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. W<ison of Kashua. — I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chair-
man. The gentleman is discussing something that is not be-
fore the Convention.
Mr. Morse of Newmarket. — I am simply making an inquiry, and
the gentleman from Concord has yielded.
The Chairman. — The debate will proceed unless by other ac-
tion on the part of the Committee. The gentleman from Con-
cord, Mr. Lyford, has the fioor.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — Mr. Chairman
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I yield.
On motion of Mr. Whi-tcher of Haverhill, that the Com-
mittee proceed *to vote on the resolution at 4 o'clock in the
afternoon.
Question being on the motion, —
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — With regard to that time, there are
quite a number of gentlemen, members of the Convention,
who will be unable to be here at 4 o'clock, being required to
take a train at 3.40 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey, that the motion of
Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 195
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill be amended by making the time
at 12 o'clock, Thursday, June 13,
Question being on the amendment, —
Mr. Stone of Amloier. — Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from
Londonderry says, we have spent a great deal of time in the
discussion of this question. If the gentlemen will look about
this Convention, it seems to me it will appear to them that
thefre are as many delegates in their seats today as at any time
since the Convention assembled, and it seems to me today is
the time to settle this and then go on to further business.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey withdrew the motion to amend.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher, —
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey moved that the motion of Mr.
Whitcher of Haverhill, be amended so that the vote be taken
immediately.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — This morning I asked the gentleman
from Jaffrey, who is in charge of this resolution, if he would
agree upon a time upon which to take the vote, and suggested
the hour of 3 o'clock. I proposed then to adapt myself to the
time consumed here. I have yielded to others, and I have but
little to say upon this question, but I do think that the ac-
tion of the gentleman from Jaffrey is certainly unfair after
the treatment that I gave him this morning.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — In support of my motion I wash to
say just a word. I heartily agree with the gentleman from
Londonderry, Mr. Pillsbury, that we want to get down to
business. We are here for business, and I do not understand
that it is absolutely necessary for the members, the delegates
to this Convention, to go home every night. Some of us are
here and are staying here during the week to do the business
of the Convention. It seems to me we can vote at 4 o'clock
this afternoon. What little more needs to be said upon the
question can be said before that time, and we can vote and
get it out of the way and proceed to other business.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey asked that unanimous consent be
granted to Mr. Lyfordl of Concord to speak upon the subject
before the vote should be taken.
196 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Morse of Newmarket objected 'to unanimous consent.
Mr. Morse of Newmarket. — You cannot have unanimous con-
sent when any member of this body objects, and I object.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will tell j'ou why I object if you wish
to know, and if this Committee wishes to know. The gentle-
man from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, wishes to speak and the gen-
tleman from Exeter, Mr. Eastman, wishes to speak, and I see
no reason why the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford,
should monopolize all the time and these other gentlemen 'not
be heard. Now if the gentleman from Concord does not wish
to speak and the gentleman from Exeter does not wish to
speak, I will withdraw my objection.
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Duncan of Jaf-
frey to proceed to vote immediately, —
On motion of Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro, that the amend-
ment of Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey, to the motion of Mr.
Whi^tcher of Haverhill, be amended by making the time to
vote, Thursday, June 13, at 12 o'clock.
Question being on the 'amendment of Mr. Hobbs of Wolfe-
boro to the amendment of Mr. Duncan of Jaifrey, —
Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro. — I hope that the Committee will grant
me two or three minutes to be heard. Mr. Chairman and gen-
tlemen, this is one of the most important questions to come
before this Convention at this session. It is a matter of great
importance that this be discussed pro and con by every gentle-
man who wishes to be heard. I am heartily in favor of this
amendment. The gentlemen who want to talk here, I presume,
are opposed to the amendment. Therefore, in all fairness to
every man present, and to our constituents up and down the
length and breadth of New Hampshire, I demand in their name
a chance to be heard and everyone to be heard. Upon that
question. Gentlemen, can there be any opposition — a fair dis-
cussion of the greatest question that has ever been before the
people of New Hampshire.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative appeared to prevail.
Mr. Morse of Newmarket called for a division.
Mr. Morse of Newmarket withdirew his call for a division.
Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 19T
Mr. Clifford of Franklin renewed the call for a division.
The chairman designated Mr. Leighton of Newfields, teller
for Division No. 1; Mr. Hohhs of Pelham, for Division No. 2;
Mr. Dean of Danbury, for Division No. 3; Mr. Young of Man-
chester, for Division No. 4; and Mr. Flint of Concord, for
Division No. 5.
Division being had, 160 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
and 161 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the amend-
ment to the amendment was no't adopted.
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Duncan of Jaf-
frey, to the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, —
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill accepted the amendment of-
fered by Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill as amended, —
On a viva voce vote the negative prevailed.
On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, that the Committee
do now rise and recommend to the Convention that the reso-
lution be indefinitely postponed.
Upon that motion Mr. Lyford of Concord called for a divi-
sion.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — Tn order that all may understand the
parliamentary^ situation, if the Chairman will allow me, I will
sug-gest that all who are in favor of initiative and referendum
understand that they vote "no" on this proposition.
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford raised the point that the motion
is not in order.
The chair ruled the point well taken.
On motion of Mr. Barton of Newport that the Committee
do now rise and recommend that the resolution be not agreed
to.
198 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
On that motion Mr. Barton called for a division.
Question being on tlie motion of Mr. Barton of Xew^oort, —
Mr. Wddleigh of Milford. — Wasn't my motion proper, that we
recommend this resolution favorably? I thoug-ht I so made
the motion.
Mr. Barton of Neiopwt. — Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of or-
der, that there was a motion pending at that time, and that
my motion was first made when the board was clear.
Mr. WadleigJi of Milford. — I rise to another point of order and
I appeal to the g-entlemen of the Convention to be fair on the
vote upon this matter, and take it direct upon the resolution
as it should be. I appeal to the gentleman from Newport to
make the motion fair, to recommend this resolution, and take
it "yes" and "no."
Mr. Barton of Newport. — Mr. Chairman, I understand that my
motion is just as fair as the gentleman who has just spoken.
I simply say that we make the resolution that we reject the
proposition. He wishes to make it that we accept it. Now ^
we can vote just as intelligently and just as fairly on the nega-
tive as on the affirmative, and I see no reason why I should
withdraw in the interest of these other gentlemen.
The Chairman. — The motion before the Committee is the mo-
tion made by the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Barton, that
the Committee do now rise and report that this resolution be
not agreed to.
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford moved that the motion of Mr.
Barton of Newport be laid on the table.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — ^It doesn't make a particle of dif-
ference, it seems to me, whether we vote on the motion of
the gentleman from Milford, which he made out of order, be-
cause he made the motion while another motion was pend-
ing and before the point of order had been decided, whether
we vote on such a motion as his, or on such a motion as that
of the gentleman from Newport. It doesn't make any difference
on which we vote, only I trust we shall not waste a lot of time
here quibbling over words. If the motion of the gentleman
from Milford had been made in order, I would just as soon
vote on that as the other. He made it while another motion
was pending and before a point of order had been decided.
After the point of order had been decided the gentleman from
Newport made his motion, which was in order.
Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 19^
Mr. PiUsbury of Lo7idond)erry. — In the interest of doing busi-
ness, if his motion prevailed it would take two votes instead
of one. It will not make any difference; we are on the same
side. Why not withdraw it and do business?
■Mr. Wadleigh of Milford withdrew his motion.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Barton of N'ewport, —
Division being had, 170 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
and 160 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the motion
prevailed.
In Convention.
(The President in the chair.)
Mr. Whit^temore of Dover, for the Committee of the Whole
to whom was referred Eesolution N"o. 4, Eelating to the Ini-
tiative and Eeferendum and Future Mode of Amending the
Constitution, having considered the same, report the same
with an amendment, and recommend that 'the resolution as
amended be not agreed to: Amend by striking out all of the
resolution after the words, "Re-number Article 6, making it
Article 7, 'and likewise re-number all succeeding articles of
Part Second of the Constitu'tion.''
Question being on the report of the committee, —
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey demanded the yeas and nays.
The dem'and was seconded by ten members.
On the yeas and nays 178 gentlemen voted in the affirm-
a/tive and 157 gentlemen voted in the negative.
YEAS.
Rockingham County. Knights, Marston, Shepard, Web-
ster, Ingalls, Eastman of Exeter, Fuller of Exeter, Scammon,
Sanborn, Emerson, Lane, Healey, Rowe, Collins of Kingston,
Leighton, Willey, Dow, Guptill, Gordon, Lovering, Jewell of
South Hampton.
200 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Strafford County. Hurd of Dover, Neal of Dover,
Whittemore, Foss, Hall of Dover, Knox, Hanson, Berry of
New Durham, Richards, Meader, Hoyt of Rochester, Wallace,
Haines.
Belknap County. Bean of Belmont, Merrill of Gilford,
Parsons, Busiel, Young of Laconia, Yeazey of Laconia, Drake
of Laconia, Thyng, Fellows, Til'ton.
Carroll County. Wiggin, Chandler, Fifield, Gibson,
Shirley, Huckins, Trickey, Fl^ench of Moultonborough, Weeks
of Ossipee, Wentworth, Berry of Wakefield, Abbott.
Merrimack County. Stone of Andover, Kittredge,
Clough of Canterbury, Shaw of Chichester, Tibbetts,, Lyford,
Mitchell of Concord, Corning, Morrill of Concord, Bancroft,
Kimball, Martin, Flint, Quimby of Concord, Hill of Concord,
Gardner, Clifford, Little, Donigan, Young of Northfield,
Fowler, G. W., of Pembroke, Clark of Pittsfield, Wadleigh of
Sutton, Carroll, Burnham.
Hillsborough County. Harvell, Soper, Patch, Hadley,
Seeton, Flanders, Brown of Hudson, Richer, Sayers, Tait,
Brown of Manchester, Lambert, Pattee of M'anchester, War-
ren, Wilson of Manchester, Jones of Manchester, Cavanaugh,
Fairbanks, Garmon, Young of Manchester, Stevens of Man-
cheslter, Woodbury of Manchester, Biron, Barker of Merri-
mack, Keyes, Greeley, Andrews of Nashua, French of Nashua,
Wason, Runnells, Woodbury of Nashua, Marden of New Bos-
ton, Hobbs of Pelham, Smith of Peterborough, Colburn,
Morse of Weare, Bales.
Cheshire: County. Blake, Howe of Hinsdale, Mower of
Jaffrey, Norwood, Wellman of Keene, Clark of Keene, Fuller
of Marlboro, Craig, Fletcher, Nims of Roxbury, Goodnow,
Whitcomb of Swanzey, Spaulding of Walpole, Nims of West-
moreland.
Sullivan County. Rossiter, Davis of Croydon, Booth,
Howard, Winch, Johnson of Newport.
Wednesday, June 12, 1912. 201
Grafton Coitnty. Mathews, Gammons, Parker of Ben-
ton, Lewis, Carlton, Wells, Spooner, Barney of Grafton,
Jewell of Groton, Storrs, Clark of Haverhill^ I^wrence,
Whitcher, Moore of Hebron, Carter, Haltton, True, Water-
man, Oakes, Eastman of Littleton, Veazie of Littleton, Shnte
of Lyman, Gilchrist, Ford, Carr, Keniston, Herbert, Hazeltine
of Thornton, Green of Waterville, Shu'te of Wentworth.
Coos County. Goss, Dudley, Johnson of Colebrook,
Lang, Evans, Morris, Watson, Simpson, Knapp, Pattee of
Stratford.
NAYS.
Rockingham County. Griffin, Collins of Danville, Batch-
elder of Deerfield, Benson, Leddy, Holmes, Pillsbury of Lon-
donderry, Hayford, Towle, Batchelder of Nottingham,
Boynton, Mitchell of Portsmouth, Brown of Raymond, Drake
of Rye, Foote, Gowen.
Steaffobd County. Clark of Barrington, Folsom, Will-
son of Farmington, Sanders of Madbury, Roberts, Preston,
Durgin.
Belknap County. McDuffee of Alton, Moore of Barn-
stead, Richardson, Wright.
Caejeioll County. Povall, Andrews of Bartlett, Robert-
son, Wormwood, Hoyt of Madison, Pollard, Lamprey, Hobbs
of Wolfeboro.
Merrimack County. Buxton, Farrand, Marden of Con-
cord:,' Hollis of Ward 3, Concord, Hollis of Ward 4, Concord,
Hatch, Gallagher, Henneberry, Dean, Bean of Franklin,
Jones of Franklin, Wilkins, Mitchell of Hooksett, Boutwell,
Drake of Pittsfield, Shaw of Salisbury, Sawyer, Goodhue.
HiLLSBOEOUGH CouNTY. Fcsscnden, Brown of Green-
ville, Weare, Hayden, Saunders of Litchfield, Tarbell,
Crawford, Libbey, Lindquist, Pillsbury of Manchester, Shon-
tell, Broderick, Connor of Ward 5, Manchester, Eagan, Glynn,
Howe of Manchester, Magan, Ryan, Sheehan, Chatel, McDon-
202 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
ough, riorse of Manchester, Moquin, Rodelsperger, Scniller,
Tinkham, Van Vliet, Geoffrion, Martel, Turcotte, Chevrette,
Donnelly, Leclerc of Manchester, Eaton, Wadleigh of Milford,
Gilmore, Rancour, Parker of Nashua, Phaneuf, Shea, Tolles,
Clancy, Dionne, Ducharme, Theriault, Davis of New Ipswich,
Jones of Peterborough, Smith of Sharon, Nelson.
Cheshire County. Slade, Pierce of Dublin, Hubbard,
Temple, Duncan, Sturtevant, Faulkner, Ruffle, Twitchell,
Newell, Connors, Ball.
SuLLiYAX County. Neal of Acworth, Young of Charles-
town, Brooks, Hurd of Claremont, Quimby of Claremont,
Upham, Comings, Parker of Dempster, Tracy, Philbrick,
Bailey of 'Sunapee, Newton.
Grafton COu'nty. DeGross, Whipple, Moulton, TJpdyke,
Curry, Stevens of Landaff, Bailey of Dittleton, Brummer,
Grant of Dyme, Ames, Clement, Green of Woodstock.
Coos County. Smith of Berlin, Smyth, Noyes, Sullivan,
Haarvei, Wolf, Sheehe, Whitcomb of Dalton, Wight, Ben-
nett, Clough of Jefferson, Cleaveland, Hancock, Hayes,
Potter, Baldwin, Pike, Bowker, Garland.
Mr. Morse of Newmarket was paired wi'th Mr. Barton of
Newport.
Mr. Entwistle of Portsmouth was paired with Mr. Ander-
son of Exeter.
The report of the Committee was adopted.
On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, the Convention ad-
journed a!t 1.55 o'clock.
Afternoon.
The Convention met at 2 o'clock, according to adjoam-
ment.
(The President in the chair.)
On motion of Mr. Broderick of Manchester, the Convention
adjourned at 4.15 o'clock.
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 203
THURSDAY, June 13, 1912.
The Convention met at 10.30 o'clock, according to adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the chair.)
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Rev. Charles C. Gar-
land of Concord.
The reading of the Journal having begun, —
On mo'tion of Mr. Green of Woodstock, the further reading
was dispensed with.
Tellers Appointeid.
The President appointed the following tellers for the re-
mainder of the session: —
Division No. 1. — Mr. Leighton of Newfields.
Division No. 2.— Mr. Hobbs of Pelham.
Division No. 3. — Mr. Dean of Danbury.
Division No. 4. — ^Mr. Sise of Portsmouth.
Division No. 5. — Mr. Flint of Ct)ncord.
Le^ve of Absence.
Leave of absence was granted Messrs. Sanborn of Fremont,
and Batchelder of Deerfield, for Thursday forenoon, on ac-
count of important business.
Leave of absence was granted Mr. P. J. Smyth of Berlin,
for Thursday afternoon and Friday, on account of important
business.
Change of Refeoeience.
On motion of Mr. Hurd of Claremont, —
Resolved, That the order whereby Resolution No. 48, Re-
lating to Roll Call in the Legislature, was referred to the
Committee of the Whole, be vacated and the same referred to
the Committee on Legislative Department.
On motion of Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord, —
204 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Resolved, That the orders whereby Eesolution No. 30, Re-
lating to County Officers, was referred to the Committee on
Bill of Rights and Executive Department,; Resolution No.
40, Relating to County Commissioners, was referred to the
Committee of the Whole; Resolution No. 41, Relating to
Registers of Probate, 'and Resolution No. 42, Relating to
Registers of Deeds, were referred to the Committee on Judi-
cial Department, be vacated and the same referred to the
Committee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution
and other Proposed Amendments.
On motion of Mr. Mitchell of Concord, tha't the Conven-
tion resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, for the pur-
pose of considering Resolution No. 5, Relating to Taxation of
Wild and Forest Lands and Money at Interest, 'and Resolu-
tion No. 37, Relating to Income Tax.
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth moved to amend the motion
so as to include all other resolutions relating to taxation, the
same being.
Resolution No. 33, Relating to Taxation.
Resolution No. 37, Relating to Income Tax.
Resolution No. 39, Relating to Taxation of Wild Lands.
Resolution No. 50, Relating to Taxes.
Resolution No. 51, Relating to Taxation of Incomes.
Question being on the amendment, —
Mr. Mitchell of Concord accepted ithe amendment.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Mitchell of Concord,
as amended, —
On a vwa voce vote the affirmative prevaileid.
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 205
In CO'M:\uttee of the Whole.
(Mr. Oakes'of Lisbon in the chair.)
Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — ^Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee: I desire jour indulg-ence, briefly, while I make
some suggestions, or exjilanations, with respect to the amend-
ment offered by me to Resolution No. 5.
In the observation with reference to this amendment to that
resolution, there are involved, directly, or indirectly, questions
raised: by the other resolutions relating to taxation, now before
the Committee. Resolution No. 5 introduced by the g-entleman
from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, provides for the taxation, under
classiiication, as I characterize it, of timber lands and money
at interest. The terms used to designate wood and timber
lands are "wild and forest lands," which I regard as too re-
strictive for the purpose sought to be accomplished by this
amendment. Therefore, this amendment, w^hich I offer, to
Resolution No. 5, substitutes the words, "growing wood and
timber," for "wild and forest lands," because the terms "wild
and forest," according to the ordinary acceptation and defini-
tion of those terms, might possibly, and, I think, would proba-
bly, defeat the object sought to be accomplished by this amend-
ment. And unless the words, "growing wood and timber" are
sufficiently definite, sufficiently comprehensive, to indicate
clearly the purposes of the Convention with respect to the lati-
tude here to be granted, then, certainly, I have no pride of
opinion that will interfere with the substitution of other words
which will make the expression and purpose of the Convention
more and sufficiently definite to remove all doubt. For in-
stance, "wild and forest" might be held, in the ordinary defini-
tion of those terms, to include only forests in their primitive
condition, which, of course, every one will agree, are not suf-
ficiently comprehensive. Because, as undoubtedly all will
agree, there ought to be granted, through this amendment,
legislative permission, if the legislature deems it expedient not
only to classify lands which are in their primitive state but
lands which have had the growth removed and are again cov-
ered with wood and timber. Leaving the whole subject, so far
as that proposition is concerned, so that the legislature can
deal with it without any limit, — ^without any restriction, — so far
as the area, or quality of timber lands, that is, lands covered
by wood and timber, are concerned.
According to the reports of the Forestry Commission there
are only about one half a million acres of land in this state, — ^to
206 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
be exact, I think they put it at 537,000 acres, covered by what
may properly be desigTiated as primitive g-rowth, while there
are in area 1,620,000 acres, in addition to this, which may be
properly characterized and considered as wood and timber
lands. The object of this amendment is to permit the legisla-
ture, if it deems it wise and expedient, and in the interest of
the public, to classify the whole, the 1,620,000 acres as well as
the 527,000 acres, or to classify either, or a part of each, leaving
the matter entirely open, as it should be, to the wisdom, the
discretion, and sagacity of the legislature.
In reference to the difficulties relating to the other branch of
the subject, that is, money at interest, it is, I believe, necessary
tnat that clause should be more comprehensive or more ex-
plicit, so that the terms employed may unmistakably include
deposits in savings banks, within and without the state. The
savings bank deposits of this state are too important a part of
its property and of Its taxables to be longer left In doubt,
either by virtue of a constitutional construction or judicial de-
cisions. To amend the Constitution, in the present state of the
law, without providing clearly for the taxation of savings bank
deposits, may embarrass and perhaps imperil the interests of
the people with respect to the taxable status of savings bank
deposits. At present, the question, as was stated by the gen-
tleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, when he introduced his reso-
lution, is open, and it never has been judicially met and deter-
mined whether the deposits in savings banks, as they are now
taxed, would stand the test of the application of the constitu-
tional rule, with respect to proportion and equality. The ques-
tion has never been airectly raised, and consequently, it has
never been directly adjudicated, and to amend the Constitu-
tion, with respect to taxation, in the manner proposed, without
making some provision for special taxation of that great and
important class of property, would be perilous, and, in the fu-
ture, would very likely be troublesome. As now held by the
Court, the limit to which it has gone, or felt justified in ^ oing,
in recognition of the constitutionality of the present rates, or
method of taxation, the rate formerly having been 1 per cent,
while at present it is three quarters of 1 per cent, upon the
deposits, is to hold that this method is an anomaly depending
upon an implied exception to the general rule of equality and
proportion. This, as all must readily admit, is a very slender
thread on which to rest the taxation of such an important part
of the property of the people of the state; and it would be
more questionable and the thread much lighter with an amend-
ment to the Constitution that did not take care of and provide
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 207
for the taxation of this property in explicit and unambiguous
terms. Therefore, it is my purpose, iby this amendment, in
which I trust the Committee will concur, to put within the
power of the legislature to do, constitutionally, that which it
is now doing, viz., practically classify savings bank deposits.
The savings banks of this state, as all must admit, need care,
need protection. Therein are deposited the accumulations, the
earnings, of many people of this state.
The deposits last year aggregated in excess of $90,000,000,
and on account of the increased deposits of the current year
they will probably be nearly $100,000,000 this year. The de-
posits of last year, contributed in taxes, to the state treasury
$533,000. This is a reasonable tax, easily and inexpensively col-
lected. And all that is now asked, or expected, is that the
existing condition may be continued, constitutionally, so that
no question will or can hereafter be raised to trouble the Court
of this state, or that of the Federal Government. As you are
all aware, in the matter of taxation, we have not only our own
State Constitution to recognize and conform to in the matter
of legislation, but we must recognize the provisions of the
fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, — that Consti-
tution which is the supreme law of the land upon this subject.
