we, as practical business men here, who have been sent here by the state of New Hampshire to do our best to relieve the some- what strained situation of taxation in this state, must carefully consider and deliberate, and decide upon what we think will relieve this situation. I think myself, Gentlemen, that the two words in the Constitution of New Hampshire which relate to taxation most vitally are the words "proportional" and "reason- able," — those two words are most admirable words to be there, and I cannot conceive of anj- two words in the English language which would have the meaning that those words have in the Constitution. I should say it would be a calamity to the state, of New Hampshire to strike out the word "proportional." I' should say if the Constitution of New Hampshire did not con- tain the word "reasonable" it would have failed to accomplish what ought to be a piece of fundamental law relating to taxa- tion. I also have great admiration, as I have studied the tax laws, for that very simple and adequate authority given to the selectmen or assessors in the state of New Hampshire, which is comprised so briefly in the few words, — telling them how they shall assess property in the state of New Hampshire of the citizens of the state of New Hampshire at its full and true value in money as that property would be valued by men who were setting it apart to pay an honest debt due from a solvent debtor. And, Gentlemen, I think that much of the trouble that we have had in taxation in this state, much of what has been called undervaluation, has arisen from the fact that our assessors and selectmen have not carefully considered the meaning of that authority to tax property, and have been misled in many cases by the talk of men that a house which cost a certain sum of money should therefore be taxed for that sum, when, as a matter of fact, if it was a house where a man had put in a large amount of money that he could never get out, the law of the state does not authorize the selectmen to value that house at its cost, but compels them, if they are hon- I 246 Journal of Constitutional Convention. est men, to assess it for that value in money at whicli it could be set off to pay an honest debt. We are here because there is a very abnormal state of taxation in the state of New Hamp- shire, and as we grow older and wealthier, and as more sub- jects of taxation keep appearing in our state, this condition of things grows worse. When the Constitution was framed, as some one has said nere in discussing this subject, there were very few things to tax in New Hampshire. The farms and the little village property were chiefly the things to tax. The great manufacturing interests had not developed. The mill develop- ment had not brought property into the state to tax; there were no railroads and very few insurance companies, or other corporations. The investment in bonds and stocks, and things of that kind, had not arisen. We have got the condition of things in this state today, where in the operation of our own laws, made by as able men as make laws anywhere, — the con- dition of things is such that the operation of those laws is im- posing hardship and injustice and wrong, and the people of the state have been fretting under that condition of things until the result of such fretting is this body of distinguished men that I see before me today, with this subject under consider- ation, and our people are asking us to do something; and, while this question is so great that the wisest minds in the world have not been able to settle it in a way that the nation, or state, or town, or city can absolutely approve or deem perfect, there are certain things arising which are compelling attention, and compelling states to insist on such bodies as this Convention, and attempts to change even the fundamental laws, wherever they are deemed to be unjust, and wherever changes are neces- sary. Now, in the amendment which has been introduced by the gentleman from Tilton, and which has been amended by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, and which has been further enlarged by another resolution relative to an income tax, it strikes me there is a step in the right direction towards the solution of this question. The gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, has introduced an amendment of the broadest charac- ter and there are many things that can be said for that amend- ment, but there are many things which can be said against it. It is in line with that line of thought indulged in by men of the present day, who desire to take short cuts, and who are called progressives,— and I do not use the term in any deroga- tory sense. It is in the line of thought of those men who wish to accomplish things rapidly. And to show that this is so, — we had before us an amendment offered by the gentleman from Thubsday, June 13, 1912. 247 Jaffrey, Mr. Duncan, which he so ably supported, proposing the initiative and referendum as a new method of legislation in New Hampshire, and you will note in the same amendment and in the same line of thought he proposed at the same time a rapid tire method to amend the Constitution of the state of Xew Hampshire. All of this kind of legislation grows out of. the im- patience and the desire to accomplish things rapidly and quick- ly. It is revolution, such things as that, such rapid methods in the change of our Constitution, and in the affairs of the state, as were offered in the matter of the initiative and referendum, and the amendment for rapid and easy method to amend our Constitution, are revolution, Gentlemen. Sometimes the affairs of a state become such that revolution is justifiable, but don't make the mistake that any such changes advocated hj the gen- tlemen, as the initiative and referendum, are simply amend- ments to the Constitution; they mean revolution, pure and sim- ple. Now, we have some injustices here in the matter of taxa- tion which this body should thoroughly consider, and I am going to state briefly a few of them. I am going to take a case of the railroad Dond for one thousand dollars, which some gentleman has seen fit to buy; its income is forty dollars. If a similar bond is bought by a savings bank and taxed under the present rate it will pay a tax of seven and one-half dollars, and the income tax imposed on that bond, if you regard that tax as an income tax, is 18% percent. Now some gentleman comes into the bank, who wishes the advice of the treasurer as to the investment of one thousand dollars, and the treasurer recom- mends to him the same bond, and he buys it. The income of the bond is the same as in the case of the bank, when the bank owned it, $40. If he lived in Laconia and the tax assessors came around and wanted to know if he had any intangible property for taxation, and compelled him to declare it, and he said, "Yes, I have a railroad bond that yields me $40 income," the tax assessor would put it down on his book and that man would pay out of the $40 twenty-five dollars tax, and the income tax rate that that man would pay on that bond would be 621/2 percent. That bond in the savings bank, mark you. Gentlemen, was pay- ing an income tax rate of 18% percent, but that same bond in the possession of the man, who has come in and asked the treas- urer how he should invest his money, imposes upon the man who invested his money in it an income tax rate of 62l^ per- cent. Gentlemen, I remarked a few moments ago that the attempt by short cuts to amend this Constitution and the matter of in- 248 Journal of Constitutional Convention. itiative and referendum were revolutionary, and • it brings t