And by that amendment, that is, the fourteenth amendment to
the United States Constitution, there is given to every person,
natural or corporate, the right to the equal protection of the
law, and the guarantee that he or it shall not be deprived, by
any state, of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law, — which means, for the subject of taxation, that each per-
son must bear, and only bear, his equitable and fair proportion
of the public burdens, in accordance with the fundamental law
of the state. And one danger, or embarrassment, which might
result from the failure to expressly include savings bank de-
posits, which may be classified, would be the liability to^ have
raised, on the objection of any other taxpayer, whether a na-
tural person or corporation, the yet unsettled constitutional
right of the legislature to authorize the taxation of this class
of property at a rate different from that at which other
property is taxed. While the Federal Court holds 'that it is
jjonstitutionally permissible under the fourteenth amendment to
the Federal Constitution to classify taxable properties for
taxation, it might not hold, if objection were made, that the
present method and rate, for the taxation of savings bank de-
posits was constitutionally permissible. Therefore, it is impor-
tant that this proposed amendment be so expressed that the
present method of taxing savings banks deposits will be in har-
208 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
mony with, and justified under the provisions of both the State
and Federal Constitutions.
There is, also, involved in this amendment, another privilege,
that is: This amendment, if adopted, will authorize the taxa-
tion, or classification, of deposits made by citizens of this state
in the savings banks of other states. Massachusetts and Ver-
mont, our neighboring states, do this now. If a resident of the
State of Massachusetts or the State of Vermont makes a de-
posit in one of the New Hampshire sa\ings banks, notwith-
standing that deposit yields to the treasury of this state three-
quarters of one per cent, in taxes, the deposit is also taxed to
the owner in Massachusetts, or Vermont, as the case may be.
If citizens of this state make deposits in Massachusetts, or Ver-
mont banks, while enjoying the protection of the laws of this
state, why should they not make a contribution equal in
amount to that they would make if their deposits were in the
savings banks of this state?
This amendment also permits, or authorizes, if the legis-
lature deems it wise, not only the classification of those proper-
ties, but the right to make reasonable exemptions of them, or
a part of them. This right should exist, because there may be
good reasons why certain exemptions should be granted.
Take, for instance, the taxation of bonds. Should not bonds
issued for the purpose of creating or promoting an industry in
this state, which will create new property for taxation, and fur-
nish additional employment for local labor, be favored in pref-
erence to bonds issued for the purpose of creating property for
industries in Massachusetts, or elsewhere, which will there
create new taxable capital, and furnish employment for addi-
tional labor outside this state?
As is well known and perfectly understood, these two classes
of property, that is, timber lands and money at interest, as well
as some others, have for many years been taxed when taxed
at all, at a rate much below that proportional rate required by
the existing provisions of the Constitution.
As a result of the investigation made by the special Tax Com-
mission appointed by the legislature of liH>7 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<J
mind that this is a matter of similar character. Your present
law is, to many persons' minds, just as wrong and oppressive as
initiative and referendum, and the taking of 621/2 percent of a
man's income, who owns the four percent bond of the Pennsyl-
yania Eailroad, is confiscation, confiscation pure and simple, and
the words "revolution" and "confiscation," Gentlemen, are not
pleasant words for us to consider, and they are not deemed so
by anybody.
Now, the savings banks can buy railroad stock, and, when
they do so, the railroad stock that pays six percent will give an
income on one thousand dollars of $60, and that bank will pay a
tax of $7.50, as in the other case of the $1,000 bond, but the in-
come tax rate that the bank pays on that stock will be only
1214 percent, instead of 18% percent. Now comes along an in-
dividual with some money and asks the treasurer how he shall
invest it. He says, "Why don't you buy some stock in that rail-
road?" "What is the tax on it?" 'Oh, there isn't any tax on it,
if you own it." "Well, I guess I will buy some of that." So he
buys one thousand dollars worth of railroad stock; the income
from the same is $60; the assessor comes around and asks him
what property he has, and among other things he mentions the
railroad stock. The assessor says, "I don't care for you to tell
me about that; that is of no consequence; there is no tax on it
at all." Your savings bank paj'S 121/3 percent income tax on it,
but the individual is paying nothing; but it is the same thing,
or the same property in both cases; the man who bought that
railroad bond gets talking with the man who bought the rail-
road stock, and the man who bought the bond says: "You know
what they have done to me after I bought that four percent
bond? Why, they took $25 of the income of it for taxes."
"Well,." the man says who bought the stock, "What made you
stand it? You don't need to stand that." "What shall I do?"
"Sell your bond, put it into stock the same as I did; it won't
cost you anything for taxation. They don't tax it at all."
Now a man who owns a little cottage house and lot which has
cost him $2,000, and which, if he rented it, would bring in an
income of $150 under the old system of taxation, — before my
friend Mr. Fellows, in order to cure an ill, adopted the maxim
of General Grant, that the proper way to get rid of a bad law
was to enforce it vigorously, — would have been taxed about
two-thirds of its value, and at the tax rate in Laconia, if we re-
gard the income solely in this transaction, the income tax rate
on that house and lot would have been 22.2 percent. The total
tax would have been $16.67 on a thousand of valuation. Now
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 249
suppose the gentleman sold his cottage house and lot, and got
two thousand dollars for it, and he put his money that he got
into the savings bank here in New Hampshire, where the income
from savings banks averages 3.69 percent, his two thousand dol-
lars would have paid him $73.80; he would have got that in the
shape of dividends and be taxed nothing; He would be just as
well off as far as taxes go as the fellow who put his money into
stock; he wouldn't pay anything because he put his money in
the bank, but if, instead of doing that, some man had hinted
to him he could get greater income by putting it into stocks,
and he put it into 6 percent stock, he got an income of $120 in-
stead of $70.80, and still is taxed nothing. Now I have given
examples briefly which show you the wrong condition of things,
as they exist, in my mind, in the taxation laws of New Hamp-
shire, and things that ought to be cured. I realize. Gen-
tlemen, that there is peril in opening the door here to discrimi-
nation in taxation, but there are certain kinds of property
which possibly we may, as a practical question, tax differently
instead of taxing them as they are taxed today. And the case
of the bond and the case of the woodland have been brought in
here as separate examples of it. Now, in the case of the bond, I
think there should be a remedy sought here in this state, and,
as there must be some way of taxing men who have an income
from what is known as intangible property, and who have not
invested that property in what we know as general property,
and so are not subject to what we know as general property
tax, I have, as a result of my thought on this question, come to
the conclusion that the fair and straight way is to impose an
income tax in the state of New Hampshire, and I have another
reason for it, and I will be perfectly frank, Gentlemen, because
I believe we should be in a discussion of this kind, — I have an-
other reason for it, — and it is because I am utterly against giv-
ing the federal government a right to levy an income tax in the
state of New Hampshire, and I am opposed to it for the broad
and simple reason that the government of the United States of
America has under its present Constitution distinct and ample
authority to impose all the taxes upon the state of New Hamp-
shire that it ought ever to have. The United States government
can today tax you, not only indirectly as it is taxing you
through the tariff, and in other ways at the present time, but it
has full, ample, and specific authority to levy a direct tax on
the state of New Hampshire here, and allow you to pay that
tax by raising it in any manner you see fit, and, if we can once
impose an income tax to cure this ill we are speaking of, I
250 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
should hope that the state would be opposed to allowing- the
federal government to impose an income tax. If a man has
one hundred thousand dollars, and it is invested in stocks, he
gets a six thousand dollar income, we will say, and he pays no
tax. If he has one hundred thousand dollars invested in four
percent bonds, — or I will say to make the examples alike, — in-
vested in six percent bonds and gets $-6,000 in income, if he
lives in my town, and he discloses that he has the bonds, he will
pay $2,500 out of tlw 6 percent income from the bonds in the sJmpe of
ta^res. Now that is not what is meant by the word "propor-
tional" or "reasonable" in j-our State Constitution, and that is
why I say that I am in favor of an amendment like this for the
exemption of property, — intangible property of this kind in the
case of bonds, just the same as it has already been done in the
case of stock, and for the same reason, — for the same identical
reason that it is double taxation, as well as for the injustice in
the case^ For I say that it is perilously near insanity in taxa-
tion to say that you can tax a bond at its full value and take
6214 percent of its income, and practicallj^ confiscate the whole
income, but cannot tax the man who owns property in the shape
of stock; that he cannot be touched, and nobody can approach
him to tax him, if he owns stock, but if he takes the same
money and puts it into bonds you are authorized under the law
to take 621/2 percent of his income. I don't believe in anything
of the sort, Gentlemen, and that is why I don't believe in taxing
bonds in the state of New Hampshire. Now, Gentlemen, j^ou
may think that you have got the jDower and you are going to
use it. Don't fool yourselves. Gentlemen; you think you can
tax four percent bonds in the city of Laconia at the rate of $25
a thousand; you cannot do anything of the kind; the law au-
thorizes you to do it, but you cannot enforce the law. Why?
Because the money doesn't stay there in that form; it gets right
out of your state in a minute, just as quick as a man can
change it. Why, I have had forty men come to me, I should
think, when it was apparent that this year things were going to
be assessed in the way they were assessed, asking: "What shall
I do?" I said, "What is your property?" "I have got so many
bonds." "If you have any bonds and you disclose them, they
will tax them." "What shall I do?" "Sell your bonds, and buy
some stock." "And what shall I buy?" And that was the way
things were talked until I do not know how many million dol-
lars' worth of bonds went out of the state of New, Hampshire.
I know many millions went, and I know because some could not
be sold to go out of the state there were some tremendous
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 251
hardships. I want to say to the gentleman from Peterborough,
that the matter of sympathy and that sort of thing should not
be made the basis of taxation. I say it should not be made tne
basis of representation, and sentiment has no place in matters
of this kind. There were widows who owned property, there
were men who held property as trustees, who didn't know what
to do, and they suffered great injustice; they were forced to
pay large taxes unless they sold their bonds, and, if they sold
their bonds, what did they do? They had to put their money
into securities that were of less intrinsic value, and so you im-
pose a hardship, and it is a hardship, and unless you correct it,
Gentlemen, the people will correct it themselves. You can let
this thing "set'' if you want to; you can continue to tax bonds
the way you are doing; you can continue to make discriminatory
legislation as to bonds, if you wish. You, perhaps, are not go-
ing to remedy the matter. But the people will exercise the
rights they have left; they have the right to go and sell that
kind of property and convert it into something else that is not
taxable at all, and will do so. Some gentlemen may say I am
in favor of exempting the rich man from taxation^ Nothing
of the sort. I utterly repudiate anything of that kind. If I
could not talk on this subject on what I call a fair and square
basis I would take my seat and forever hold my peace. But, if
you are not going to tax intangible property by an income tax,
what are you going to do? I suggested- to the gentleman from
Tilton, when this subject has been talked with him as I have
talked at different times, that I could not see any other way
than to impose the income tax in the state of New Hampshire;
and it is fair, and it is just. There are men who say you can-
not operate the income tax. I say you can. I say you can do
nothing which will so tone up the whole question, the whole fis-
cal question in New Hampshire, and make men so thoroughly
honest, as to imf)0se an income tax. At the present time they
are making laws for themselves to evade unjust taxation. You
cannot enforce unjust tax laws. You cannot collect confiscatory
taxes. Gentlemen, and people will take it into their own hands
to see that you do not. How can you reach this property? I
say by an income tax. You may say that is something new in
the state of New Hampshire, but I am going to show you very
briefly that it is not. I am going to show j^ou very briefly you
are unconstitutionally- exercising the income tax today in the
state of New Hampshire when you are taxing the savings banks
in the way you are taxing them, and which present method of
taxation is to my mind not only all wrong, but as thoroughly
252 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
unconstitutional a tax as you have got, or ever had in the state
of New Hampshire, and the only ground upon which you can
justify it under the Constitution, is that it is an excise tax, or is
in the nature of an excise.
The savings bank of which I am one of the trustees paid
last year an income tax of llVg percent. Some one will say: "I
did not know there was an income tax on savings banks." No,
there isn't, but they paid an income tax of lli/o percent, for that
is just exactly- what the tax amounted to on the income of that
bank last year. The bank had 881/2 percent with which to pay
dividends to its depositors, and the state took lll^ percent.
Now, we have another bank in Laconia, a younger one, that has
gone into operation since some of the laws relating to taxation
have been changed in New Hampshire. You w^ould say that
bank paid probably about the same. Now it did not, Gentle-
men. That bank paid last year 7.8 percent income tax. The
old bank with which I am connected with its two millions of de-
posits paid 111/2, the new bank with about six or seven hundred
thousands of deposits, paid 7.8 percent. Whence is the inequal-
ity? You, Gentlemen, say, Why is that? It all came about
legally, and under your laws that you have made here in your
legislatures. You see even the legislature can pass unjust laws
relating to taxation, notwithstanding the fact that my friend
from Landafl thinks they cannot, — they can, and they do, and
they would. That bank invested its money in mortgages on
New Hampshire property, where the rate of interest was five
percent or under, and on such it was not taxed at all, and it
invested sufficient of its money in that way so that its tax rate
was 7.8 percent, while the tax rate on the old bank was IIV2 per-
cent, because the old bank has lots of bonds in it, and a bigger
proportion of securities, which are taxed at full value, and so
has less proportion of assets exempt from taxation. The legis-
lature of New Hampshire should never have begun any such
thing as exempting money loaned at a certain percent from tax-
ation; and I go further, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, and say
the legislature of New Hampshire should never have gone to the
extent of exempting a three and one-half percent municipal
bond from all taxes, when owned by a savings bank, if the bond
was issued by some town in New Hampshire. I do not believe
in that way of doing business. Now, some gentlemen may say:
"You have not an income tax on banks." I want you to know
that last year in the state of New Hampshire you taxed all
of the savings banks and all of the guaranty banks 10.19 per-
cent on their income Some men think that an income tax is a
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 253
hardship, but you are going- on taxing your savings banks at the
rate of over ten percent on their income. You are practically
taxing them more than any other property. Some men say it
is only three-quarters of one percent; it wasn't three-quarters
of one percent. You did not tax them three-quarters of one
percent. You taxed them a little less than .58 of one percent,
because you have been giving them this authority to change
their investments and put them into things that do not bear
taxes. You have been going along here in a random fashion;
today you tax one rate; some fellow gets up in the legislature
and thinks jou ought to add to it or subtract from it, and He
wants to get it done, and it is, maybe, voted, and the rate is
changed, and so it goes on. Don't you see if you had an income
tax in the state of New Hampshire, you could tax savings banks
squarely and fairly, and not necessarily take five percent of
their income? Mr. Fuller from Exeter says you cannot enforce
such a tax. I say you can. I say that men will disclose their
income for taxation when the tax is fair, and I have yet to talk
with the man who has money at interest that won't do that
very thing, and the only possible way out of this difficulty is an
income tax. I am in favor of an income tax in the state of New
Hampshire, and for the added reason I have given, that I hope
it will stop the state from voting for the Federal income tax,
which I do not believe in, because I do not want the money of
New Hampshire taken under the Federal Income tax, and spent
in some scheme to build a cement wall the whole length of the
Mississippi river to prevent it from flooding the adjacent land.
If the general government wants to do that, I say let's go and
do it, just as I was willing to see the money spent for the Pan-
ama canal, but not by taxing the rich states only.
The United States government has the powder in cases of
emergency, and if the life of this nation is in danger, if it wants
the money of this state, it has got the power to take it, it is
right there in ample form in the Constitution of the United
States. Now^ there have been manj' attempts to regulate the
taxation and plans formed for taxation, and I have here the re-
port of the meeting of the first National Tax conference in 3907.
Mr. Duncan read you some extracts from some subsequent ones,
and, promising not to weary you, — and I don't know but I have
already, — I want to call attention briefly to a little thing here
read by a gentleman at the conference relating to the taxes in
the state of Maine. That is a sister state right across the line,
and this article was by Prof. Robert J. Sprague, Department of
Economics and Sociology, University of Maine, and he started
252 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
unconstitutional a tax as you have got, or ever had in the state
of New Hampshire, and the only ground upon which you can
justify it under the Constitution, is that it is an excise tax, or is
in the nature of an excise.
The savings bank of which I am one of the trustees paid
last year an income tax of IIV2 percent. Some one will say: "I
did not know there was an income tax on savings banks." No,
there isn't, but they paid an income tax of liyo percent, for that
is just exactly what the tax amounted to on the income of that
bank last year. The bank had 88l^ percent with which to pay
dividends to its depositors, and the state took lll^ percent.
Now, we have another bank in Laconia, a younger one, that has
gone into operation since some of the laws relating to taxation
have been changed in New Hampshire. You would say that
bank paid probably about the same. Now it did not. Gentle-
men. That bank paid last year 7,8 percent income tax. The
old bank with which I am connected with its two millions of de-
posits paid ll^a* the new bank with about six or seven hundred
thousands of deposits, paid 7.8 percent. Whence is the inequal-
ity? You, Gentlemen, say, Why is that? It all came about
legally, and under your laws that you have made here in your
legislatures. You see even the legislature can pass unjust laws
relating to taxation, notwithstanding the fact that my friend
from LandafP thinks they cannot, — they can, and they do, and
they would. That bank invested its money in mortgages on
New Hampshire property, where the rate of interest was five
percent or under, and on such it was not taxed at all, and it
invested sufficient of its money in that wa^^ so that its tax rate
was 7.8 percent, while the tax rate on the old bank was 11 V2 per-
cent, because the old bank has lots of bonds in it, and a bigger
proportion of securities, which are taxed at full value, and so
has less proportion of assets exempt from taxation. The legis-
lature of New Hampshire should never have begun any such
thing as exempting money loaned at a certain percent from tax-
ation; and I go further, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, and say
the legislature of New Hampshire should never have gone to the
extent of exempting a three and one-half percent municipal
bond from all taxes, when owned by a savings bank, if the bond
was issued by some town in New Hampshire. I do not believe
in that way of doing business. Now, some gentlemen may say:
"You have not an income tax on banks." I want you to know
that last year in the state of New Hampshire you taxed all
of the savings banks and all of the guaranty banks 10.19 per-
cent on their income Some men think that an income tax is a
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 253
hardship, but you are going on taxing your savings banks at the
rate of over ten percent on their income. You are practically
taxing them more than any other property. Some men say it
is only three-quarters of one percent; it wasn't three-quarters
of one i)ercent. You did not tax them three-quarters of one
percent. You taxed them a little less than .58 of one percent,
because j'ou have been giving them this authority to change
their investments and put them into things that do not bear
taxes. You have been going along here in a random fashion;
today you tax one rate; some fellow gets up in the legislature
and thinks j^ou ought to add to it or subtract from it, and ne
wants to get it done, and it is, maybe, voted, and the rate is
changed, and so it goes on. Don't you see if you had an income
tax in the state of New Hampshire, you could tax savings banks
squarely and fairly, and not necessarily take five percent of
their income? Mr. Fuller from Exeter says you cannot enforce
such a tax. I say you can. I say that men will disclose their
income for taxation when the tax is fair, and I have yet to talk
with the man who has money at interest that won't do that
very thing, and the only possible w^ay out of this difficulty is an
income tax. I am in favor of an income tax in the state of New
Hampshire, and for" the added reason I have given, that I hope
it will stop the state from voting for the Federal income tax,
which I do not believe in, because I do not want the money of
New Hampshire taken under the Federal Income tax, and spent
in some scheme to build a cement wall the whole length of the
Mississippi river to prevent it from flooding the adjacent land.
If the general government wants to do that, I say let's go and
do it, just as I was willing to see the monej^ spent for the Pan-
ama canal, but not by taxing the rich states only.
The United States government has the power in cases of
emergency, and if the life of this nation is in danger, if it wants
the money of this state, it has got the power to take it. it is
right there in ample form in the Constitution of the United
States, Now there have been many attempts to regulate the
taxation and plans formed for taxation, and I have here the re-
port of the meeting of the first National Tax conference in 3907.
Mr. Duncan read you some extracts from some subsequent ones,
and, promising not to weary you, — and I don't know but I have
already, — I want to call attention briefiy to a little thing here
read by a gentleman at the conference relating to the taxes in
the state of Maine. That is a sister state right across the line,
and this article was by Prof. Robert J. Sprague, Department of
Economics and Sociology, University of Maine, and he started
254 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
off by speaking- of Adam iSmith's first principle. Adam Smith
has been dead a great many years. He was a pretty wise man,
and he had some pretty good ideas.
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute to the sup-
port of the government, as nearly as possible in proportion to
their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue
they respectively enjoy, under the protection of the state. In
the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called
the equality or inequality of taxation."
Then the man cites an instance in the state of Maine:
"A selected typical farmer of the poorer class yields the fol-
lowing facts:
Forty-nine acres of land, with buildings, assessed at ... . $900
Personal property 140
Total property $1,040
Property tax $29.12
Poll tax 3.00
Total tax $32.12"
This you say is a pretty heavy tax for a farm of that size,
and he says that this man, after careful consideration, told him
his income couldn't exceed $400, and you notice that farmer is
paying an income tax of eight percent. Now he speaks of an-
other farm:
"Buildings assessed at $2,730
Personal property assessed at 380
Total $3,110
Property tax $87.08
Poll tax 3.00
Total tax $90.08"
So here again is a large tax. "For the privilege of enjoying
this income under the protection of the state he pays $90.08, or
11V4 percent on his net income."
Some men shudder at the idea of the income tax, when you
talk about what the farmer is paying in the shape of income
tax. He is paying like the savings bank; he is paying too much
tax. He goes further and says, "Let us now examine the con-
tribution made by the wage-earning class of citizens for the
support of the local government. In one of the largest manu-
facturing plants of the town I obtained the incomes of all the
regular workmen, excepting the superintendents. The list in-
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 255
eludes only those men who work the year round for this cor-
poration, and who have no other considerable income.
"The incomes are as follows:
"7 men at $1,040 per year $7,280.00
3 men at $832 per year 2,496.00
2 men at $780 per year 1,560.00
3 men at $728 per year 2,184.00
8 men at $624 per year 4,992.00
8 men at $557.44 per year 4,459.52
19 men at $514.80 per year 9,781.20
5 men at $507 per year 2,535.00
55 men Total income $35,287.72
"These men pay taxes as follows:
"32 men poll taxes at $3 , . $96.00
All others pay an aggregate of. $316.70
"The total is 1 1/7 percent of the total income."
Now, mind you, he doesn't include anybody that doesn't earn
$507 in a year, and running from that up to $1,040. Then he
goes on and makes a summary. After discussing further such
taxes as the classes pay, he states as follows:
"Farmers with poor farms, 8 percent to 10 percent of net in-
come.
"Farmers with good farms, 10 percent to 12 percent on net in-
come.
"Wage earners, average 1 percent of net income.
"College professors and administrators, 9/10 percent of net
income.
"Physicians, 1 1/16 percent of net income.
"The druggist (on stock in*trade), li/g percent of net income.
"Grocers (on stock in trade), 1*4 percent of net income."
Then he goes on, but I won't worry you with the discussion
of the taxes on wild lands. Now, some man may ask what is
the remedy; and for a suggestion I am going to take up here
another thing that was discussed at the meeting where these
tables were read, which is the general property tax as a source
of state revenue, so read by Prof. J. H. T. McPherson, professor
of history and political science. University of Georgia, Athens,
Ga. He goes on and speaks of the general property tax in prac-
tice, and its defects. He says:
"The first defect of the general property tax in actual ad-
ministration is its lack of uniformity, or failure to affect all
property equally, owing to differences in the appraisement by
assessors of valuation of individuals. While the law requires
256 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
that all property shall be rated at its true selling value, the
actual practice of assessment varies enormously."
Then he says the secoifd great defect in the general property
tax, as actually administered, "is its failure to reach certain im-
portant classes of property. It is notorious that personal prop-
erty largelj^ escapes taxation." That is why I favor the income
tax.
"A third and, from the ethical point of view, the greatest evil
of the general property tax in practice is the constant and al-
most irresistible temptation to dishonesty which it places be-
fore every property owner. A man inclined to be upright is
almost forced into dishonesty by the tax." You see it is not
merely an income tax that forces dishonesty; you see there are
other things that force dishonesty as well as income tax.
"A fourth evil of the general property tax is that in practice
it always throws a heavier proportion of the tax upon the
smaller properties, thus discriminating against the poorer
classes. This is due in part to unequal assessment, and in part
to the escape of intangible property. A house and lot worth
$1,000 is inevitably assessed at a figure much nearer its true
value than one worth $20,000 or $50,000 . . .
"A final form of injustice worked by the general property tax
is double taxation that frequently results."
And I want to say. Gentlemen, that I do not think th'at the
legislature of the state would have had so much insight on this
subject if it had not been for the question of double taxation
which exists. And, after discussing still further, he says, as to
the remedy:
"We have seen that, under growing dissatisfaction with the
obvious results of the old system, tax commissions have been
from time to time appointed by 'the various states to discover
a remedy. We have seen, too, that most of these, under the
influence of ultra-conservative feeling, have reported plans for
the more rigid enforcement of the law. In most cases the leg-
islatures failed to adopt their reports. Where the attempt was
made, only greater evil was the result. Perhaps the most
•strenuous effort to enforce the general property tax is to be
found in Ohio, under the well-named 'tax inquisitor system,*
which had the unhappy result of bringing practically no addi-
tional revenue into the treasury, exasperating the public, and
driving a large amount of property out of the state.
"The best proposal, and the one indorsed by the Federal In-
dustrial Commission, after an exhaustive inquiry into the con-
dition, is to separate entirely the sources of state and local
revenue, and to abandon the general property tax as a state
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 257
tax. The state revenue could then be derived from taxes on
corporations, franchises, inheritances, incomes and other
sources, while the local revenues w^ould be supplied either by
the general property tax, as the Industrial Commission sug-
gests, or, better still, from a tax on real estate, supplemented
by taxes at perhaps varying rates on certain specified classes
of personal property, and certain local business or license taxes.
In this way the general property tax would be everywhere
abandoned, and its place taken by a system more in accord-
ance with modern views of justice and equity in taxation."
Now, Gentlemen, if you separate your local tax from your
state tax in that way, the first great result, — and I wish, Gen-
tlemen, you would notice it because it is an important one, — the
first great result to the state of New Hampshire, taking its
revenue from the sources which have been indicated there, and
making it entirely separate from any general property tax,
would be that no town or city in New Hampshire would pay any
longer a state tax, and the question which is puzzling our Tax
Commission as to the valuation of this town or that town, or
this city or that city, would disappear. The people would no
longer be interested in it. The only tax left which would cause
the people of the counties to sit up and take notice would be
the county taxes, and they would insist that they be propor-
tioned just as they do now. You see. Gentlemen, no one man
could exhaust this subject, or else we would not be having these
books published every year with things that men say on tax-
ation. It is as old as the world, because it was the first thing
that had to be resorted to when we came out of savagery, and
the man who thinks he can abolish all taxation will be favor-
ing the policy which will finally end in such a condition of
men that they will not care to pay any taxes, and they will
relapse into savagery. Now, the power of the legislature is
final as to taxation. It is not only final but it is a tremendous
power. It is a power where men can use discretion, or a power
they can thoroughly abuse. It is a power that can be exer-
cised in passion and prejudice, or a power that can be exercised
beneficially for the whole community as we stand today, and
without any desire to make a revolution in the tax system
of the state of New Hampshire, although I sometimes fear
another method, which will allow the classification of property
for taxation. Yet, as we stand today and as a practical
question with this terrible inequality confronting us, taxation
of intangible property, and the effect it is having on the citizens
of our state, I am in favor of the resolution which has been
brought in here by the gentleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, as
258 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
amended by Mr. Mitchell, and as added to by the other resolu-
tion, which imposed a graded income tax in the state of New
Hampshire. And let no man fear because an income tax is
imposed in the state that it means they are going to take im-
mediately ten percent of his income. The graded income tax,
and that is one that is reached with discrimination and judg-
ment by the legislature, will not go on robbing people, but it
will produce more income to cities and towns from intangibles,
and it will be a help to the farmer because it will materially
relieve the state from the necessity of levying the large prop-
erty tax which it now levies on the towns and cities in the
state. I do not fear it. There was a time when I believed, as
I have heard it argued here, that you could not enforce it; but
I do not think so now, and I believe the Constitution should be
amended and so enable us to try it.
There is no sense of justice, Gentlemen, in allowing five per-
cent mortgages to go untaxed in savings banks, or elsewhere,
and taxing a six percent mortgage note, no sense or justice in
it, and there is no sense in double taxation. One man said to
me, "Taxes on j^our municipal bonds are not cases of double
taxation." But I told him that when you issue bonds in the
city of Laconia, they are mortgages on property there, and if
you allow them to be taxed you are simply taxing property that
has already been taxed. Corporation bonds and city bonds
stand upon the same basis, and it is double taxation that is
making the trouble; and if a graded income tax is allowed on
incomes from intangibles, it will tend to stop it; it will tend
to stop the agitation and all the talk that the rich man doesn't
pay any taxes. He will pay taxes then by levying taxes on his
income. A man who has $100,000 will be paying taxes on his
income; a man who gets $6,000 from his stocks or bonds will
pay his proper income .tax, which may be a five percent tax or
may be less. If the savings banks were only paying five per-
cent income tax it would not be fair to charge an individual
any more.
Much more I would like to say on this subject, but I have al-
ready taken up too much of your time. Gentlemen, I thank
you for your attention.
Mr. Whitcomb of Sicanzey. — Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take
up your time, and am sorry to take it up. There are a few
ideas I would like to express on my behalf here'. In the first
place, as far as my observation goes, the legislature has ex-
empted from taxation all that they see fit. In the first place,
they exempt manufactories, — that is, the towns do, — to encour-
age them to build. Then they exempt, as I understand it,
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 259
land that is made of swamp land. They exempt land where
they set out pine trees. If they have not, I hope this Conven-
tion will not do it.
Now in regard to the forest trees, we would be glad to pre-
serve them, what we could, but there is another side to it.
We would like to have the manufacturers come into our town;
we exempt them from taxation for a number of years, build
them buildings and buy them land. There is one thing cer-
tain, we cannot manufacture woodenware unless we cut off
some of our trees. Xow take it in our little town of Swanzey,
I think there is an income of about five hundred or six hundred
dollars from the manufacture of wooden ware. Now the manu-
facturers of woodenware are not such fellows that they will
destroy any more timber than they need. If I understand it
right, the Canadian government will not allow any manu-
factured lumber to come into the United States. I was talk-
ing with our selectman, and he said he hadn't figured it out ex-
actly, but he thought there is one half the valuation in Swan-
zey that is in sprout and timberland.
Now there is another thing. We have got to encourage
people to do more farming, and unless we do, the necessaries of
life will be higher than now. Now I do not see how we can let
the land grow up and become sprout land. Now if we lumber-
men would take a little more interest and leave some scrubby
trees that are not good for anything for lumber, the pine tim-
ber would come up quickly and grow quickly. I was thinking
of a lot my father bought about fifty years ago, and there
was some small pine coming up on it. My brother sold it about
a year ago, and in that lot there were a good many rotten trees.
When the manufacturers of lumber want that lot, I can see no
reason why he shouldn't cut it off. I -do not believe in crowd-
ing up the sprout land too high, but put it on a fair valuation.
I do not see why we should encourage people to put their
money into bonds. If they want to put it into bonds, let them
pay taxes on it. But I can see what good it will do if they
will lend the money to people who want to go to farming but
haven't money enough to pay for their farm.
Mr. Dean of Banbury. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, like the
gentleman from Laconia, Mr. Busiel, I sympathize with some
things that the gentleman from Peterborough has said. I
especially sympathize with the farmer who lost the sheep where
the tax was ten cents. We have been realizing for a number
of years there is something wrong with taxation in New Hamp-
shire, and we have examined the matter and have come to the
conclusion that while equality in taxation is a beautiful theory.
260 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
practically, it has not worked out. We are approaching this
subject with extreme trepidation. We all realize the import-
ance of the subject. We realize that there are some things that
are not being classified that taxes bear on wrongly, and many
men have ideas of driving in a wedge here and there. The sub-
ject has been clearly and extensively discussed. If we pass it, —
and possibly we will have three amendments presented instead
of one, — we may put, in some towns, half or two thirds of the
property in the hands of the legislature to classify or not, as
it sees fit. If the legislature is capable of classifying for the
interests of the state a portion of the property, why not the
whole? I believe the resolution introduced by the gentleman
from Landaff to be the clearest and most comprehensive reso-
lution introduced here. I believe the time has come when we
can leave to the legislature all this subject of the classification
of property for taxation.-
Mr. Hohbs of Wolfehoro. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I am to take but a very few moments of your
time today. I have not come here prepared to talk on taxation.
The question before the Convention is, shall we open up the
Constitution of the state of New Hampshire so that the legis-
lature may act intelligently upon the question of taxation? I am
very much pleased to find my friends so well united upon one
proposition, and that is the income tax. I believe, Sir, there
has been no opposition to that; much different than it was here
at our legislature a little more than one year ago. I might,
however, if we were discussing that question, draw some of the
fire of the gentleman from Laconia, Mr. Busiel, who has just
preceded me, on the income tax as applied to our state and not
to our federal government. It is a fact that when you take an
Income tax in your own state, and the states about you do not,
they may get some of your income, and you might not get the
tax. When you have a federal income tax, all states get it
alike. I am not opposed to a state income tax. I believe in a
state income tax and also in a federal income tax. The gen-
tlemen may say that is double taxation, but we tax every per-
son with a tax for our town, a tax for our county, our state,
and also for the nation. All taxes are from incomes. If I earn
a dollar a day, it is the income I have which I pay, and many
of us pay it to the federal government through the tariff. The
very buttons on my clothes to-day are taxed at 127 percent. We
are not here to discuss that, Mr. Chairman. But to the point:
Shall we open up our Constitution, and how far? Conditions
are changing all the time. Population is increasing and, I hope,
intelligence. Under the laws of our state we are taxing bonds
Thursday, June 13, lyl2. 261
and not stocks, and I believe, Mr. Chairman, that Resolutions
No. 5 and No. 37, as put in, give exemption to stocks frorti tax-
ation and tax bonds. I ask you, Mr. Chairman and Gentle-
men, what is the difference between the stocks and the bonds,
so far as the property is concerned? Take the Boston & Maine
Railroad, or the Amoskeag- corporation. A part of those prop-
erties were built and put in operation by the bonds and part
by stock. Are not both of them representative of these prop-
erties? I think they are.
Again, shall we open up the Constitution so that the legis-
latures that are to follow us can take into consideration all of
the properties and act upon them intelligently, justly and
rightly? Mr. Chairman, if these people are so afraid to trust
the legislators, then I ask them to adopt the proposition which
I feel so miu:h interested in here, and have given my time on
until today, that proposition which the gentleman from La-
conia refers to as revolutionizing our Constitution, the initi-
ative and referendum. Then their acts go back to the people,
and they can veto them if they wish. One thing right here I
want . to say on that matter, and it just occurs to me. Every
act and every proposition that we pass on here today, or dur-
ing this Convention, the framers of the Constitution of this state
wisely put in that every act should be referred to the people.
And, Sir, Mr. Chairman, if they are to overlook our doings and
approve or veto them, why should we hesitate to let those who
are to follow us in legislation, — why should we hesitate to let
their acts be referred to the same tribunal?
But, Sir, to the point again. Gentlemen, shall we here allow
the special interests to put into this Constitution what they
wish, and at the same time shut out those propositions which
a great majority of the taxpayers of New Hampshire should
have? That is the proposition before this Convention todays
and it is not justice. Far from it! I warn you. Gentlemen,
that it is for us here to see that justice to all is done. Let us
stand for justice and for the right, and when we open up the
question of taxation, leave it in fuK to the legislature. If you
are afraid to trust the legislature, let its work be reviewed by
the people, the same as we here will have to have our work
reviewed.
As I said a moment ago — I leave this question with you and
I hope not to speak on it again — the point at issue is, shall we
let in all the special interests and shut out all the great major-
ity of the taxpayers? I believe. Sir, that we should leave the
matter, so our legislature may wisely, may justly tax the prop-
erties, all the properties, of the state as in their judgment.
262 Journal of Constitutional (Convention.
after they have viewed the situation, seems equitable and right.
I believe that is the only intelligent and the only right way to
leave this matter.
Therefore I urge the adoption of the armeiidment of the gen-
tleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, No. 33, I think it is. I thank
you, Gentlemen.
Mr. Burnham of Dunbarton. — I think it is universally conceded
that double taxation is both unwise and unjust, and I think
if there is any class of property which should be exempt from
taxation in any way it is the class of property that has not
been mentioned in any of the resolutions that are brought up
for our consideration, and I refer to that property on which a
man pays a tax to the full value of the property and which
virtually doesn't belong to him because he owes for four fifths
of it. He may have paid a small amount and there is a mortgage
on the property for four fifths, or one half, its value.
Take, for instance, here is a man who has a farm and tim-
berland worth ten thousand dollars. For a number of years he
has paid taxes for the amount of ten thousand dollars. Well,
a y)urchaser comes along one day and he sells that property for
ten thousand dollars. He gets one thousand in cash, and takes
a note for nine thousand, secured by mortgage on that farm.
From this time on, the purchaser pays a tax on this real estate
to its full value of ten thousand dollars. The man who sells
it pays a tax on nine thousand dollars, money at interest. In
one hour's time, one stroke of the pen, there is nine thousand
dollars added to the taxable property of that town. Any jus-
tice, any equity in this? I say, if there is any class of prop-
erty that should in any wise be exempted, that this property
should be included in the list.
Mr. Rowe of Kensington. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I know
when I show myself down here in front I run the risk of hav-
ing remarks made about my personal appearance, but I am
going to run the chance, although I haven't the dramatic abil-
ity necessary to answer those charges. If I had I would answer
them.
Gentlemen, for the gentleman from Landaff and the gentle-
man from Jaffrey I have all the respect in the world. I like
them for this reason, if for none other, that when they have
anything to say they talk about their arguments with some-
thing that seems to them proof.
Yesterday, in my small way, I tried to convert them to the
belief that we could leave these things to the legislature. I
did not believe that over night they would be converted to what
I said. I did not think they would come in here this morning
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 263
or afternoon and wish to g-o so far as they do. Now they are
willing, evidently, to leave everything wide open and leave the
legislature to go as far as it chooses. That goes farther than
I have gone, in support of the suggestion of the gentleman from
Concord, Mr. Mitchell, and the gentleman from Tilton, Mr. Fel-
lows.
This talk has suggested to me the rules of a race that the
Greeks used to adopt, which were that each runner was to
carry a torch, and the winner was the runner who crossed the
line with his torch still burning. The object lesson was to keep
their torch of life still burning; so I say we should go slowly
in these things. We should go over the line with our torch
still burning. Therefore I agree with Kesolution No. 5. And
I wish to suggest this in closing. We have had a full and fair
discussion. We have talked here all day about this. It is get-
ting toward night and, while I do not wish to hurry this, I
suggest we now get down to business and try to bring this
matter to a head.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen.
Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord. — I had expected when this subject
of taxation came up to confine myself to a discussion of the
reasons for a special rate of taxation on forest lands, growing
wood and forest lands. The subject has been very fully covered
by other speakers. I will say a word, however, from the stand-
point of one who is greatly interested in forest protection
societies, that it is generally recognized by those who have
special knowledge on that subject that taxation at market valu-
ation is the greatest obstacle that exists today to the preserva-
tion of our forested lands. The selectmen of the different
towns for the last twenty or thirty years, without any author-
ity in the law, but by the application of a very wise discretion,
have assessed growing timberlands very far below the value
which they knew those lands had. And I imagine they might
have gone on in that way, using their common sense and keep-
ing the timberlands growing, if it had not been for the fact
that our State Tax Commission considered, under their oath,
that they were bound to see that the law was enforced. I state
without fear of contradiction that if the timberlands of this
state are taxed annually at their full value there won't be a tree
in the state of New Hampshire big enough to make a box board
in ten years from this date.
Now, as I said the other day, we are not dealing with the
question of exempting this property; we are not dealing with
any particular method of taxing this property; we are merely
giving to the legislature the power, which I believe they may
264 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
possibly have now, but the power which some of ns believe they
ought to have, to classify this property for a tax on the land at
such proper valuation as they may see fit to fix, and a deferred
tax on the timber itself, to be collected when the timber is cut.
In other words, instead of doing- as we do under the present
system, placing* an annual fine on a man for allowing his tim-
ber to stand, let us make an arrangement so that we shall, in
a sense, discourage his cutting it by piling up a tax which will
be collected when he does cut it, a tax perhaps of twenty or
twenty-five percent of its stumpage value.
There is just one situation that is troublesome in regard to
that. There are many towns in this state where a large major-
ity, in some cases a very large majority, of the tax valuation
of the town is in timberlands; in many cases timberlands un-
der the ownership of large corporate owners, and those towns
need the taxation from those lands in order to maintain their
highways and their schools properly. Now some laws have got
to be provided to deal with that situation, and in the bill in-
troduced in the legislature, about which I spoke the other day,
that was provided in this way, that lands should not be clas-
sified, or it should not be permissible to classify lands, if the
growth on them exceeded a certain number of years on the
average. That is, if it was matured timber which was being
held, which ought to be cut, that the legislature might levy the
tax on its value, because one of the truest principles of for-
estry is that when the crop is ready for harvesting, it shall
be harvested.
It is sometimes thought that forestry consists in preventing
the harvesting of timber, and the gentleman from Swanzey, I
think, . thought if you could not cut the timber you could not
run your woodenware industries. The woodenware industries
in the state, including the paper mills, will have to go out of
business if we cut off our timber. True forestry consists in
stimulating the growth of timber, securing the largest crop
from the land, and having a steady supply, so that our indus-
tries may go on indefinitely for the prosperity of the state.
That is what I desire to say on that particular branch of this
question.
Now I find myself in a particularly happy situation in regard
to this taxation matter. I am thoroughly in favor of Resolution
No. 5. I am thoroughly in favor of the amendment brought in by
the gentleman from Concord, because I believe it to be a clearer
statement of the situation, and expressing, perhaps, in more un-
mistakable language what it means. I find myself still more
in favor of the suggestion made by the gentleman from Ports-
Thursday, June 13, 19V2. 265
mouth because it carries the exception still further and per-
mits an income tax on the income derived from stocks. Now
I recognize as much as anybody does that stocks and bonds are
different; I recognize that cows and horses are different; I
recognize that wagons and automobiles are different; but
the fact that things are different does not necessarily make
one a fit subject for taxation, or the other an unfit sub-
ject for taxation. I believe that the income tax idea as ap-
plied to the income from stocks and bonds and notes — in other
words, this large class which is called intangibles — I beliere
that such an income tax as that, on a graded, reasonable basis,
is the best solution of this intangible taxation proposition that
has been offered to this Convention, and I am thoroughly in
favor of that; but the thing that I really believe in, the thing I
want to recommend this Convention to vote for, is the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens,
Every authf rity on taxation that you can consult, every in-
telligent and learned man who has discussed this question be-
fore every tax gathering we have had in this country in the
last five years, including our own Tax Commission, when they
were acting as such, but not, it seems, when they are acting
as delegates to this Convention, — every one of these authorities
has expressed itself unhesitatingly in favor of the proposal to
leave the question of taxation with the legislature, subject only
to the limitation that it shall be a reasonable method. Every
argument that has been presented here today in favor of re-
storing to the word "proportional" the meaning which I be-
lieve the framers of the Constitution understood it had when
they adopted it, — every argument of that kind is an argument in
favor of leaving this question of classification of property to
the legislature. Now it is not a question of theory, it isn't the
suggestion of amateurs in government that I am referring to; it
is a practical suggestion, and I do not think it does any good,
and, on the other haiid, I do not think it does any harm, to
refer to this suggestion I am making as revolutionary. A revo-
lution which depends upon the votes of two thirds of the vot-
ers, after having an opportunity to consider and discuss a ques-
tion, isn't a very dangerous kind of revolution, and if that is
what my distinguished friend from Laconia means by revo-
lution, I can refer back to the words of one of our old patri-
ots and say, "Let him make the most of it."
Now the practical reasons for leaving these matters to the
legislature were touched upon this morning by the gentleman
from Landaff, and we might just as well take the paper right
off this package and see what is in it. The reason why I am
266 Journal of Constitutional (yONVENTioN.
in favor of leaving this matter to the legislature is' because I
think that the railroads and the other public service corpora-
tions ought to be taxed, not on the basis of the valuation of
their property, but on the basis of their gross income. I be-
lieve that that tax is the most just, is the fairest, is the easi-
est collected, and on the whole produces the best results for
the people, the other taxpayers, and for the corporation itself.
How^ many gentlemen in this Convention realize that the state
of New^ Hampshire has three railroad tax appeals on its hands
now, and I have the misfortune, perhaps, to be counsel for the
state in two of them. The Grand Trunk Railroad — I am not
going to introduce any railroad issue here if I can help it, and
if you can find out which way I am on the Grand Trunk and
Boston & Maine situation, you will do better than I can — the
Grand Trunk has appealed each year during the last three years
from the taxation under our present system. The old Board
of Equalization taxed them a certain amount, and they ap-
pealed, and that case is now being tried and will be argued
within a few days before a board of referees. Then we got a
new board; we got what some people thought was this new-
fashioned board of Tax Commissioners, the chairman of which
is a member of this Convention. They did the best they could
under the law, and taxed the railroads, and the Grand Trunk
Railroad, acting under their constitutional and statutory rights,
took another appeal, and that will be argued before a court of
record. With that experience before them, the Tax Commis-
sion tried again, and taxed them again last year, and again
they have appealed, and that has not got before the board of
referees yet, and has not been tried. Now the Grand Trunk
has a perfect right to appeal under the Constitution and laws
as they are today. They have a perfect right to go all over this
state to find out how much your property and my property is
undervalued, and if they are entitled to redress they ought to
have it; but my proposition is that the system they use in the
state of Maine and very many other states, of taxing these pub-
lic service corporations on the basis of gross income, is the most
reasonable and most feasible. It does no harm to the corpora-
tion, and it does a great deal of good instead, because it is a
certain, quick and equitable method of taxation.
I am a little troubled by what might be termed the parlia-
mentary situation. The President of this Convention, for whom
we all have the most profound respect, undoubtedly with the
intention of getting progress here, has made a motion, the sub-
stance of which is that this Convention express its sentiment
in favor of the plan proposed, this three-cornered plan, as you
ThTUKSDAY, June 13, 1912. 267
inig-ht call it, proposed by the gentleman from Tilton, as
amended by the gentleman from Concord, and as amplified by
the gentleman from Portsmouth. Now, Gentlemen of the Con-
vention, if that is the best we can get, that is what I want, but
if I can get something better I am going after it, and I
know of but one way to get it, and that is to bring this reso-
lution of the gentleman from Landaf? to a vote. And I do not
know of any way to do that excepting to appear in opposition
to the President of this Convention and these very distinguished
colleagues of mine from Ward 4. Now I am not in any oppo-
sition to them; I believe in all they want, and more, too. But
in order to get a vote on this question, in order to get myself a
chance to vote on this question, I am bound to offer some
amendment to the resolution offered by the gentleman from
Manchester, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord moved to amend the resolution
offered by Mr. Jones of Manchester, by striking out all after
the word "legislature," and inserting in place thereof the fol-
lowing words: "the right to impose and levy reasonable assess-
ments, rates and taxes, and to classify property for taxation,
substantially as provided in Kesolution No. 33, offered by Mr.
Stevens of Landaff," so that the resolution as amended shall
read as follows:
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 im-
pose and levy reasonable assessments, rates and taxes, and to
classify property for taxation, substantially as provided in Kes-
olution No. 33, offered by Mr. Stevens of Landaft*.
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Allen Hollis of
Concord, —
Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord. — Notice the word reasonable. The
gentlemen who have preceded me seem to worship the word pro-
portional. They say this word proportional is one of the fin-
est words in the English language, and then they go on, some
of them for an hour, to tell you all the inequalities and injus-
tices that have been brought on the state of New Hampshire on
account of the use of the word proportional. I say to this Con-
vention that the word reasonable means something, and I am
willing, for one, to trust this question to the legislature of the
i
268 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
state. I confess I should have been better satisfied to have
trusted it to the legislature of the state with the referendum
on it, but I am always glad to take part when I cannot get the
whole, and I should like to see the legislature of the state of
New Hampshire, consisting of a House perhaps somewhat re-
duced, and a Senate perhaps somewhat increased, and a Gov-
ernor elected after nomination by direct primary, decide these
questions until such time as the state and the Constitutional
Convention, in their wisdom, will give us the initiative and
referendum.
Mr. Jones of Mancfiestei'. — It is now half past four, Mr. Chair-
man and Gentlemen, and we are still in the morning session
in Committee of the Whole, and a roll-call of this body would
manifest a very deplorable Tack of full and complete attend-
ance that ought to be in this Convention when so important
a matter is to be voted upon as the suggestion of the gentle-
man from Concord, Mr. Hollis. If there is to be a vote upon
the resolution of Mr. Stevens, that should be in a full Conven-
tion. If there is to be a vote upon the proposition embodied in
the motion which I made, a vote which cannot be substantially
unanimous on the part of the members here, then that should
be in a full Convention. We should not, I think, get a division
or a vote which will show sharp contrasts and a close vote, in a
Committee which is of so small a proportion of the w^hole Con-
vention as is this Committee at this time. Now the question
is, what shall we do, and what can we do, in order that when
there comes a vote it will be the honest expression of every
member of this Convention upon the propriety of one or the
other of these different schemes, and when shall we do it?
Shall we do it with 160 or 170 men here, less than 200, or shall
we do it with the full Convention here?
Now what I want today is to do something. I think this
question of taxation has been talked over completely. I think
that every member of this Committee has about made up his
mind how he would like to vote, but it isn't fair to either of
the parties which may not prevail in the motion here to have
any vote which will give an indication of something which may
be entirely wrong so far as the expression of opinion of the
whole Convention is concerned. Now I am frank to say that
I do not yet know how I should vote upon these propositions
if they were to come down for a final decision. I have not yet
made up my mind what I would do. Now what I undertook to
do this morning in making the motion I did was to draw out
discussion. Several gentlemen had talked here before and
every one of them had talked along the same line. There had
Thursday, June 13, 1912. 269
been no opposition whatever to the proposition that this Con-
vention recommend that we have a classification of certain in-
tangibles, and of woodlands, and the imposition of a tax on the
income from intangibles, and there isn't any difference of
opinion here on the part of anybody who has spoken except
the gentleman from Peterborough, who evidently is opposed to
all the schemes, and perhaps the gentleman from Swanzey, Mr.
Whitcomb. As I have listened to the speeches here today,
every man who has spoken has been in favor of these three
things at least. Others wanted to go farther.
Now I am going to ask you in all fairness and candor,
whether for the sake of having a full and fair and complete
vote when it can be binding, isn't it better not to undertake to
substitute one proposition for another now, because there is
no knowing when we would get to a vote if we undertook to
do it in the Committee at the present time, and draw the lines
sharply? Isn't it better to take these three things which have
been favored b}^ everj^body that has spoken on either side, ex-
cept two, — and there has been a score who have spoken, at
least, — isn't it better for us, at the present time, to say it is
our judgment that these three things ought to be submitted to
the people, and then, having given that expression as being our
expression at the present time, dissolve this Committee, re-
port all the amendments back, and instruct the Committee on
Legislative Department to take them all and to submit to the
Convention a resolution which will embody these three things.
They will get it back into the Convention next Tuesday, we will
say, something which is substantially or unanimously the opin-
ion of this Convention, if we are going to judge by the speeches
that have been made. These three things are agreed to by
everybody, and if the Committee should bring in an amendment
which should cover them, then it would come up before the
Convention. If anybody then wanted the questions divided,
there would be a chance to divicje them, and have your roll-
call on them, if you want it, in a full Convention. Then if
Mr. Stevens and his friends want to substitute his, there would
be a chance to substitute his proposition for that of the Com-
mittee, which seems to be the opinion of this body today, so far
as they go.
Now, won't we make better progress, won't we get along
faster, if we do that and consider after we get into Convention
the advisability of making this thing a special order for Tues-
day afternoon or Wednesday morning next week, and come back
here with the idea, then, of deciding the question when there
is a full Convention here, instead of undertaking to go on
272 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
tee of the Whole, except a rule limiting time of speaking and
the rule relating to the call for the yeas and nays.
Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord. — I had an idea the Chair was mis-
taken, but I could handle the situation just as well one way as
the other, so long as I knew what the ruling was. Now, then,
I do not know whether there is a quorum here or not, and I
don't care. There is not a large enough representation of the
Convention, of the delegates that are elected here to repre-
sent their constituents, to have this question decided here to-
night, namely, whether we shall adopt what I will call the
wholesale plan of Mr. Stevens, if you please, or the retail plan
of my colleague from Ward 4, and therefore I want to make a
proposal that will clear up the situation, and I do not know
whether it is parliamentary or not, but we will find out when
we get the ruling of the chair.
With the resolution of Mr. Jones of Manchester, and the
amendment thereto of Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord, pend-
ing,—
Mr. Allen Hollis" of Concord moved that the Committee do
now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, on Tues-
day, June 18, at 11.05 o'clock.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Allen Hollis of Con-
cord, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
In Conveintion.
(The President in the chair.)
Mr. Oakes of Lisbon, for the Committee of the Whole to
whom were referred all resolutions relating to matters of taxa-
tion, having considered the same, report progress, and ask
leave to sit again at 11.05 o'clock Tuesday, June 18.
The report was accepted and leaye granted.
(?n motion of Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro, —
Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to request the
Fkiday June 14. 1912. 273
custodian of the State House to raise the national flag over
the State House during the session of the Convention.
On motion of Mr. Hayden of Hollis, the Convention ad-
journed at 5 o'clock.
Afteoeinoon.
The Convention met immediately after the morning ad-
journment.
(The Presidlent in the chair.)
Leave of Abse[N'€e.
Mr. Marcotte of Rochester was granted leave of absence
for the remainder of the week, on account of important busi-
ness.
Mr. Carter of Lebanon was granted leave of absence until
Wednesday, June 19, on account of important business.
, On motion of Mr. Clifford of Franklin, the Convention ad-
journed at 5.05 o'clock.
FRIDAY, June 14, 1912.
The Convention met at 10.30 o'clock, according to 'adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the chair.)
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Rev. Charles C. Gar-
land of Concord.
The reading of the Journal having begun, —
On motion of Mr. Lewis of Bethlehem, the further reading
of the Journal was dispensed with.
Leave of Absence.
Leave of absence was granted Messrs. Waterman of Leba-
non, Storrs of Hanover, and True of Lebanon, for the day, on
account of important business.
Leave of absence was granted Mr. Wadleigh of Milf ord, for
the day, on account of death in his family.
274 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Leave of absence was granted Mr. Tracy of Plaihfield, for
Tuesday, June 18, on account of important business.
COMMTTTEE EePORT.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, for the Special Committee on
Woman's Suffrage, to whom was referred Resolution 'N"o. 49,
Relating to the Poll Tax of Female A'^oters, having considered
the same report the following:
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed in the resolution.
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the resolution recom-
mended by the Committee, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
On motion of Mr. Young of Manchester, —
Resolved, That when the Convention adjourn this morn-
ing it adjourn to meet next Tuesday at 11 o'clock.
Change or Reference.
On motion of Mr. Morris of Lancaster, —
Resolved, That the order whereby Resolution No. 12, Re-
lating to the Jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, was referred
to the Committee of the Whole, be vacated and the same re-
ferred to the Committee on Legislative Department.
Mr. Wason of 'Nashua. — Mr. President, we have on the table,
or before the Committee of the Whole, Resolution No. 24, which
was passed by the Constitutional Convention ten years ago,
and submitted to the people, and failed by a small vote to be
ratified. I don't suppose there is any contention about the
matter, and I think, if we should resolve ourselves into Com-
mittee of the Whole, we could report and perhaps clear our
calendar of one measure. I think it is advisable to get along
as fast as we can.
On. motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua, —
. Resolved, That the Convention resolve itself into Committee
of the Whole, for the purpose of considering Resolution No.
Friday, June 14, 1912. 275
24, To Strike Out from the Bill of Rights the Words "Evan-
gelicar^ and "Protestant/^
In Committee of the Whole.
(Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester in the chair.)
(Resolution read by Secretary.)
Mr. Wason of J^asMta. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I am not going* to weary the faithful members of
this Convention who are here present this morning; neither
am I going to criticise the unfaithful who are absent without
leave, because I do not like to talk about a man when he is not
around; it is not fair. My Brother French of Nashua, who in-
troduced this resolution, expected to be able to be here this
morning, and perhaps he would say just a word in favor of it
were he here. It is not necessary to argue this to you. It is
simply a correction in our Constitution to conform to the
conditions of the times. The language to be stricken out is
the language that has been in the Constitution since it was
first written. It has no use. Legally we violate it every day;
I have violated it myself. I do not think there is any oppo-
sition to it. Ten years ago, if you will look, the vote that was
in favor of it was 16,611, and the vote against it was 15,727.
The matter was not discussed, was not agitated; people voted
upon it haphazardly. I think there would be no objection on
the part of any member to this proposition being resubmitted
to the people for their approval in order that the useless words
shall, — when I say useless I mean because they are not ob-
served, — be rejected or taken from the Constitution, and then
our Constitution, as amended in this particular, would abso-
lutely conform to the conditions that exist all over the state,
from the county of Coos to the county of Hillsborough.
Mr. Stone of Ando'ver. — I most heartily agree with the gentle-
man who has spoken. It is a thing that is disregarded. It is
a disgrace to the intelligence of the people of New Hampshire
to say that only certain denominations of Christians are prac-
tically under the protection of the law. That is what it comes
to. It is a dead letter. It was argued in the last Convention,
and submitted. I say frankly, so far as I am concerned, I do
not think this goes far enough. I know of no reason why any
man, be he Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, or any other person,
who acts and demeans himself properly, and obeys the law,
should not be under the protection of the law. We leave the
27^ Journal of Constitutional Convention.
word "Christian" in, and probably it is just as well to leave
it in. But how can any man be so narrow as to fail to vote
here or before the people to make this amendment? To amend
the Constitution in this respect is to conform to the spirit of
the age.
Mr. WMtcher of Haverhill. — I want to heartily agree with what
has been said by the gentleman from Nashua, and also the
gentleman from Andover. We have a couple of words that are
obsolete, as far as the conditions are today concerned. I think
it would be extremely difficult to find what is meant by the
word "Evangelical." We all know what the word "Protestant"
means. I think they should both be out if we take "Evangeli-
cal" out. It seems it ought to be out. I don't think we need
any long discussion on the matter. It seems to me the matter
was discussed thoroughly ten years ago. It was entirely agreed
to ten years ago by the Convention, and the fact that there
was no favorable vote for it came about because there was
no canvass made for it. Some people, good souls, were fright-
ened because the word "Evangelical" was going out of the Bill
of Eights and they were frightened because the word "Protes-
tant" was going out. I have known in some other legislative
bodies where dead letters remain in the fundamental law be-
cause they are frightened about their going out.
On motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, that the Com-
mittee rise and recommend to the Convention that Eesolution
No. 24, To Strike Out from the Bill of Eights the Words
^'EvangelieaF and "Protestant," he agreed to, —
Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — I second the motion made by the
gentleman from Haverhill, Mr. Whitcher.
Question being put, the affirmative prevailed.
In Oonteintion.
(The President in the chair.)
Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester, for the Committee of the
Whole, to whom was referred Resolution No. 24, To Strike
Out from the Bill of Rights the Words, "Evangelical" and
"Protestant," having considered the same, recommend that
the resolution be agreed to.
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 277
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 oi Mr. Wason of Xashua the Convention ad-
journed at 10.53 o'clock.
TUESDAY, June 18, 1912.
The Convention met at 11 o'clock, according to adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the chair.)
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Rev. Charles C. Gar-
land, of Concord.
The reading of the Journal having begun, —
On motion of Mr. Norwood of Keene, the further reading of
the Journal was dispensed with.
Leave of Absence.
Mr. Young of Manchester was granted leave of absence, for
the day, on account of important business.
Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester was granted leave of absence,
for Tuesday forenoon, on account of important business.
Mr. Ames of Piermont was granted leave of absence on ac-
count of death in his family, until such time as he is able to
return.
Mr. Lawrence of Haverhill was granted leave of absence,
for Wednesday forenoon, on account of important business.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord, f ot the Committee on Judicial De-
partment, to whom was referred Resolution No. 9, Relating to
Tenure of Office of Certain Officers, having considered the
same, report the following:
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend ithe Constitution
as proposed in the resolution.
278 JouiiNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
On motion of Mr. Dean of Dan bury, —
Resolved, That hereafter, both in Convention and Commit-
tee of the Whole, debate be limited to ten minutes for each
speaker and no speaker be permitted to speak more than twice
on the same subject except by unanimous consent.
The resolution was unanimously adopted.
On motion of Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord, that the Con-
vention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the
purpose of considering the special order for 11.05 o'clock, the
same being, —
Resolution No. 5, Eelating to Taxation of Wild and Forest
Lands and Money at Interest.
Resolution No. 33, Relating to Taxation.
Resolution No. 37, Relating to Income Tax.
Resolution No. 39, Relating to Taxation of Wild Lands.
Resolution No. 50, Relating to Taxes.
Resolution No. 51, Relating to Taxation of Incomes.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
In Committee of the Whole.
(Mr. Clifford of Franklin in the chair.)
Pending: The resolution of Mr. Jones of Manchester, —
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 clas-
sify 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;
And the motion of Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord, to amend
the resolution of Mr. Jones by striking out all after the word
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 279
"legislature," and inserting in place thereof the following
words: "the right to impose and levy reasonable assessments,
rat^s and taxes and to classify property for taxation, substan-
tially as provided in Eesolution No. 33, offered by Mr. Stevens
of Landaff."
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Allen Hollis to
the resolution of Mr. Jones, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Mr. Chairman, at first blush the
amendment suggested by the gentleman from Landaff is quite
impressive; but we are building the Constitution, not for the
immediate present, but for time to come. The proposition of
the gentleman from Landafi: opens wide the door for the legis-
lature to classify all kinds of property, and before the legis-
lature would come, in the course of time, every interest to ask
that it be speciallj^ considered. When this Convention was
called this branch of the subject of taxation embraced just two
features, enabling the legislature to classify growing wood
and timber for the purpose of taxing them at a less rate, and
to classify intangibles for the purpose of deriving revenue
therefrom, in place of attempting to tax them at the full rate
that other property is taxed, and thereby allowing them to es-
cape taxation. And, to cover every point that was desired, an
amendment was offered by the gentleman from Portsmouth,
which is embraced in the Jones resolution, giving the alterna-
tive of taxing the income of intangibles, thereby reaching any
class of property that the legislature desires to include within
the term of intangibles.
Now, then, if the Stevens amendment had been a part of the
organic law ten or a dozen years ago, when the corporations
were in Control in this state, what would have been its effect?
The corporations are able to look out for themselves, and are
always looking out for themselves, while the activity of the
people is intermittent. It is true at the present time in our
legislative control the corporations have been shorn of the
power that they had ten or a dozen years ago, but in the course
of time, in the whirligig of changes that take place in our poli-
tics, the same interest may be able to take care of itself as
effectually in the future as it has in the past. And this amend-
ment of the gentleman from Landaff opens wide the door for
the classification of all kinds of f)roperty. It is a question in
my mind whether we desire to open wide that door. Further-
more, it is proposed by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Hoi-
280 Journal OF Constitutional Convention.
lis, that this be supplemented by the initiative and referendum,
so that the measures may be referred to the people for their
approval.
I desire to have yon bear in mind two facts: — the revenue of
this state comes from the cities and larger tovs^ns; the votes in
this state come from these same communities. The cities and
ten of the large tow^ns of this state control a majority of the
votes of the state, and under the Stevens-HoUis proposition it
would be within the power of those communities to control the
methods of taxation. Now, I believe, in view of the fact that
there are before this Convention these two distinct propositions
to put growing timber lands and intangibles in a classified list
for the purpose of protecting the one and deriving more
revenue from the other, that we should confine our labors to
what is embraced in the Jones amendment, and that we should
defeat the Stevens amendment in this Committee.
Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — I want to say just a word in explana-
tion of our present tax system, so far as the Constitution is
concerned, and then compare that briefly with what it might
be if the Stevens amendment should be adopted. The whole
question of what may be taxed is now left by the Constitution
with the legislature. The Constitution does not name any spe-
cific articles as taxable. It simply says that persons and estates
are taxable, and the word "estates" is broad enough to take in
any species of property that the legislature wishes to put on
the taxable list. You will notice in the Stevens resolution that
the words "inhabitants" and "estates" are left out. The broad
field of taxation is left entirely to the legislature, with no re-
striction. The sole restriction in the Constitution now is that
whatever is made taxable by the legislature shall be taxed in
the same proportion to all other taxable property. That is,
if you have a horse that is taxable, and cows and real estate,
they shall either be taxed at full value, or fifty percent, or any
other rate, but the tax shall be proportional between them.
Now, the word "reasonable" is used in here. Nobody knows
what that means, nobody can define it, and as to what the Court
might say concerning any laws that might be passed, as to their
reasonableness, nobody can know.
The line is drawn fair and square here, and instead of voting
on the resolutions that are now before us, offered by Mr. Jones
and Mr. Hollis, the Convention should vote flat-footedly whether
to have the Stevens amendment, or whether to have the Boyn-
ton amendment, or whether to have the Mitchell amendment,
and take them up in order. If the Stevens amendment is voted
upon and adopted, it includes all the other amendments. If
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 281
we wai^t to vote on the other propositions, and have all three
presented to the people, v^^e can do so, but I feel that the
Stevens resolution ought not to go through.
Something was said the other day and some quotations taken
from the first annual report of the Tax Commission. I wrote
that portion of the report, and I do not know that I am ashamed
of it. I want to speak in explanation of the thought that was in
my mind, and has been in my mind for years, which is to in
some way or other change the existing Constitution as to tax-
ation of intangibles. It was suggested we put in the word "uni-
form" instead of "proportional." It would have accomplished
that purpose, and it would have accomplished a good deal more.
Then I was thinking along the line of intangibles. Later I
began to think what else might be done. I could see at once
the legislature could classify intangibles and could also classify
tangible property. On that question I want to read just a lit-
tle from a report of the Tax Commission, — the last Commission
they had in Massachusetts. They are constantly having Tax
Commissions in that state. In 1907 or 1908 they had one, and
they made a report which was in favor of the three-mill tax,
as it is called, on intangibles. That has been threshed out in
Massachusetts time and time again; they could not get a con-
stitutional amendment to permit it or a legislature to adopt it.
Their Court says that the legislature, under the present Consti-
tution, cannot do it. In 1909 another commission was ap-
pointed to consider this matter. Now, on this point of classi-
fication came up the question of striking out the word "pro-
portional" from the Constitution. It seems to me what those
gentlemen say is worthy of great consideration here because
the conditions there are practically the same as they are here.
This is their language:
"It is to be feared that experimentation with special schemes
of classification, which passage of the amendment would invite,
might produce complication and confusion of the tax system
of the state. The provisions of the tax laws might easily, in
the course of time, be elaborated into the extreme complexity
of a tariff act, with innumerable classes and rates. The situ-
ation would be a constant menace to stability of values.
"Undoubtedly, furthermore, pressure would be brought to
bear upon the legislature to grant favored rates of taxation
to different interests. Already the claims of forestry, machin-
ery, and intangible personalty are pressed upon the attention
of the legislature. If the proposed amendment, permitting
classification, without other restriction than that imposed by
the vague requirement of 'reasonableness,' were adopted, the
282 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
representation of special interests would come forward from
many quarters, each with a plea for legislative favor in the
matter of taxation. The constant agitation for change of the
tax on corporate excess, which is the most conspicuous example
of classification now on the statute books, shows that the
apprehension here expressed is not purely fanciful.
"Finally, the door would be opened wide to socialistic tax
legislation, designed to discriminate against wealth per se, and
to force artificial redistribution of wealth by a violent exercise
of the taxing power. If the word 'proportional' were taken out
of the Constitution there would be no effective check upon dis-
criminative taxation adequate to prevent gradation of rates to
points absolutely confiscatory. The protection given by the
word 'reasonable' in the state Constitution, and by the Four-
teenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, can hardly
be regarded as affording to the property-holder security against
punitive and retributive taxation.
"The argument has been advanced in this connection that
constitutional restraint upon the exercise of the taxing power
by the legislature is unnecessary. It is held that the people
can afford to 'trust' the legislature with practically unlimited
power to levy upon property at various rates and by different
methods, according to any peculiar system that may, for the
time, appeal to the legislative mind. This contention that con-
stitutional restrictions are superfluous in reference to taxation,
if consistently carried to its logical conclusion, would call for
the entire abolition of written Constitutions. The taxing power
is the most important one entrusted to legislative bodies. If
constitutional restriction can be dispensed with here, it can be
done away with altogether without menace to the general wel-
fare. This argument in favor of legislative license in the
matter of taxation flies in the face of the fimdamental prin-
ciples of American government. The founders of this common-
wealth gave no clearer proof of their political sagacity and
foresight than that afforded bj^ the insertion into the organic
law of a provision that taxes shall be 'reasonable and pro-
portional.' This clause stands as a barrier against assaults upon
property prompted by the caprice of malice born of the 'infatu-
ation of the moment.' The retention of the protective re-
striction is peculiarly imperative at the present time, when
fiscal schemes of a socialistic character are pushing their claims
in the legislatures of many countries.
"It is pertinent in this connection to call attention to the fact
that only a minority of the American states have constitutional
provisions that permit the classification of property for purposes
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 283
of taxation. Only ten states never have had any restrictions
upon classification in the Constitution; four other states have
repealed such restrictions originally put into the Constitution.
It thus appears that thirty-tvsro states have so far retained in
their Constitutions provisions that limit the powder of the leg-
islature with respect to the classification of property. The
general practice of American states is strongly on the side of
the retention of the M^ord 'proportional' in the Constitution of
this commonwealth."
Mr. Barton of Newport moved that Mr. Fellows of Tilton be
given Tinanimous consent to discuss the question further for
ten minutes.
Objection being raised, —
Consent was not granted.
Mr. BrodcricTc of Mancliester. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of
the Committee. I find myself in hearty sympathy with the
object designed to be accomplished by Eesolution No. 33, and
I feel sure that the gentleman from Landaff might even more
forcibly, and to a greater extent than he did, have exemplified
the fact that our present system of taxation works unequally
and unjustly in its recent administration. But, Gentlemen, I
doubt very seriously the wisdom of attempting to cure defects
in administration by radical constitutional changes. I havo
been reared, as you have been, to a most profound respect and
veneration for the work of the fathers of our Constitution, and
I would very reluctantly make any radical change in the sj^stem
that they have handed down to us, and I would not do it at
all until the necessity for it is brought home to us with over-
whelming force. I have been reared, too, to the conviction that
any classification of things which will permit an unequal impo-
sition of burdens, or a granting of unequal privileges, is de-
structive of a republican form of government, and, as the
gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, has pointed out, we have
no assurance that in the near or distant future another little
coterie of men will not be in control of our statute-making, the
same as one was ten years ago; and that, with all constitutional
restraints as to taxation removed, they will not impose the
whole burden of taxation on the people that can least afford
to bear it. But the great danger I see in this proposition lies
in the opposite direction. There is growing in this land of
ours, and throusfh the world, a movement which tends to remove
28-4 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
the marriage tie and destroy the famih-; a movement that
holds Christianity in ridicule, would destroy the sanctity of
the marriage tie and destroy the family; a movement that
repudiates the sacredness of property rights; a movement
that would prevent you from using your greater efficiency for
the benefit of your wife, your children and yourself. We can-
not be assured that next year, or in the years to come, social-
ism, with all its rank political heresies, may not be in control
of our statute-making power, and, with all constitutional re-
strictions on taxation removed, what may we not foresee as
to what socialism may do in the matter of taxation in the
state? Gentlemen, I prefer that, whether socialism or the
friends of special interests gain control of our state, they shall
be restrained in the matter of taxation by the rigid, uncom-
promising "proportional" of the fathers than that we should
find ourselves at the mercy of the treacherous elasticity of the
"reasonable" of this resolution.
But, Gentlemen, carrj-ing out mj' theory to its logical con-
clusion, I am still opposed to any classification of timberlands.
The Tax Commission of 1907 has pointed out a way whereby
those growing timberlands can be taxed, and the necessity for
some legislation to that end is made apparent by the discussion
on this floor. The Tax Commission of 1907 has pointed out a
way whereby they may be protected, as far as taxation is
concerned, under our present Constitution. They confess that
there is a shadow of doubt that the system they propose is
constitutional. But why need we go into a dangerous field of
classification for the purpose of removing a doubt in our con-
stitutional law? We are sitting here for the purpose of amend-
ing the Constitution. If the Tax Commission has pointed out a
way whereby, with a little modification of our Constitution^
the growing timber may be protected, why can we not accom-
plish that, instead of by this classification?
And as to the matter of intangibles: It is surely a fact, as
pointed out by the gentleman from Laconia last Thursday, that
a tax of 621/2 percent on the incomes of property is destructive.
Why may that not be in the same way accomplished by a modi-
fication of our Constitution, so that the income tax on intangi-
bles may be provided for? With these considerations, Gentle-
men, and the scrupulous regard for my dutj^ as a member of
this Convention, as I see it, much as I regret it, I feel obliged
to say that I am unable to follow the lead of the gentleman
from Landaff in Resolution No. 33.
Mr. DraTce of Pitlsfield. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, last Thursday we listened to the discussion in regard
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 285
to the taxation of money at interest, etc. We heard about the
proportional, the reasonable and unreasonable rates of taxation
of intangibles and tangibles, of stocks, bonds, railroads and
express companies, together with an income tax which may be
graduated and progressive, with reasonable exemption; also
about widows and orphans, until many of us were bewildered
and almost lost in the "growing wood and timber." But we
have had three or four days in which to extricate ourselves
from this labyrinth, and I trust that this morning our minds
are again clear and our heads level, for I intend to give you a
few minutes of very plain talk in regard to this subject.
Of all the talk we had last Thursday, the startling statement
in regard to the taxation of money at interest made by the hon-
orable gentleman from Concord made the deepest impression on
my mind, and I have been thinking the same over a great deal.
His statement was this: "As regards taxation of money at in-
terest, I am satisfied that where onlj^ $5,000,000 actually pays
tax there are rising $100,000,000 taxable within the state under
the law."
Another gentleman from Concord mentioned a state where
the laws in regard to the taxation of money at interest were
as severe as could be made, unless resort was had to physical
torture, and the conditions there were as bad as in New Hamp-
shire, and they were practically becoming a commonwealth of
perjurers. Now, Gentlemen, exemption or evasion of a tax
"does not lessen the amount of tax to be raised and paid by
somebody, and when a man evades paying his just proportion
of the taxes, and, in addition, the proportion of taxes that are
and from you and me, who have to pay our own proportion
of the taxes and, in addition, the proportion of taxes that are
justly his to pay. The dictionary tells us that he who steals
is a thief, and the most lamentable truth about this case is that
the thief is not a poor, illiterate, half-starved tramp; if he was,
and stole money, he would be put in state prison, but in this
tax evasion case the thief is a well-educated and so-called re-
spectable citizen. What punishment is proposed for him, him
and his kind, who have for years been cheating the public
treasury and stealing from you and me? Is he to have a long
sentence in state prison? Oh, no, not by any means; instead
of that, they come here and ask us to vote for a constitutional
amendment, which will allow the rate of taxation on his par-
ticular class of property to be made so small that it will not
be worth while for him to take the trouble to steal it. You
ask how much these people have been stealing? Well, of
course, we cannot tell exactly, but the gentleman who quoted
286 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
the figures to us is a very conservative man, and at his figures
the tax would amount to $2,000,000 a year, — quite a tidy sum.
The automobile trunk lines could all have been finished and
paid for ere this time if these tax evaders had only paid the
same rate percent on their property which the honest man
has on his. The level-headed gentleman from Peterborough
mentioned the fact that when a man dies, all of his estate,
whether real estate, stocks, bonds or anything else of value,
is all appraised as property and is assessed as such by the state
for inheritance tax purposes. There is no justice in exempting
from taxation the stock in the Pennsylvania Railroad and tax-
ing the bonds, as the law is now and has been mentioned
here. All stocks in corporations outside of this state, as well
as the bonds, should be taxable here. Otherwise it would be
possible to evade taxation entirely by investing in the stocks
that are exempted from taxation. This would throw the entire
burden of taxation on to real estate. Wealthy men give as an
excuse for evading taxation the excessively high rate of tax in
this state, a condition which they create themselves by not dis-
closing all their property for taxation, as an honest man should
do. I venture the assertion that if all property in this state
was assessed for taxation at its true value, the rate of taxation
would not be over three fourths of one percent, which is the
rate at the present time on savings bank deposits, and this
rate would not be a heavy burden for anyone.
Now, Gentlemen, isn't it a sad state of affairs when an honest
judge of our Superior Court comes here and tells us these
unwelcome truths about our wealthy citizens? And, to me, the
most deplorable part of it is that the best remedy he can sug-
gest is that we make the amount of plunder so small that
they will not bother to steal it.
I assure you. Gentlemen, that it is of no use to submit to the
people an amendment as proposed in Resolution No. 5, lor the
people will reason that a man who will steal a tax rate of $2.00
will steal a tax rate of forty cents. It is a very difficult matter
to frame an amendment to the Constitution at this time which
will accomplish the desired result. Therefore I am in favor of
the amendment offered by Mr. Hollis, which puts the whole
subject of taxation into the hands of the General Court, where
it can be taken up and acted on as occasion may demand. If
the Stevens amendment is adopted I shall move that the fol-
lowing be added to it:
Provided, That no act passed by the General Court under au-
thority of this amendment to the Constitution in regard to tax*
ation shall take effect before the same shall be laid before the
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 287
towns and unincorporated places and approved by a majority
of the qualified voters present and voting on the subject.
Mr. Davis of New Ipswich.— Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, we have listened very patiently and attentively to
the extent of about $1,500 worth of time to the tax troubles
and tribulations of stocks, bonds and money at interest. In
the meantime, what has become of the cow? Has the honest
farmer, like the honest banker, hiked her over the line to
evade taxation? Or is she still with us? Assuming she is still
here. Gentlemen, she, like the laboring man's little home, is
doomed by Eesolution No. 5 to be taxed eternally one hundred
cents on the dollar.. Now let's see if she really ought to stand
it. We will take the calf when she is six or eight weeks old;
she is then worth ten or fifteen dollars, according to her size.
You keep her until she is a year old at an expense of $25, and,
if you can get $15 for her, you are fortunate. Keep her another
six months, and they begin to tax her, and she has cost you
from $50 to $60. If you market her then you will get from $30
to $40, according to her appearance. Now keep her another
year, at the expense cf $Ci5, and she begins to be productive.
If she is a very good one, for the next year she will barely
pay her way, and she will be worth, according to her appear-
ance, $40 or $50. We have got her through the second year,
and we know then whether she is going td be a profitable cow
or not. If she is, she will make you, perhaps, $35. In the mean-
time you have paid one hundred cents on the dollar for taxes
on that cow since she was eighteen months old. Now comes
the third year. This is the real test. If she doesn't prove
valuable this time you send her to the butcher for $30 or $35.
If in this year she gives you 6,000 quarts of milk, and makes
you 300 pounds of butter, you say then she is profitable. If
she has not, she is not profitable, and you sell her for $30 or
$35 to the butcher. Now, Gentlemen, there are hundreds of
farmers in this state who will tell you that two in every three
prove to be worthless, of use only to the butcher. That is the
truth, and you will back me up in it if you have kept books, as
I have. There are hundreds of cows in this state that farmers
are keeping at a dead loss, costing them $35 or $40 a year and
their labor. Gentlemen, is it any wonder, when we consider the
burden of the tax the old cow has borne, that she makes tough
beefsteak?
Mr. Mitchell of Concord.— Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, I desire to direct your attention, briefly, to what I
regard as the logical significance of Resolution No. 33. By this
resolution it is proposed that from Article 5 of Part Second of
288 Journal of Constitutioxal Convention.
the Constitution shall be stricken, first, the word "propor-
tional," and second, the words, "upon all the inhabitants of, and
rosid'-nts within, said state and upon all the estates within the
same." These are the words which it is proposed shall be
stricken, or removed, from Article 5, Part Second; and it is
proposed to strike out, not a few isolated words from Article
6 of Part Second, but to remove from the Constitution the
whole of that article and substitute therefor terms, or words,
that are very general.
Article 6, as it now stands, unamended, in the Constitution,
reads thus: "The public charges of government or any part
thereof may be raised by taxation upon" polls, estates, and
other classes of property, including franchises and property
passing by will or inheritance; and there shall be a valuation
of the estates within the state taken anew once in every five
years, at least, and as much oftener as the General Court shall
order."
These provisions contemplate and secure equality of public
burdens. The proposed amendment removes from the Consti-
tution the word, "proportional," which is the safeguard and
mandate of the Constitution through and by which equalitj'' is
now secured. This safeguard, protection, and mandate, whereby
the humblest citizen, whose rights are affected by excessive
taxation, can appeal to the Court for protection and security of
his rights, and the definite, intelligent and judicial ascertain-
ment of the constitutional burden which should be imposed
upon him.
Gentlemen, do you want the word "proportional" stricken
from the Constitution, a word which has received a judicial
construction by our Court during a period of more than eighty
years, beginning with the decision of the Court in the year 1827,
and, as interpreted by the Court, provides a protection and the
security of the rights of the citizen, against excessive, un-
reasonable and burdensome taxation.
To now remove this word from the Constitution, a word that
has become an integral, living and efficient force in our juris-
prudence, for the protection of the rights of the people, would
be hazardous, radical and perilous. Before indulging in any
such sweeping, radical change, and thus leaving the people
without a constitutional standard, or guide, to protect or defin-
itely determine the rights of the taxpayer, let us pause and
seriously consider.
It is proposed, too, by this resolution to entirely remove all
requirement for the enumeration of polls and estates, leaving
it absolutely to the whim and caprice, or, if you please, to
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 289
the discretion of the legislature, to determine what the subjects
of taxation shall be.
"Keasonable" they say is our protection. This is not a ju-
dicial question, as is "proportional." ''Reasonable" is a legis-
lative and not a judicial question, while "proportional" is a
judicial and not a legislative question.
The reasonableness of a question may be disposed of in party
convention, legislative committee, or legislative assembly with-
out restriction, or without limit, except the sense of justice of
those who constitute those several bodies. In the Constitution,
its founders wisely provided not only that taxes should be pro-
portional, which means equal, reasonable taxation, but they
prescribed, also, the subjects of taxation.
It is proposed by this amendment to have Article 6, instead
of reading as it now does, and as quoted by me, to have it read
as follows: "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
differently taxed." Under this, or a similar provision, the
powerful or influential might secure the classification of their
own property and load upon the weak or uninfluential an un-
equal and unproportional part of the public burden. The great
and striking merits of our Constitution, and its limitations, are
that they protect the weak against the encroachments or self-
ishness of the strong.
Our Constitution has been characterized and commended by
the greatest foreign statesman of modern times as being the
greatest work struck off, at a given time, by the brain and hand
of man; and chief among its great merits is enumerated that
provision of its founders whereby, through their wisdom and
sagacity, it was provided that the people themselves should be
restrained from their own temporary, ill-considered, impulsive
action. This element of restraint, it is claimed, is one of the
greatest merits of our written Constitution. New Hampshire's
Constitution has stood the test, provided the people pro-
tection, secured material prosperity, and advanced the cause of
civilization for a period of one hundred and twenty-eight years.
New Hampshire was the first commonwealth, the first organ-
ized body, or society, to adopt a written Constitution.
Her first temporary Constitution was adopted January 5,
1776; and from that time until the completion of the existing
Constitution, which went into effect June 1, 1784, the wisdom,
sagacity and study of the great men of that period was em-
ployed in forming, developing and perfecting this instrument,
which has been, and now is, the admiration of those who re-
290 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
spect and admire our free institutions. It is a model in its
simplicity, clearness and comprehensiveness. Under it life,
liberty and property are secure. It has served the purpose for
which it was designed efficiently, admirably and satisfactorily.
Are we now weary of it? Are we at this time to dispense with
its safeguards? Gentlemen, I think I bespeak your sense of
justice, your desire for safety and security of rights, when I
say that you will stand anchored by those provisions in our
Constitution that for this long period of time so well, and so
efficiently, secured to us the protection of life and liberty, and
the security of property.
The Chairman. — Mr. Mitchell has used up his ten minutes,
under the rule.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I fully agree with the member from Concord, who
said the Constitution should be a protection to the weak against
the strong. I ask the gentleman from Concord, or any other
gentleman, to point to one decision of our Courts interpreting
the word "proportional" that has been for the benefit of the
weak as against the strong. It has been taken to the Court
time and time again by corporations who object to having their
property assessed by any other method than the method pro-
vided for assessing the horse of the farmer, or his cow. That
word, "proportional," has been so Interpreted that the private
individual who invests a thousand or a hundred thousand dol-
lars in stocks is exempt from taxation on the ground that it
is double taxation, and the ordinary man, the little man, the
weak man, who saves out a few dollars from his earnings, and
hasn't the business capacity to make as good investments, and
puts his money into the savings bank, and the savings banks
invest in those same stocks as a private individual does, that
private depositor pays three fourths of one percent on it to
the state of New Hampshire today. Furthermore, the Court
held that you cannot tax stock because it is double taxation,
and then they turned right around and said a tax on a mortgage
note is constitutional just the same. These safeguards, these
protections, these restrictions in the Constitution as a practical
question, have worked every single time — and I base that upon
the reports of the Court in this state and our actual conditions
today, — for the benefit of corporations and men of means, and
taxation in this state today falls unequally, unproportionally,
unreasonably upon the man of moderate means, — the farmer
and the small man. And why is it? It is because of this very-
word "proportional," this very rule which requires you to as-
sess all property by the same method.
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 291
I heard in this same hall four years ago the gentleman from
Concord make an eloquent speech before the legislative com-
mittee, a copy of which I tried to get this morning. He argued
and proved, by the decision of the Courts, that in this stale
it is unproportional and unconstitutional to yary the method
of assessment; that the railroad must be assessed by exactly
the same method that everybody else's property is, never
mind what the practical result is. Xow. I am surprised that
one objection to this is that the corporations may get in and
dominate the state of New Hampshire, and that they will come
in and get their property all classified. Who benefits by our
present methods? The corporations.
Gentlemen who bought the morning papers may have seen
the advertisement on the front page of the Manchester Union,
an attack upon the initiative and referendum, and especially an
attack upon the so-called Stevens amendment. We are told
that we are not going to have any hotel built on the top of
Mount Washington until these capitalists find out what the ac-
tion of the state is going to be on that matter, and the ad-
vertisement is signed by C. L. Mason, Concord. Mr. Mason is
an employee of the railroad, and has been for a good many
years, and I think the gentlemen who wrote that attack and
that argument, and bought space in the Manchester Union, might
at least have had the courage to sign their own names to it.
The opposition to this measure is shown hj that advertisement,
and shown by other things which some of us can see on the
floor of this Convention. Th'=' opposition comes from the corpora-
tions, the corporations' interests, and the rich men, the wealthy
men, who are today escaping their fair share of taxation, and
I am glad that it is made clear here where the opposition comes
from. We want this amendment so we can get taxes more
equally assessed and remove the burden that now rests on the
men of limited means and on the poor man and put it where
it belongs, — on the wealthy and those who are able to pay. It
is argued that this amendment is revolutionary and radical.
Now, the state of Maine has exactly the same words that the
state of New Hampshire has in its Constitution. If anything,
it is a little tighter, and yet in the state of Maine they can
do what they want to do, and what the amendment, my amend-
ment, will allow the legislature here to do. They can classify
property, they can tax the railroads on the gross income basis.
The state of Vermont has no restrictions on the taxing power
of the legislature; the state of Connecticut has no restrictions
on the taxing power. There are a good many states, I think
thirteen in all, which have no restrictions on the taxing power
292 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
of their legislatures, so this matter is not revolutionarj-. It is
recommended by the highest tax authorities we have.
Now I have looked through four different reports of the Na-
tional Tax Association, and in every single report it has unani-
mously recommended the removal from State Constitutions of
these old-fashioned restrictions. Give your legislature the
power to deal with things exactly as they are.
Mr. HiiMey of Goffstown. — The people of New Hampshire have
been very lenient in the way of exemption in the last forty
years. The question arises as to the exemption of wood and
timber. Will that save it? If it would, I should be glad that
such a state of things should come about. It will not; it has
been but partially taxed in the past. Some estates have not
been taxed for more than fifty percent of their valuation, and
when they pass into the hands of the heirs, or those who in-
herit them, they are then stripped. It is the demand for wood
and timber that has caused the depletion of the forest. Now,
today there is not an old-growth pine tree in a radius of twenty-
five miles from Concord. What is it that has caused the de-
pletion? As I said before, it is the demand, and I know of no
way that this wood and timber, or growing wood and timber,
can be preserved unless some one owns it outside of those to
whom it is taxed. What the people of New Hampshire want
today, and what they demand, is something that is fair, just
and equitable; fair for the man who owns a little farm with
no wood and timber on it, which today is taxed at its full value;
fair to the man who has a little home on the street in the vil-
lage, which the assessor can see, and which today is taxed at its
full value; fair, likewise, for the man who has $2,000 worth of
wood and timber upon his farm. We must realize today, further-
more, that this question cannot be treated without objection.
We must realize that the state of New Hampshire has a debt on
it of $2,000,000, and the counties have large debts, and the towns
and cities a debt of $12,000,000. And one thing further, if there
was no exemption, if the property was taxed at its full value
and all things were brought up to an equality, the tax rate
would be less, it would not be over one and one fourth cents.
Our ancestors adopted the plan of classification; it was a wise
one in their day. After the state of New Hampshire was in-
corporated they classed property in six divisions, and the inven-
tories of a hundred or a hundred and fifteen years ago had the
following classifications: Orchards, tillage, pasturage, mowing,
improved land and buildings. Now the error they fell into was
this: They found after some years that the constituent parts
more than equalled the whole value, and from time to time it
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 29^
dropped out, and buildings and land were classified differently.
As I said before, the question that the people of New Hamp-
shire want is a fair, just and equal taxation. I wish there could
be some way that the matter could be arrived at. I am not
in favor of exemptions. The people of New Hampshire have
had a long experience in this. They have exempted everything
from a poll tax to a large manufacturing concern, and I think
they are satisfied that the exemption of property is not what
the common people wish.
Mi\ Clement of Warren. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, away back in the '90s I was a member of the House
of Representatives for two successive sessions. At that time
there were some inequalities in regard to railroad taxation.
Being unable to thoroughly understand the question, I went to
the only authority I knew who would be likely to give me a
clean-cut explanation, namely, to John M. Hill, chairman of the
State Board of Equalization; and I must say I never got a more
frank and satisfactory and direct talk upon any subject than I
had with him. He spoke understandingly of the trouble that
the State Board of Equalization had in making up their assess-
ment. He said: "Now I am going to give you one illustration.
You must know that the city of Manchester was beaten but
a short time ago in a tax suit by the Amoskeag corporation.
I know the members of the Board of Assessors personally, —
as just and upright men as I ever knew, men of good judgment
and good, hard common-sense men, — but the city of Manchester
was beaten. They lost the tax which they ought to have had.
There is another suit now pending of the Amoskeag corpora-
tion against the city of Manchester, and I fear that they will
'be beaten again. That you may see that I am not prejudiced,
that I am honest in my statements, I will say to you that my
property is invested in the stocks and securities, largely, of the
Amoskeag corporation, and I am benefited by this decision;
but it is wrong, it is absolutely wrong."
Now, Gentlemen, that came from the chairman of your Boarl
of Equalization, a man who at that time was about to resign
from his position, having worked about his allotted time in
life. Now I contend if that was his judgment, there is some-
thing fundamentally wrong in New Hampshire about your sys-
tem of taxation.
Now, in closing, none of the world's great problems, whether
it be in business, in finance, in naval battles, or with the gen-
eral upon the field, none have ever been settled with fear, cow-
ardice and so-called conservatism as the dominant motives.
Never. You have got to seize this problem and treat it with
courage and decision.
294: Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Burton of Ncirport. — Gentlemen of the Convention, this
discussion seems to have degenerated into an assault upon the
Courts of the state of New Hampshire, and I am not surprised,
as I have noted the gentlemen who have spoken upon the sub-
ject. This is just the beginning of the assaults that will come
upon our Courts and our institutions from the same source, in
my opinion, and I desire you to take notice right here and now
that the beginning has been made. It looks as though we were
about at the parting of the ways. It looks strikingly as though
we w^ere about to decide whether or not we would retain longer
our Constitution or discard it altogether, reljdng temporarily on
the legislature possibly, but later on the popular vote up and
down the state, — on the initiative, the referendum, and the
recall. We are flat up against that proposition this morning.
The gentleman from Landaff waxes eloquent over the injustice
of the taxation of corporations. You may know that he, to-
gether with Mr. Hollis of Concord, is the attorney of the
great commission, the Public Service Commission, that their
attention is confined largely to the actions of the public service
corporations of the state, and it is possible that their judg-
ment is warped a little by their calling, their work in life.
Here is something for you and me to consider. There are a
lot of people in the state who are not directly interested in
the big corporations, and who cannot afford to sacrifice a great
constitutional guaranty for the sake of making it a little easier
for the Tax Commission to assess taxes. Mr. Stevens has told
you how they might sit dow^n with the railroads and find out
their earnings in a short time, and then figure out what their
taxes should be. This would also be convenient in the case of
the express company, and the sleeping car company, but you
and I, in giving them this ease, are sacrificing the most funda-
mental language in the Constitution. Is it worth while? Are
we not paying too dearly for enabling these officials to assess
taxes with ease? Is there any reason why the property of
the railroad cannot be assessed just as is your property and
mine? And if it is so assessed isn't that fair? Now I want to
pay my uruportUmal part of the taxes; yes, I am even anxious to
do so, but I don't want to pay any more. Do you? Does any
one?
In 1784 this word "proportional" was placed in our Constitu-
tion, and there it has remained ever since. In our legislatures
we have the voice of the people, as expressed by a majority
of the electorate, which is composed of twenty-five percent of
the people. Only twenty-five percent! Seventy-five percent
have no voice whatever in the election of the members of the
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 295
legislature. It is also true that, according to our system of
representation, there will be thirty-four towns which will be
unrepresented in every session of the legislature. That is to
say, a General Court elected by a majority of twenty-iive per-
cent of the people of the state (with thirty-four towns not rep-
resented at all) will decide what our tax laws are to be. Is
that what you want? Do you wish to remove the limitation
from the Constitution which today protects every man, woman
and child in the state from unequal taxation? Talk about
special privilege | Our legislative halls would be besieged at
every session. Talk about the evil forces at work in our midst!
I know what has been working here, and you have seen it. It
is the insidious hand that is preying on our institutions. It is
in this very hall, and some of you may have been touched by
it. I assert when we once get into the grasp of this enemy to
all government we will sigh for the grasp of the hand of the
biggest corporation doing business in New Hampshire. I know
what I am talking about. We are in a bad way. Evils exhibit
attractive features. Did you know that was one of the insidious
things about the worst diseases? Whj% in consumption, that
dreaded plague of the white man, the subject blooms with a
fair, ruddy countenance, the picture of health, only a short
time before he breathes his last. It is likewise true of leprosy.
The leper takes on a beautiful complexion at a certain stage
of this terrible malady. Did you ever know of anything that
was mean in our social life that did not have a fine covering on
the outside? These winsome things which they put out to us
to win our endorsement and patronage conceal the most dis-
astrous things in our political life. This attempt, if success-
ful, is the beginning. Gentlemen, of the end.
The proposition of ridding the Constitution of the word
"proportional" is something that I am loath to contemplate, and
yet it is something that we must think about and grapple with
this morning, — this very morning. They appeal to reason, —
"Appeal to Eeason." One of the worst publications in this
country is entitled, "Appeal to Reason." Mr. Stevens w^ould
have us believe that he is looking out for the little man. Don't
be deceived. You have seen how he has rounded up on the
other propositions we have had before us. God bless you, Gen-
tlemen, he doesn't care any more about them than I do. I never
worked for the Boston & Maine Railroad, and I don't speak for
any corporation, and no corporation has spoken to me through
counsel or otherwise. I am speaking for Jesse M. Barton of
Newport, New Hampshire, and for any member to insinuate
that corporations are working in our midst is wrong, very
wrong.
296 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Drake has tried to sticH an amend-
ment on to this amendment, which is nothing but a referendum.
You see, our friends, the enemy, cannot even let this resolution
go through without attempting to attach something in their
line of legislation. It is all bad.
Mr. Smith of Pet-erbormgh.—UT. Chairman,—
Mr. Drake of Pittsfield.—l would like to make a statement in
reply to what the gentleman said. ,
The Chairman.— Mr. Smith has the floor.
Mr. Smith of Feterborongh. — I wish to make one statement in
regard to that made by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr.
Stevens, that those who opposed his bill were either laboring
for the corporations or were wealthy men. I stand here and
say that I am not counsel for anj^ corporation in this state, and
I am not a wealthy man. I stand here also to emphasize most
emphatically, so far as I can, the position taken by the gentle-
man from Concord, Judge Mitchell. It is the only safe position
for this Convention to take at this time. If you will carefully
examine the bill introduced by the gentleman from Landaff and
compare it with the Constitution of New Hampshire today, you
will see what it means. If you haven't compared it, you haven't
any idea. The word "proportional" is but a small part of the
meaning of that bill, although it is an important part. It is a
part which was placed in that Constitution by design; it was a
part which was placed there to protect life; it is a part whicii
was placed there so that future conditions might have the
benefit of it. That is not all. If you will read carefully
his bill you will see that every word referring to property,
polls, estates is eliminated from the Constitution. You won't
find the word "polls," you won't find the word "estates," you
won't find the word "property" within the limits of that Con-
stitution if his bill passes. What is the result? The result is
simply this: every legislature, as it meets here from session
to session, will be obliged to say what is property that they
can tax. The Constitution, as he leaves it, says assessments
may be made, but it doesn't say that that assessment shall
be made on polls or property or estates; it is left entirely to
each legislature to say for themselves what shall be taxed.
They will come here from session to session with different in-
terests; they will come here representing different parties;
they will come here representing different people, diiferent or-
ganizations, and the majority of that session will say what
property shall be taxed. Not only that, they will say this prop-
erty, this class of property, may be taxed at its full value;
that class of propertj'^ may be taxed at half its value; another
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. .297
class of property may be taxed four mills on the dollar; an-
other class of property may be entirely exempt. It is left with
that legislature, the majority of it, to say what shall be taxed
and how it shall be taxed. And I say candidly, and I say
earnestly, because I feel it, it is a fundamental wrong. It is
changing the Constitution in that way which we in the future
will regret. It is changing it in such a way as to leave it to
the caprice, leave it to the interest, leave it to the passion, and
leave it to the desire of the majority of every legislature, as
they meet here from session to session. I believe this is one
of the most important bills and one of the most important sub-
jects, that can come before this Convention for ns to pass.
Let us be cautious; let us be careful; let us move cautiously
and not change the Constitution so radically as to leave it
with a majority of men that may be elected from session to
say what shall be taxed and how much. Now they might fix
it in this way: Land shall be taxed at its full value, buildings
upon land shall not be taxed at all, stock in trade shall be
taxed, or may be taxed at three fourths of its value, money at
interest may be taxed for four mills on the dollar, or ex*-
empted entirely, manufacturing establishments may be taxed
in this way or that way upon the income, upon the profits,
upon the value, or any way that those men who are in the
majority shoula say. I, for one, cannot in this Convention vote
for any proposition so radical and so disastrous as I believe
this to be.
Mr. Morse of NetmnarJcet. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I have
not been stung by the moon-fly. Now, for fear some of you
may not know what the moon-fly is, it is a fly that stings or
bites people, and about once in so often they are taken crazy,
and I should judge. Sir, by some of the arguments we have
listened to this morning for or against these measures that
some of the speakers have been stung or bitten by the moon-
fly. How do you expect. Sir, that a man vdth as many bones in
his head as I have can vote intelligently upon this proposition?
The young eagle from the wilds of Landaff comes here and
tells us what we ought to do, and criticises the Courts for
their decisions. The distinguished gentleman who is a member
of the Court, a man for whom I have the highest respect as
well as confidence in his judgment, tells you the reverse. How
do you expect. Sir, I can vote intelligently upon this matter?
Why, Gentlemen of the Committee, I am in the same predica-
ment that the Irishman was in when he was a juryman, and,
with your permission, I will tell you about him. After listening
to the argument and plea by the counsel for the prosecution he
298 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
nudged his next, neighbors and said, "The fellow is guilty."
"How do you know?" "The lawyer says so." "Well, you wait
until you hear the other side," and after he had heard the plea
for the defense he nudged the fellow on the other side and
said, "He is innocent.'.' "How do you know?'" "He says so."
"Well, for Heaven's sake, wait until the judge gives you the
law," And after he listened very attentively- to what the judge
said in relation to the law he nudged both and said, "Begory,
I don't know whether he is guilty or innocent."
So I don't know whether the gentleman from Concord, Mr.
Mitchell, is right, or the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens,
is right. But I do know, Sir, that I am -wiser than I thought.
The gentleman from Nashua laughs; I will convince him I am
wiser than I thought. Mr. Stevens saj's the gentlemen on the
other side said that if j^ou leave this to the legislature the spe-
cial interests will come here at the next session and will labor
with you to assess their taxes and their valuation, so they will
be getting the rake-off. Then I say rlon't. Don't cut down the
membership in the House. I suggested that at the very first.
I also said I was willing to concede that my father and mj-"
grandfather were wiser than I am, and they were a devilish
sight more honest, and some of them were here when this
Constitution was framed. Don't monkey with it. If you do,
you will go home and repent in ashes and sackcloth.
Now, Sir, I remember distinctly when I was a boy of being
compelled by my mother to go to prayer-meeting, Friday even-
ing prayer-meeting, in the Methodist church, and they used
to get up once every four weeks and have what they called an
experience meeting. They told all the damnable things they
had done in the month before, and asked the Lord to forgive
them. Xow some of you people come up here and tell all the
mean things jou have done in the past, or you contemplate
doing in the future, and ask to be forgiven. Now, Sir, you have
heard a good deal about the poor farmer, and my distinguished
friend from New Ipswich comes down here and tells all about
his cow. Well, I know a calf is worth more at six weeks old
than that same calf is at six years, I was going to say. I know
that bj' experience. If there is a farmer in this Committee who
thinks I am not telling the truth, I want him to stand right
up here and contradict me. There is not a farmer in this Com-
mittee who had a wood lot or a lumber lot to sell but he got
at least four times as much for it when he sold it as it was
taxed for.
Now for an illustration: I had the honor of being chairman
of the Board of Selectmen of mj' town for more than one year,
Tuesday, June 18, 19] 2. 299
and we always took the book along wnth us to see what the fel-
lows before us did, so we might get a clue. We drove into a
man's yard one morning and said, "Well, Henrj% what have you
got this year?" "Oh, just the same as I had last year." "Well,
we find you were assessed at $1,800. How does that strike
you?" "Well, you have got to allow that I have sold $2,300
worth of lumber in the last j'^ear, and I want to take that off."
Now if you will tell me how you could take $2,300 off of $1,800
and still have him taxed for anything, you are smarter than 1
am.
We went to another place, and this estate, the estate of John
Norton, was assessed at $2,800. One of the selectmen said, "I
will give him $4,000 for the standing timber." Well, we went in
and asked him what he had got this year. We told him we
didn't think he was assessed for enough, and we were going to
put it $3,500. "That is too much." One of the selectmen said,
"I will give you $4,000 for your timber," but he wouldn't take it.
We put it up $200 and left it at $3,000.
You holler about the Boston & Maine Railroad, and you hol-
ler about the Amoskeag corporation. I am a Boston & Maine
Railroad man; I am for the Amoskeag corporation; I am for
any corporation that makes New Hampshire busy and gives
more people employment. The Boston & Maine Railroad never
asked me to do anything that wasn't right. I do not owe them
anything, and they don't owe me anything. The Amoskeag
never asked me to do anything. Anyway, now I am tired and
sick, Gentlemen of this Committee, of your slandering the Bos-
ton & Maine Railroad and the Amoskeag corporation and all
the corporations. There isn't a mother's son of you that
wouldn't be president of the Boston & Maine Railroad, if you
could, and get the salarj^ I saj' there isn't one who would not
be president of the Amoskeag corporation and get the salary.
Now, why aren't you honest? If I have got to vote, I am going
to hook up with the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, and
if you betray me I will say that John M. Mitchell told me I
had better vote that way, and it is up to him and not to me.
Mr. Wolf of Berlin. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I cannot
tell good stories, like the last speaker, but it seems to me here
is one fact that should be given the consideration of this Con-
vention on this question. So I will quote from the State Tax
Commission, which has been quoted here several times before.
It says this: "The Constitutions of ten states place no restraint
upon the reasonable classification of property for taxation.
These states are as follows: Utah, Delaware, Maryland, Minne-
sota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ver-
300 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
mont and Oklahoma." You will notice some of the. largest
states, including the very largest in population, are included
in this list, so we are not considering a very revolutionary
measure when we consider adopting something that New York
state has in operation at the present time. This report is
signed by Allen R. Foote, president of the Ohio State Board
of Commerce; Lawson Purdy, vice-president for the United
States, president of the Department of Taxes and Assessments,
New York City; A. C. Pleydell, corresponding secretary for the
United States, secretary New York Tax Reform Association,
New York City.
I am going to read just one more paragraph in this report,
which will take only a minute. "Special tax commissions ap-
pointed to investigate complaints against inequalities of tax-
ation in states where the uniform rule is imbedded in the Con-
stitution have pointed out time and again that there could be
no relief from unequal and unjust taxation until such pro-
visions were repealed and the legislatures empowered to change
their tax systems to conform to modern conditions of industrial
development and diversified investment." ,
Mr. Leighton of Newfields moved that the Committee take
a recess for one hour.
Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro, moved to amend so that the Com-
mittee , shall proceed to vote 50 minuies after recess.
Mr. Leighton of Newfields accepted the amendment.
On a viva voce vote the resolution was adopted as amended.
After Recess.
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Allen Hollis of
Concord to the resolution of Mr. Jones of Manchester, —
Mr. Eastman of Exeter. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I came to the Convention, not for the purpose of
talking, but for the purpose of listening and ascertaining as
well as I could what ought to be done in regard to the various
propositions that would be submitted to the Convention, and
voting accordingly. Now, this question that we have before us
is a very important question, and I think we ought to discuss
it in fairness. Tt isn't a question of politics; it isn't a question
of whether Democrats should be in favor of it, or whether Re-
publicans should be in favor of it or against it, or whether so-
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 301
called Socialists are in favor or against it. The question is,
What ought to be done, so far as the public is concerned, in
the state of New Hampshire? You are all very well aware
what the questions are before the Convention. The first propo-
sition is one introduced by the gentleman from Tilton, Mr.
Fellows, and amended by the gentleman from Concord, Judge
Mitchell. That proposition provides, in substance, for the ex-
emption of certain classes of property, that is, timberlands,
various kinds of intangibles, money at interest, and money de-
posited in savings banks, and also provides for an income tax.
As you are well aware, this is an exception, and under this
exception the language of the present Constitution remains as
it is — that is, it required the legislature to provide for a tax
levy, which shall be "proportional" and which shall also be
"reasonable*." Now these two words are retained in the Con-
stitution under this first proposition, and the various kinds of
property which are classified are made an exception.
The other proposition is contained in Resolution No. 33, which
was introduced by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens.
Under his proposition, he proposes to strike the word "pro-
portional" out of the Constitution, leaving the word "reason-
able" in, so that the Constitution would read, as amended in
that part, "the legislature is authorized to levy reasonable
taxes," not specifying upon what, but on any class of property
or any kind of property that the legislature may determine
should be assessed for taxation. It also leaves to the legis-
lature the right to classify all kinds of property and determine
what the tax shall be upon it, so that, as far as this proposition
is concerned, it contains all that is set forth in the exception,
together with the further right to assess other property which
is not contained in the exception, and also gives the legislature
the right to grant exemptions from taxation.
Now, then, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, if I could make my-
self believe that this proposition is properly safeguarded, T
should be in favor of it, because it does away with an exception
to the general rule, and provides a general method of taxation
under the Constitution, but I am not prepared to endorse that
proposed amendment for the reason that I do not deem it suf-
ficiently safeguarded. The word "proportional," as has been
said, has been passed upon by the courts, and it has been held
to mean just and reasonable and various other things which re-
late to the assessment of taxes, for the purpose of making them
equal and proportional among all the people. If that word
"proportional" is taken out, we have the word "reasonable"
left. It is said the word "reasonable" is a very good word, and
302 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
will amply protect everybody. Now, what is reasonable in one
condition is wholly unreasonable in another, and when you come
to assess the tax, the question of the reasonableness of the
rate, and the question of the reasonableness of the assessment
of the tax, and all things of that sort, are going to arise, and
really it is no check or curb, as I understand it, upon the
legislation which may be enacted upon this subject.
That is one reason why I am opposed to it; I say it opens
the subject to an unlimited extent. But it has been suggested
that under another clause of the Constitution, Article 12 of the
Bill of Bights, it is provided that each subject shall bear "his
just share" in support of the government, and it is said that
this clause affords sufficient protection; but, mind you, with the
word "proportional" stricken out of the Constitution another
construction of that instrument will be demanded, and what the
court will say, with the word "proportional" stricken out, how
far that will affect your rights under the 12th article of the
Bill of Rights is an open question. I don't know how they
would decide it.
It is further said that you have the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States as a protection. But
if every tax question, every time you have a question arising
in regard to the assessment of a tax in the state of New Hamp-
shire, you have got to go to Washington to have it settled, that
is going to be very inconvenient, isn't it? It is a very imprac-
ticable proposition. So, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, if this is the only safeguard we have when the word
"proportional" is stricken out of the Constitution, I am not in
favor of it.
They say in addition to the Fourteenth Amendment we will
have a referendum tacked on here somewhere, and if the legis-
lature should enact a law that is very unwise and very un-
reasonable, and which imposes great hardship on the citizens
of the state, with the referendum we get four thousand voters
to sign a petition, and then put it up to the people to decide. _
The very same people who elected the representatives pass upon
this law, so I do not regard the referendum as a sufficient pro-
tection.
Now, then, I cannot support the measure for these reasons.
I think favorably of it, provided it could be properly safe-
guarded. In my judgment it cannot. There has been some
reference here to the Courts, and from what has been s.iid, 'f
I understand it rightly, you are asked to believe that the
Supreme Court of the state of New Hampshire has been wrong
in the decisions which have been rendered in regard to the tax
Tuesday, JuxXe 18, 1912. 303
propositions submitted to them in this state. That depends
a good deal upon your viewpoint. I have sometimes tried cases
in Court and thought for the time being the decision was wrong,
but, after I got cooled off and looked the situation over, I came
to the conclusion it was right enough. The facts in each of
the cases have been presented to the Court in the assessment
districts where the assessments have been levied. As was said
by the gentleman from Newmarket, in the assessment of prop-
erty there has been a very great undervaluation. I am not here
to advocate a railroad or any other corporation. For twenty
years I represented the state, and what little I had to do with
the corporations was against them, and before that my firm was
never retained by a railroad corporation; so, as far. as my in-
terests are concerned, I am not interested for the corporations;
but there have been, Gentlemen, as you know% several tax ap-
peals. The corporations, the railroads, have appealed from the
assessment of taxes levied upon them. Their complaint has
been that the property, the real estate throughout the state,
was greatly undervalued, and, as a matter of fact, the Board of
Equalization has found in the assessment of these taxes that
the real estate was only appraised at 64 percent of its actual
value. So far as that is concerned, I do not see any argu-
ment; in fact, I do not see any reason at all why anybody should
come before this honorable body and seek to line up the com-
munity against the Courts; as a matter of fact, there has been
an undervaluation in the property, and for that reason these
appeals have been taken, and that is not the fault of th.^
Courts; it is the fault of the gentlemen whose duty it was to
assess the tax.
Now, then, I do not propose to take up any more time in
discussing this question. I shall vote against the Stevens propo-
sition for the reasons I have stated. I do feel as though at
this time there should be some relief for the situation which
exists in New Hampshire. It is a fact that the state has in
various other matters undertaken to protect the public interests,
as was said here by one of the gentlemen at the outset, to pro-
tect the scenic beauty of New Hampshire, and to do that there
are many cases where property, growing wood and timber, if
taxed at the full value, the parties could not afford to keep it,
but as an asset for the state of New Hampshire it is valuable
and should be protected.
I do not agree with the gentleman from Pittsfield, Mr. Drake,
that every man who happens to have a bond that isn't taxed is
a thief. The proposition presented is this: If a man has a
municipal bond which pays 4 percent, it is a security which is
304 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
safe, it is a security which people having- small amounts of
money desire to invest their money in. Nove, then, if they have
to pay a tax at full rate upon that, if it is only a 4 percent
bond, and that is the usual rate, from 31/2 to 4 percent, they
must of necessity dispose of that property. Now, the fact that
they dispose of property they cannot afford to keep doesn't
make them, Mr. Chairman, thieves. Not at all! It comes to a
matter of necessity. This is not a thieving operation at all,
in any sense of the word.
It is desirable, I say, to protect that class of securities, and
it is better for the state of New Hampshire to do "something by
the way of taxation in regard to those securities to lessen the
burden than it is to have those securities go out of the state,
and be replaced by other securities which are less valuable and
less safe for our citizens as an investment.
Mr. Stone of Andvver. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I do not propose to discuss the theory involved in
these different, amendments. It seems to me there is a prac-
tical question behind all this. We have come together here for
some purpose. Prior to the assembling of this Convention
throughout New Hampshire there were certain subjects that
were apparently interesting the people of the state. One was
the taxation question, involving practically^ but three questions,
the lumber question, intangibles, and the inheritance tax. I
want to call your attention to this. In the past, the people of
New Hampshire, when the questions have been submitted to
them, have been far more conservative than have the people
who have attended these Conventions. In the Convention of
1902, of the ten amendments proposed by the Convention six
were rejected by the people. We have already presented to
the people, or recommended to be presented to the people, two
amendments, apparently harmless, and they went through this
Convention with practically no opposition, yet both of these
were beaten when submitted to the people by the Convention
of 1902. I speak of that as calling your attention to the fact
that there is something hereafter. Do we want to do anything
that will not be approved by the people?
These three things apparently appeal to this Convention.
There are some who think we should go further. Now, Gen-
tlemen, if we do go further, will we get anything? If I was
opposed to amending the Constitution in any respect in re-
lation to taxation, I should most heartily support the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, in order to
load it down so it might be reasonably certain that the people
of New Hampshire would defeat it. Men interested in the ques-
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 305
tion of allowing the lumber to be exempt, men interested in
the question of permitting- intangibles to be reached, and the
tax placed on them, men in favor of the income tax, do you
want to imperil those three propositions by adding to them
something that good men, whatever you or I may think, believe
to be revolutionary? Do you want to do it? If you do, vote for
the Stevens amendment. If you do not, isn't it better to get
a half loaf rather than nothing? For these reasons. Gentle-
men, without going into the merits of the Stevens resolution,
but believing, as I do, the people of Xew Hampshire will never
adopt it, I am not in favor of attaching the Stevens amendment
to the amendment as now proposed.
Mr. Hohbs of Wolf ebi/ro.— Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I have listened this morning, as I have in the past,
to the gentlemen who have preceded me, and I have only ad-
miration for every one of them and what they have said.
We are all, Mr. Chairman, or nearly all, agreed that a change
in the Constitution should be made to allow the legislature to
classify property for taxation. The question resolves itself into
this position: Shall we leave the word "proportional" in the
Constitution and go on and make exceptions for certain prop-
erties, or shall we remove the word "proportional" and give to
the legislature all the taxable properties of the state to deal
with? In other words, the legislature, by the rulings of the
court, has no authority at the present time to classify prop-
erty for taxation. Shall we leave the matter as it now is?
Shall we give the legislature the power to classify a part of the
property? Or shall we give them the power to classify all th»
property?
That is the question before the Convention today. I believe.
Gentlemen, we shall do much more injury by letting in a few
taxables than if we let all in; much more injury by opening th?,
door part way than all the way. By one method a part of this
worshiped word, "proportional," is lost; bj^ the other, all. And
we substitute the words, wise, just and equitable, and so on;
and, Mr. Chairman, I have as much reverence for these words
wise, just and equitable as I have for this much worshiped
word, "proportional," that seems to be causing all the mischief.
What reason is there for classifying a part of the property
and for shutting out another part? The gentleman from Con-
cord, Judge Mitchell, wishes to take out from under the word,
"proportional," a certain class of property, and leave other
classes under it. Gentlemen, that is just where the injury
comes in. The legislature should have the authority to place
taxes where they will be the least burdensome, where they will
306 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
be most reasonable, and easily paid and collected, and to classify
and rate as seems reasonable, wise and just; also the authority
to impose an income tax. For the Leg-islature to do justice to
all, you must give into its hands all the taxable properties. It
may be injurious to some which has been withheld from them
by the Constitution if you do not give them all of it to deal
with. The legislature should be held responsible by the people
for the tax laws, given credit for good laws and censure for
bad ones, but, if we place a barrier in the way, then we hinder
and deprive the people of the very object sought, better tax
laws.
We are sent here, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, with full
power, subject, however, to the approval of the people, and we
are expected to do all in our power to bring about this desired
result. As I said a moment ago, place the taxes where they
will be the least burdensome, most reasonable and just. If we
withhold the tools to accomplish all this, then we do wrong,
not only to them, the legislators, but to the people. They are
elected by the people the same as we are, and are responsible
to the people as we are responsible. If we make it impossible
for the legislature to give us the best laws, then they fail to
make good and they shift the responsibility back on to us, and
we must shoulder that responsibility; whereas, if we give them
a free hand, they alone will be responsible for the good or the
bad tax laws.
Mr. Chairman, would you send a boatman out and give him
one oar to row, and expect him to do a good job in crossing
the stream? Never. You would give into his hands a pair, and
if you gave him the second pair it would do no harm if you ex-
pected him to do a good job. If you remember the Titanic, it
was only a few weeks ago when, after the great architects of
the sailing world had built that most magnificent ship, putting
eight millions of dollars into it, and when that great ship was
out and wanted the lifeboats, the very necessary things that
they wanted, they were deprived of, they were not there, and
hundreds of people went down to a watery grave.
This great ship of state! We, the architects, that are as-
sembled here today, have the authority; it has been placed in
our hands. Shall we deprive those who are to come after us
of the lifeboats? That part of the taxable property that is
hidden behind the door may be the absolute barrier in the
way of adjusting and classifying that which you have let out,
and vice versa.
Mr. Chairman, we will be held responsible for our acts here
today, and, if we in any sense withhold the lifeboats, we will
fail in our duty.
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 307
Gentlemen, in conclusion, let me say that I am in favor of
Resolution No. 35, because it takes the barriers away; it gives
a free hand to the legislature to give us the best possible tax
laws, and, unless we do that, we are doing a great wrong to
the people. We are putting the barriers up, and you and I will
be held responsible. Therefore, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,
I urge the adoption of Resolution No. 33. I thank you.
Mr. Allen Hollis of Cancord: — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of
the Convention, I have a great deal to say in ten minutes. I
stand here, in connection with Mr. Stevens, charged with hav-
ing my judgment warped because I am attempting somewhat
to protect the people of the state of New Hampshire against
corporate aggression. I am glad to be charged with having
my judgment warped with that motive. I am charged also
with spreading the bubonic plague, whatever that means.
• What is the question? The question is whether we shall ex-
empt certain things, or rather classify, and I believe the people
will believe that means exemption. On the other hand, the
amendment offered by Mr. Stevens purposes to put this into
the hands of the legislature. We have opposition from three
sources, first, those, of whom the gentleman from Peterbor-
ough is a good example, who are opposed to any change what-
ever. We have those who desire to open the door a little way
and relieve the securities in which large aggregations of wealth
are generally invested. We have also in opposition to us those
who fear that, if we give the legislature a chance, they will im-
pose on the railroads and other corporations a fair share of
the burdens of taxation, and have it levied in such a way there
can be no effectual appeal. Those are the three classes opposed
to the Stevens amendment.
My colleague from Ward 4 this morning stated this: The
Stevens amendment sweeps out of existence the word pro-
portional and removes the only safeguard by which the humblest
citizen may appeal to the Court. Mr. Stevens pointed out this
morning that, up to this day, the humblest citizen never has
had occasion to appeal to the Courts. But, as Judge Mitchell
went on, he said this amendment would sweep away the safe-
guards. Judge Mitchell, in his argument before the Board of
Equalization on September 8, 1909, quoted the United States
Supreme Court opinion on the proposition that the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Federal Constitution is absolute protection
against disproportional and arbitrary taxation, and that is the
law, as decided by repeated decisions of the United States
Supreme Court, quoted by Judge Mitchell in this pamphlet which
I hold in my hand. Judge Doe, in State v. Express Company,
308 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
pointed out that Article 12 of the Bill of Eights is a still
further protection against disproportional and unjust taxation.
I should not be in favor of the Stevens amendment if I did not
know there were sufficient safeguards to any unjust and im-
proper action by the legislature.
Judge Mitchell also tells you that the United States Con-
stitution is the best one in the world. I would ask him to
search from one cover to the other of that Constitution and
find one single word limiting the power of Congress, except
that direct taxes shall be proportioned to the population of
the several states. That Constitution contains no limitation
whatever on the subject of taxation.
Now it is claimed that this proposition is revolutionary and
socialistic, and it will be stated by some gentlemen here that
it is novel and untried. I will begin, Gentlemen, as we used to
in school, and count the states. There are: Maine, — a Con-
stitution similar to ours, but decisions of the Courts different.
I do not criticise the decisions of the Courts. I do say th.^-
decisions of the Courts are responsible for the position we are
in. Vermont has no limitations; Massachusetts, the same
limitations we have, and they have the same troubles. Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, —
these last three, the largest and most prosperous manufactur-
ing and industrial states in this country, all have a Constitution
without these limitations that these gentlemen ar§ advocating,
so I am willing to ally New Hampshire with such socialistic
states as New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania on this
question.
We have here a situation that is absolutely intolerable, and
everybody agrees to it excepting a few who fear any change.
We have got into this situation under the Constitution we have.
We point out a plain way to get out of this intolerable situ-
ation. Do you know that our whole system of railroad tax-
ation is subject to attack now in a case in Court, brought there
by the Grand Trunk Railroad, and we are liable to be put in a
situation where we cannot collect the taxes from the railroads
during the next ten years until we get the Constitution
amended? Do you know the question whether the 5 percent
mortgage tax is constitutional has never been passed upon,
and that has got to be determined. All we ask is to have these
questions put up to the legislature for determination, and I
have no fear of the result.
Talk about practical considerations! If you submit this
question to the people on a measure which contains, first, an
exemption of forest lands, then an exemption of intangibles,
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 309
whatever that means, and then an exemption of this and that,
you are going- to line up against it all the people opposed to
any of these things, whereas, if you go to the people with a
straight, plain proposition to put into the hands of the legis-
lature the power to levy taxes the way they think is most
proper for the people under all circumstances, you are going
before the people with the kind of a proposition they want.
Mr. ruisbury of Londondti'ry. — I had not thought to impose my-
self upon this Committee during its session, but it seems to me
there has arisen in this discussion a disposition of some of the
members to drift away from the great fundamental point, and
that is to allow the people to settle this question for them-
selves. You want to open the door a little way and take out,
for the benefit of a certaiij few, certain parts of this old Con-
stitution, like your intangibles, and your forest lands, most of
which are owned by wealthy people, and then close the door,
and it has appeared to me this morning almost like Niobe weep-
ing over her loss, when the gentleman from Concord gets up
here and deplores the fact that the Boston & Maine will come
back into politics and will control this taxation question. Gen-
tlemen, that is a proposition that would make anybody weep,
when you come to think that for thirty years they had control
of the situation, and it is only within the last four years, by
the voice of the people, that they have been raised about three
hundred thousand dollars in their taxes in New Hampshire.
Now we want to have this question submitted to the vote of
the people of this state, and I submit to you that the people
of this state, or any other people in this United States, when
the question is properly discussed, when it is put before them
by the men of their states, are a fair, honest and upright people,
and they will decide this question upon its merits.
It has been well said by the gentleman from Andover that
the electors of New Hampshire have failed to pass and ratify a
great many questions which we have submitted. That is a mat-
ter of history. The people are conservative, and I believe you
cannot go back to your constituents and look them closely in
the face and say, we don't dare to trust two thirds of you.
If you can, our whole system of constitutional government in
this state is at fault. If you can, the people of this state and
of this nation are in a position from which it will take some-
thing more than we can do in this Convention to extricate
them.
This morning there appeared, as has been said, an advertise-
ment in the columns of the Mancliester Union, and it says: "An-
other halt will be called to wait the action of New Hampshire
310 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
upon such amendments to its Constitution as initiative and
referendum and the Stevens amendment, which opens the door
to even confiscatory taxation, if the temporary majority should
so declare." We are ur»'ed to weigh the self-government of this
state against the building- of a little hotel and a railroad on a
mountain. I am appalled that such a proposition should ever
be put before the people of this state. I have as much rever-
ence as the eloquent gentleman from Concord for those grand
founders of the old Constitution, and the founders of this state,
but I can hardly believe, as I look back upon our traditions and
remember its gallant men, from John Stark, John P. Hale, that
founder and believer in personal liberty, who left his party
and stood for human liberty and the rights of every citizen, — ■
I am surprised that such a proposition should ever be put be-
fore the people of this state. We have a grand history and a
grand tradition, — a tradition coming down from the past of
which we are proud; one that stood upon the merits and abil-
ity of its citizens; one that shed its blood in the Revolutionary
war and in the Eebellion, when men went out and shed their
blood for this government; a tradition which, thank God, com-
mercialism cannot interfere with, which the millions of a
Rockefeller, Carnegie, or a Morgan cannot buy, — and I appeal
to you. Gentlemen, to stand by those traditions and to submit
this question, to submit the three or four great public quest-
ions, whether you are for them or not. I am not for woman's
suffrage, but I believe that is a public question, as this is, and
as one or two others, the initiative and referendum, and three
or four great public questions, which should be decided, not on
our own feelings, but upon the fact that they are great public
questions and the public should have a right to discuss them.
They should have a right to study them, and if you cannot
trust two thirds of your people, you cannot go home a man, and
look your neighbors in the face.
Mr. Wentioorth of Smi4wicli. — I have listened with pleasure in
this matter of taxation, but when I, with others, was elected
as a member of this Constitutional Convention, I supposed we
were coming here to frame some kind of propositions to revise
the organic law. We are not here as legislators, but it seems
to me that legislative questions have been included in this dis-
cussion. But on a moment's reflection we realize that we are
here to propose fundamental law to be submitted to the people
as part of our Constitution. The legislature can come here
every two years and pass an act, and then can repeal the act,
but this subject of taxation pertains to fundamental, organic
law, and is very important; and if put into the e-onstitution
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 311
should be so expressed there as to be able to stand future
tests.
The gentleman from Londonderry^ Mr. Pillsbury, who has just
spoken, referred to John P. Hale, and there, too, hangs in this
hall the portrait of Daniel Webster, who was the "expounder
of the Constitution." We delight to honor the foresight and
statesmanship of such New Hampshire men as they were. If
this is a legislative, or a political assembly, let us act accord-
ingly; but, if the purpose is to put something into the Consti-
tution to stand after we are gone, and for our children, then
let us see if we cannot be right in the beginning.
Mr. WMttemore of Dover. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I proj)ose to occupy your time in the discussion of
this question only for a moment, for it has been fully discussed.
I oppose this resolution on the very grounds that some of its
advocates have advanced in favor of its passage.
This resolution would take from the legislature all limita-
tions in matters of taxation, as I read and interpret it, and
would leave no guide or limitation on the legislature in classi-
fying taxes upon all classes of property in this state. It could
classify any or all. Now what would be the result? We know,
from past experience, that the interests are always represented,
and will look after the classification of their property, but
how about the small taxpayer and farmer? Would they
be represented? No; except as they are represented in the
membership of the legislature. They will have no paid retainer
to look after taxation affecting their property. Then, as each
interest appears before the legislature and gets a special tax
fixed to cover its property, it can sit back and say, we are not
interested in checking extravagant appropriations, as the bal-
• ance of the tax levy will have to be paid by the farmer and
the small householder. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to
enter my protest against this resolution.
The time having arrived at which the Committee voted to
take a vote upon the motion of Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord,
to amend the resolution of Mr. Jones of Manchester, —
Mr. Lyford of Conord called for a division.
Division being had, 95 gentlemen voted in the ai^irmative
and 231 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the amendment
was not adonted.
312 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Question being on the resolution of Mr. Jones of Manches-
ter, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord called for a division.
Division being had, 223 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
ani^ 33 gentlemen voted in the negative and the resolution
was adopted.
On motion of Mr. Jones of Manchester, that the Committee
do now rise and report back to the Convention all the proposed
amendments relating to taxation which are before the Com-
mittee, and recommend that those proposed amendments and
the whole subject of taxation be referred to the Committee on
Legislative Department with instructions to that Committee
to report as soon as possible a proposed amendment to the
Constitution which will embody the provisions of the vote
which has just been adopted, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
In Conyention.
(The President in the chair.)
Mr. Clifford of Franklin for the Committee of the Whole, to
whom were referred Resolution No. 5, Relating to Taxation
of Wild and Forest Lands and Money at Interest, Resolution
No. 33, Relating to Taxation, Resolution No. 37, Relating to
Income Tax, Resolution No. 39, Relating to Taxation of Wild
Lands, Resolution No. 50, Relating to Taxes, Resolution No.
51, Relating to Taxation of Incomes, having considered the
same recommend that they be referred to the Committee on
Legislative Department, with instructions to that Committee
to report as soon as possible a proposed amendment to the Con-
stitution which will embody the provisions of the following
resolution:
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 clas-
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 313
sify 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.
The report was accepted and the recommendations adopted.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill moved that the orders whereby
all res'olutions relating to representation in the House of Kep-
resentatives and Senate were refen^ed to the Committee of the
Whole, be vacated, and the same be referred to the Commit-
tee on Legislative Department.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill,—
Mr. Allen Uollis of Concord. — Mr. President, do I understand
correctly that this Committee on Legislative Department is the
same Committee which now has the subject of taxation, upon
which it has a hearing this afternoon? I do not want to inter-
fere in any way, but it strikes me that we are really taking
the load oif the Committee of the Whole, where it has been, and
putting it on to the Legislative Committee, and they may have
some difficulty in dealing with it. This is no criticism of the
Committee or the motion, but I should like to make an inquiry
of the Chairman of that Committee whether he would prefer
that his Committee should have this work, or whether this rep-
resentation matter might perhaps be placed somewhere else. I
have no particular interest in any particular form of getting
it done, and make this suggestion only in the interest of
progress.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — While the Committee on Legislative
Department has no desire to shirk any work of this Convention,
yet it might perhaps facilitate matters if a special committee
were appointed for this purpose.
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth. — Wouldn't it facilitate matters if
the sense of the Convention was taken on the proposition of
reducing the House and increasing the Senate, and whether they
desire the district system or not? Those three propositions be-
fore us went to the Committee.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — The suggestion of the gentleman from
Portsmouth reminds me of our procedure in the last Conven-
tion on this subject, and perhaps the rest of the day might
as well be employed in ascertaining where we stand on this
question as in anything else. You refer these questions to a
314 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
I&pecial Committee at this time, and they have no instructions.
They are simply so many individuals. We would simply report
if we got any agreement in either a Special or Standing Com-
mittee, we would report what the majority thought would prob-
ably go. Now, shan't we save time if we accept the suggestion
of the gentleman from Portsmouth and go into Committee of
the Whole on this subject, and then, after having determined
some definite facts, refer it to either a Standing Committee or
a Special Committee.
Mr. Pillshury of London^rry. — It seems to me, with past ex-
perience on this question, — I have served in two Conventions
where it has been discussed, — that we will get somewhere as
soon as we decide whether we are to have the district or the
present system. Now, in the Committee of the Whole, we can
confine ourselves to that question and have the vote taken
upon the district or the other system. Then we can refer it
to a Committee. If it is the district system, refer the district
system; or, if the town system, we can refer that system.
Mr. Whitcher withdrew his motion.
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth moved that the Convention re-
solve itself into Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of
considering all resolutions relating to representation in the
House of Eepresentatives and Senate.
Mr. WMttemore of Dover. — I rise to inquire as to whether it
is the intention of the Convention to go into Committee of
the Whole under the morning session, or take an adjournment
to afternoon session.
T?ie President. — It makes no difference really. It would be a
good plan if we should adjourn the morning session and come
into afternoon session.
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth withdrew his motion.
On motion of Mr. Whittemore of Dover the Convention ad-
journed at 3.05 o'clock.
Afteunoon^ Session.
The Convention met immediately after adjournment of the
morning session.
(The President in the chair.)
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 315
On motion of Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth the Convention
resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, for the purpose
of considering all resolutions relating to representation in the
House of Representatives and Senate, the same being, —
Resolution Xo. 1, Relating to the House of Representatives.
Resolution K'o. 13, Relating to the House of Representa-
tives.
Resolution No. 14, Relating to the House of Representa-
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 the Election of Representa-
tives in Cities and Towns of less than 800 Inhabitants.
Resolution Xo. 35, Relating to the House of Representa-
tives.
Resolution Xo. 2, Relating to the Senate.
Resolution Xo. 25, Relating to the Senate.
In Committee of the Whole.
(Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord in the chair.)
Mr. Pillsbury of Manchester moved that the Committee,
when it shall rise, report to the Convention that it is the sense
of the Committee that the Convention agree to the district
system, as the same is outlined in Resolution Xo. 13, Relating
to the House of Representatives.
Question being on motion of Mr. Pillsbury of Manches-
ter, —
316 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. PiUshiiry of Manchestci'. — I should like to speak on Reso-
lution No. 13, which I offered, and which has been discussed by
other members of the Committee. Resolution No. 13 is that
the House of Representatives shall be reduced to a fixed num-
ber of 300, and that the state shall be divided into 300 dis-
tricts of approximately equal population for the purposes of
representation. The resolution makes no reference to the size
of the Senate.
Now, there has been much discussion in favor of the other
resolutions and against them, and I believe that the district
system can be brought forward at this time as sort of a com-
promise between the other propositions that have been brought
forward. The other day the question was asked by Mr. Young
of Manchester, Why should the House be reduced at all? The
only answer at that time made to that question was, It would
save the state some money. And really I do not believe that
the majority of the Committee want to reduce the size of the
House of Representatives verj^ much. The main objection, as
the gentleman from Landaff said the other day, to the pres-
ent large size of the House is that it is unwieldy. That means
it cannot be handled; therefore I am not in favor of reducing
the size very much. And in this amendment that I have offered
it is provided that there shall be 300 members in the House,
which is a comparatively large number, and which would give
New Hampshire still the largest proportional House of Rep-
resentatives in the country.
Now, the arguments advanced against district sjstems come
principally from representatives of the rural districts, who
believe in the idea of the little republic, — who believe in town
representation. The effect of town representation has been to
under-represent the cities and large towns. Figures showing
that were presented for your consideration the other day, and
I shall not take up the time in going through the statistics in
regard to it. The reason why cities jand large towns, and
principally the city of Manchester, should not get representa-
tion that their population is entitled to is twofold. The first
reason advanced was that in past legislatures the country
members have had more brains than the city members, there-
fore the country towns should keep their representation in
order to make up in brains what the legislature might lack. If
the cities had the representation that is rightfully coming to
them, my answer to that is, that if the average representa-
tive of Manchester does not have as many brains as the aver-
age representative from the hill town, then you should give us
more representatives, so we can make up our deficiency in
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 317
brains. The second objection: In the large towns and cities,
and principalh- in the citj' of Manchester, there is a large part
of the population which is ignorant, without property, and
does not have the interests at stake that the country people
have. Xow there are in my ward in Manchester a large num-
ber of those people referred to, — they are Polanders and Lith-
uanians — and I believe if I had time I could show you that the
interests of those people, although they are not all voters, —
very few of them are voters, — their interests are just as
important to them, and to the state as a whole, as the inter-
ests of any community of farmers. I believe that they bear their
just share of the burden of taxation, and all the other bur-
dens imposed bj^ the state. Many of them are acquiring the
rights of citizenship. I was told the other day by a gentle-
man at the city hall in Manchester that in 1896, in the presi-
dential election, when Bryan and McKinley and Debs were
running, that there wasn't a single Greek in the city who had
the right to vote; that in 1900 there was only one who had
the right to vote; that in 1904, when Eoosevelt was elected,
there were only three, I believe, who exercised the right of
suffrage. At the last presidential election, when Taft and
Bryan and Debs were running, there were over thirty who
had that right, and this year, possibly, with Roosevelt and
Bryan and Debs again running, I believe there are over sixty
who have the right; and in 1916, with Roosevelt and Bryan and
Debbs again running, we will have upwards of 300 who will
have the right. Gentlemen, these people in the cities have
their interests tlaat affect them, affect their homes, the edu-
cation of their children, and the prosperit}' of their families,
just as much as the people in the country. There is no ob-
jection to the district sj^stem that can possibly be put up on
this floor except this objection, that you country members
have representatives in the legislature now to which you are
not entitled, but which you propose to maintain, simply because
it is a good thing, and you don't want to let go of it. Now,
most of the propositions that have been advanced in regard
to the representation in the House, except, perhaps. Reso-
lution No. 13, propose to maintain the town system, — all of
them propose to maintain the town system, — but they propose
increasing the mean increasing number of population, which
will provide for the second, third and fourth representatives.
Now, at the present time, as figures introduced the other day
showed to you, the cities and large towns are under-repre-
sented. One vote in the hill town, in the small districts, is
equivalent to three or four votes in the city of Manchester.
318 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Now, every proposition introduced which provides for the town
system, with six or eight hundred people for the first repre-
sentative, and raising" the increasing mean up to 1,800 or 2,400,
provides that that inequality shall be increased. Now, I be-
lieve, if we are going to make anj- change, we should make a
change towards decreasing the inequality instead of increasing
it. The wording, as was pointed out the other day, of most
of these propositions that have been introduced on the town
system is a joke; they provide that in order that representation
shall be as equal as possible, we shall change the Constitution,
so that it will be more unequal than it ever has been. Now, I
submit to you, if we are going to change it at all, let's change
it in the right 'lirection. We have got to come sooner or later
to the district system, because the district system is the only
means yet devised whereby a man has the same share in the
government, whether he lives in the country or in the city.
The arguments advanced by the initiative and referendum
forces the other daj^ — j^ou know what they were, — were that
we should have the initiative and referendum, because at the
present time the people do not get directly enough in control
of legislation. Now, if you adopt any of these other resolutions
based on town representation, you will remove further than
ever the direct influence of the majority of voters to elect
their representatives. If you want to do away with the neces-
sity of the initiative and referendum, why not take the right
step in the right direction and provide that all the people in
the state shall have an equal say in the House of Representa-
tives ?
Mr. Stone of Andover. — I have no desire to stifle the debate.
There have been matters discussed here that people want to
know about; but I don't believe there is a single man in this
Committee whose vote will be changed by any argument, —
by argument one way or the other. I don't know as I will
make a motion, but I suggest that, inasmuch as we have been
in session practically longer than most any other Convention,
that the speakers confine themselves to a few moments, and
then vote. There is not a man in this House who does not
know whether he wants the town or district system; if not,
why not. ,
Mr. Stone of Andover moved that the Committee vo^e on
the matter of representation in the House of Representatives.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Stone of Andover, —
Mr. Wason of Nashua moved to amend by making the time
at 3.22 o'clock.
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 319
The amendment was accepted by Mr. Stone of Andover.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Stone of Andover as
amended, —
Mr. Madden of Keen^. — I did not have an opportunity last
week to talk at all upon any motion or resolution in regard
to representation, but 1 do wish to say a few words in rela-
tion to the difference between the town and district system.
Of course, the Constitution provides that your representation
shall be as equal as possible, but, when the Constitution was
adopted, the men who adopted it intended representation should
not be based upon population, but upon municipalities. Popu-
lation is now supreme in the cities. It occurs to me that it is
not the time for these people of the back country towns, and
particularly in view of the light we have gotten today from
the discussion of the tax question, to have the inhabitants of
these towns surrender all the rights they have to the city.
Now the trouble with the district system is, that every time
we have a change of parties or a change of majority in the leg-
islature, you are going to get back and forth —
Mr. Wason of Nasfma. — Point of order. It is time that we vote.
Mr. Madden of Keene. — Well, I got by you as far as I could, and
I will discuss the matter.
The Chairman. — The Chair will rule that the gentleman from
Keene was apparently making introductory remarks, so that
the point of order taken by the gentleman from Nashua was
not well taken, and the gentleman will proceed.
Mr. Madidcn of Keene. — Thank you. I intended to come to this
question. It is not fair to me, because I have had no oppor-
tunity to discuss this matter, to shut off the debate in two
minutes, and I do not think that the amendment proposed
ought to be adopted at this present time. I presume there
are a whole lot of people who desire to discuss this particular
matter pro and con. It may have been all discussed last week,
and it may not. I should think that at least four o'clock was
time to take a vote.
Owing to the discussion, the time at which the vote was
to be taken, under the motion of Mr. Stone of Andover hav-
ing passed, the Chair ruled that the motion was not in order.
Mr. Wason of Nashua moved that the Committee proceed
to vote at 3,25 o'clock.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
320 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Madden of Keene moved that the Committee do now
rise and report to the Convention the resolutions relating to
the apportionment of representation in the House of Repre-
sentatives with the recommendation that they be referred to
the Committee on Legislative Department with instructions to
report as soon as possible an amendment to the Constitution
based upon the town system.
The Chair ruled the motion not in order.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Pillsbury of Manches-
ter. —
Mr. Lyford of Concord called for a di\asion.
Division being had, 70 gentlemen voted in the affirmative,
and 206 gentlemen voted in the negative and the motion did
not prevail.
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth moved that the Committer do
now rise and report to the Convention that it is the sense of
the Committee that the apportionment of representation in
the House of Representatives be reduced to approximately
300 members.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Boynton of Ports-
mouth, —
Mr. Madden of Keene moved to substitute for the motion
of Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth that the Committee do now
rise, and recommend to the Convention that all resolutions re-
lating to the apportionment of representation in the House of
Representatives be referred to the Committee on Legislative
Department with instructions to report as soon as possible an
amendment to the Constitution relating to the apportionment
of representation in the House of Representatives, based on
the town system, and that the number of representatives do
not exceed 350.
Question being on the motion to substitute, —
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth withdrew his motion.
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 321
Question being on the motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, —
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth moved to amend by striking
out the figures ''350" and inserting in place thereof the fig-
ures "300."
Question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Boynton
of Portsmouth, —
Mr. Morse of Newmarket moved to amend the' amendment
by striking out the figures "300*" and inserting in phice there-
of, the figures "409."
Question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Morse of
Newmarket, —
Mr. Morse of Neiomarket. — Mr. Chairman, in defense of that
motion I want to say, for the benefit of this Committee, that
the new census will give you 409 representatives in the House
of Representatives. There are 421 seats, and there is no argu-
ment that can be produced that will say you haven't got seat-
ing-room sufficient. Now you are well aware. Gentlemen of
the Committee, that I said at the first I was utterly opposed
to a reduction of the House of Representatives. I say so nov.%
I ain.in favor of the town system. I believe every town in the
state of New Hampshire, and every ward in every city in this
state, should have a representative, equal to that number which
they will be entitled to under the promulgation of the new
census. Then it will be harder work to control them. Make
it 409, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rowe of Kensington. — I simply want to second Doctor
Morse's remarks. Awhile ago I seconded his motion, and I
second it again, and I hope his amendment will be accepted.
Make it 409, if that is it.
Mr. Stone of Andover. — I don't rise for the purpose of making
a motion. If you want it, that is all right. If that motion
passes, the next motion should be that we indefinitely postpone
all matters relating to the subject of representation, because
it leaves it where it is. We might as well take a vote aft-er
this to indefinitely postpone as that will be the effect of it,
and do nothing on the question of representation. Now, if
that is what you want, that is what yon want to vote for.
Mr. Whitcfier of HaverliiU. — I give notice that if the motion
of Mr. Morse shall pass, I will make a motion that we in-
definitely postpone the whole matter, and leave it as it is now.
322 Jouhnal of Constitutional Convention.
If we cannot have fair representation, and a square deal in
representation, which the district system will give, let us not
make it any more unfair than it is now. Let us stand by what
we have, 600 as the basis, and 1,200 for the additional mem-
bers. Leave the Constitution alone, as it is now, if we can-
not have the district system, and we have already voted em-
phatically not to have that. I shall make that motion if the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Newmarket pre-
vails.
Mr. Hobbs of Wolfeboro. — I rise to say that I will be the first,
if possible, to second the motion of the gentleman from Haver-
hill.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — I haven't made it yet.
Mr. Uobbs of Wolfeboro. — If he has the opportunity to make it,
I will second his motion.
Mr. Eastman of Exeter. — I do not propose to make any speech
on this question, but I do believe it to be the sentiment of
this Convention, — I believe it to be the sentiment. Gentlemen,
throughout the state of New Hampshire, — that the present rep-
resentation continue. We tried ten years ago to decrease the
size of the House, and increase the size of the Senate. I am in
favor of a large House, and I hope the number will not be lim-
ited to 409, if the census gives us more. The argument was
made that we hadn't house room enough, but we now have
room enough, and I hope the motion will prevail.
Mr. Towle of Xorthwood moved that the whole matter of
representation in the House of Kepresentatives be indefinitely
postponed.
The Chair ruled that the motion is not in order.
Question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Morse of
Newmarket, —
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill moved that the Committee do
now rise and report to the Convention that, having considered
the resolutions relating to representation in the House of
Kepresentatives, it is unable to agree upon any proposed
change in apportionment.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill,—
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 323
Mr. Madden of Keene raised the point tliat the motion of
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill does not supersede the motion of
Mr. Madden of Keene, and the amendments thereto offered by
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth and Mr. Morse of Newmarket.
The Chair ruled that the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill takes precedence over the motion of Mr. Madden of
Keene and the amendments thereto.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill—
Mr. Madden of ^m?e.— Now, T wish to speak on that motion.
Now, let's be sensible. If there is a majority who want one
system or another, we can agree, there is no question about
it. There is no necessity to adopt a motion "that we cannot
agree," because it is nonsense. I proposed a certain measure
here; it may not be the wisest one. I think it is the most
favorable one, and the one most likely to be endorsed by the
people and ratified by the people, to make the house 350. I
think my recent motion is a proper one to submit to the Con-
vention, — that we believe it should not exceed 350 members, and
that the Committee on Legislative Department be instructed to
prepare a resolution embodying those ideas. If the Committee
cannot formulate a proper resolution, Ihey can report that to
the Committee, and perhaps we can go into a Committee of the
Whole and form one ourselves. It does not bind the Commit-
tee, except that they are supposed to bring in either 350 or
409 or 450, which is permanent. By making some certain fig-
ure you have got your House fixed, and you are not having it
increased every ten years. It strikes me that the motion of
Mr. Whitcher should be voted down — the two amendments
should be voted down, — and then we should report to the Con-
vention we are in favor of a town system; that the House
should not contain more than 350, and that the Committee on
Legislative Department should bring in some amendment to
cnrry ^ut thes" ideas,
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I don't know of any way that you
can permanently fix the membership of the House under the
town system. If the gentleman from Keene knows of any such
way, he is in duty bound to explain it to this Committee.
After t*he district system was defeated in the last Convention,
I cooperated with my colleague from Ward 4, Mr. Mitchell, in
formulating the plan for reducing the House under the town
321: Journal of Constitutional Convention.
system that was submitted to the people. It was as' fair a plan
as could have been presented by that Convention. It did not
change the present ratio between the towns and cities. It
was defeated at the polls. Therefore, when some gentleman
proposed to refer this whole question to the Committee of
which I am a member, with the recommendation that that
Committee submit a plan which, in its judgment, the Commit-
tee thought the Convention would adopt and the people ratify,
I doubted the wisdom of the suggestion.
I believe that the proposition to reduce this House 50 or 75
members, under the town system, is merely patchwork. To
my mind, it makes no difference whether we have 350 or 400
members. If you are going to have the town system, as you
have concluded to have, and to that decision I bow, you can
deal with this question better in the future by leaving the
matter where it is today. The number of representatives was
increased by the last census only 15. The increase in the next
ten years is not likely to be any greater.
If we had the data, I would have presented to this Con-
vention a district system amendment, based upon actual voters
upon the checklist. I prepared a tentative plan on the votes
cast at the last election, using 150 votes as the number re-
quired for the first representative, and then increasing it by
350 votes for each succeeding representative. I saw where
it was possible to limit the House to about 325 members, and
that it would not be necessary to change a single town or
ward line to make districts, except in the case of towns fall-
ing below 600 inhabitants or 150 votes. This plan was predi-
cated on the votes actually east. The whole number of voters
on the checklist might make it necessary to change the ratio
slightly. I believe that, if we had the data, a district system
could be prepared, fixing the number beyond which we would
not go, and that it would be possible to preserve the autonomy
of all but the very small towns. Until we have such data, I
think the best thing we can do is to leave the House at its
present number.
Mr. Smyth of Berlin.— Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
gentleman from Haverhill, Mr. Whitcher, if his motion is to
place the entire representation as it is? Does his motion re-
late to the Senate? The reason I ask is, there are some reso-
lutions relating lo the increase of the Senate. Does your
resolution relate to the House only?
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — My motion relates to the House
only. I suppose the matter of increasing the Senate or de-
creasing the Senate wil come up later in another form.
Tuesday, June 1«, li^l2. 325
Mr. Barton of Newport. — I am very sorry that this motion has
been made, and that it seems to be favored by some men of
most excellent judgment. I think that it will be hardly safe
for us to go back home if we do not try to do, something. It
does not seem as though we had really tried to see whot we
could do on this matter of representation. It was the one
thing which, personally, I heard talked more than all else as
a reason for calling this Convention. The people are not dis-
satisfied with our system, but they think the House is too
large, and that we ought to make some arrangement to cut
it down, and save expense to the state of New Hampshire.
If we cut it down 100, the state of New Hampshire would save
something like $20,000, — no small item in our budget. Now, it
doesn't seem to me that we have really tried to cut the House
down on the line of the town system. We have decided most
emphatically that we do not want to adopt the district sys-
tem. Have we tried honestly, with our heads together, to cut
this House down, and still retain the town system? I don't
think, as honest men, that we can say we have. We have con-
sumed only a very short time in talking this matter over, and
I hope that the motion offered by Mr. Whitcher will not prevail.
I really think we should be the laughing stock of the people if
we should come here, sit down and talk a little while about this
subject, vote we would not have the district system, and then
say we guessed we would take no action, but would leave the
matter where it is.
The subject of taxation, which seems to be under way of dis-
position in a manner quite satisfactory, wasn't talked about
prior to this Convention nearly as much, so it seems to me, as
the one involved in the pending motion.
This Convention will cost the state of New Hampshire quite
a lot of money, and it seems to me that we ought to throw out
to the voters of the state an opportunity to say whether or
not they will accept some modification of our present system.
Now, do you not think it is reasonable that we should do some
such thing? I have an idea that this Convention will pass
some such resolution as the one I have suggested. I do not
know just where the lines will be drawn, but if we can pass
the resolution offered by Mr. Boynton, that we have a town
representative system, and with a House of approximately 300
members, then we could refer the matter to a Committee, giv-
ing it a reasonable time in which to report. When the report
is made, we can then consider the subject-matter to better
advantage. I am opposed to this quick manner of brushing
32t5 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
the matter aside. I don't really think it is becomiag to us as
delegates. I hope this motion will not prevail.
Mr. Whitcher of HaverJiilL — Just a word in favor of my motion.
In the first place, I do not believe that there is a demand on
the part of the people of the state for a smaller House. I find
myself in perfect accord with the gentleman from Landaff,
that a large House is a benefit to the state of New Hampshire.
I don't care what other states may say about us, a large House
is a benefit to New Hampshire. We vote money here at every
session of the legislature to promote the cause of education.
I believe that the influence of a large House is an educational
influence, that it is simply invaluable, making far more intelli-
gent citizenship throughout the state. I don't believe. Sir,
that a man can be a member of this House for three months
and go home without a better understanding of the institutions
of the state, without becoming a better citizen and a better
influence for good citizenship in the community where he lives,
whether it be Manchester or whether it be my native town of
Benton, with about 220 population. The value of that is
simply incalculable and is not to be placed against the paltry
$20,000, which the gentleman from Newport says we might
save. Furthermore, I do not believe, Sir, that we want to
cling too steadfastly to what we call a town system. There
are towns in this state which never should have been towns.
There are towns in this state, chartered by Benning Went-
worth, with no knowledge of what he was chartering; small
towns, where the population is, some of it, in one little corner
and some in another little corner, and the corners miles apart.
I don't believe it is necessary for us to get frightened by the
bug-a-boo that we must preserve that small town system. I
don't believe we are in any position. Sir, to go ahead and at-
tempt to reduce the House to an unfair extent to the people
of the large towns. It is unfair now; I don't believe we want
to make it any more unfair. We live in a time when we work
for "fair play and the square deal," and for the people to have
equality of voice. We -don't want to take rights and privileges
away from the people that they already have.
I hope the motion I have made will prevail and that we drop
this matter,^ and devote our time to some other matters that
are coming before the Committee.
Mr. Eastman of Exeter. — Ten years ago I was making the same
speech that has been made by the gentleman from Haverhill,
and now I am pleased to see that he has adopted my views. I
couldn't express it any more forcibly than he has. I endorse
his speech most heartily, and I trust his ideas will prevail in
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 327
this Convention. As I said awhile ago, we spent a long time
ten years ago trying to reduce the size of the House. I can-
not see, Mr. Chairman, what advantage it is to the state to
have twenty-five less men in the House of Representatives than
we are to have under the present system. Certainly you cannot
point to bad legislation that has come from this large House.
The legislation from the legislature here in New Hampshire
compares favorably with any other state in this Union, and I
make that statement without fear of contradiction from anyon«\
I hope that the sentiment expressed by the learned gentleman
from Haverhill will prevail.
Mr. Neivell of Surry. — I must confess I am in the same predica-
ment as the gentleman from Newport. It was expected of me
when I came here that I should labor for the reduction of
the House of Representatives, and what shall I say when this
Convention puts the matter aside, and says it cannot agree
upon anything?
I do not know how it is in the part of the state where the
gentleman from Haverhill resides; but I know that in my
section there is a demand for a reduction in the House of Rep-
resentatives, and since I came here I have labored for that
purpose. I hope that the motion of the gentleman from
Haverhill will not prevail.
Mr. Rmoe of Kensington. — There will be a demand for a re-
duction of our pay if we keep on talking about a matter that
has taken fully one day of our time. After remarks coming
from such gentlemen as have spoken here, the gentleman from
Concord, and the gentleman from Haverhill, and several others,
I should think we might get down to business and vote on this
proposition. Although they have been in favor of a district
system, they have very gracefully accepted the resolution we
voted on a little while ago, and now are willing to have us
vote on this one. I hope the motion suggested by the gentle-
man from Haverhill will go through.
Mr Madden of Keene. — The gentlemen are very magnanimous
from the large towns and cities when they find they cannot
have everything their own way. The gentlemen say, when they
• find they cannot carry out their schemes, we will have no
scheme whatever. That may be wise. As stated by the gen-
tlemen from Newport and Surry, I think the only object of this
Convention was to reduce the House, and if this motion does
go through, and if the Convention adopts this recommenda-
tion, I think that I shall then feel justified, and shall move
that the Convention adjourn forthwith, and I give notice that
I shall make that motion.
328 Journal of Constitutional Convkntion.
Mr. Duncan of Ja1frey.—\\e have before this Convention at the
present time two broad propositions, one to decrease the size
of the House of Representatives, another to increase the size
of the Senate. Now, I wish to make a suggestion, although I
won't offer it in the form of a motion: that is, that we l<ill
two birds with one stone, we reduce the size of the House,
say fourteen or sixteen, and add that number to the size of
the Senate, and adjourn, thereby settling the whole question,
spending no money that belongs to the state more than we
have in the past for legislation, and retain the educational
value.
Mr. Wason of NmJma. — After the gentleman from Haverhill
had made his speech, which was very entertaining, had the
Chair recognized me, I should have liked to have asked him a
question while his speech was fresh in your minds. Not being
able to do that, with the gentleman's permission and the
Chair's, I would like to ask him now: How many legislatures
has he been a member of prior to this Convention?
The Chairman. — The gentleman from Haverhill is permitted
to answer the question.
Mr. Whitcher of HaverJiiU. — That is a mere matter of history.
Mr. Wason of Nash/im. — I expected it had no significance.
Mr. Whitcher of Havo-hill.—l think the gentleman knows, but
for his information, and to dispense with his ignorance, I will
say that I have been a member of the legislature five times.
Mr. Wason of Nashua. — Now% I think in view of his argument,
I think we could all discover what kind of a legislator he must
have been at his first appearance. Now, Mr. Chairman and Gen-
tlemen, I haven't wearied you on this subject of representation,
yet I feel as the gentleman from Newport and the gentleman
from Surry do on the matter. I heard this matter discussed
ten years ago, and took part in it. I voted then to preserve the
town system, and I voted today to preserve the town system.
And, while the district system has merit, if you are going to
make population your basis, yet there is. merit in the town
. system that has been in existence in this state for 128 years,
and, notwithstanding remarks and allusions that have been
made by the gentlemen on the floor. I agree with the gentle-
man from Exeter, that the legislation as enacted by the House
of Representatives in the good old state of New Hampshire will
compare favorably wuth that of any other state in the Union.
I can go him one better. I will say it will lead the list. We
are here for a purpose, and primarily it is the matter of de-
creasing, and formulating a plan for the future as to the
TcjESDAV, June 18, 1912. 329
size of our legislature. We have, under the new census, or will
have, a House rising- 400 members. I think it will probably
be 409 with the pro rata towns, a body which is large in num-
ber and large in abilty, and, as has been suggested, couldn't
we lose a few and still save the treasury a little money and
get just as good legislation as we have been getting in the
years gone by? We have had a membership of ;^00, HSO. P.C^O and
390, and now it will exceed 400. Cannot we reduce it? After
we have talked this matter over, and thought it over, and dis-
cussed it, cannot we submit a proposition to the people that
they will ratify? Why, some member of this Convention shakes
his head, and he does it because the people did not ratify the
report of this Convention ten years ago. Yet they came ap-
proximately within 2,000 votes of ratifying the proposition sub-
mitted to them. That proposition was 800 for the first repre-
sentative, which affected a number of towns. We have a
proposition here that does not affect the towns, except large
towns, and if it came within 2,000 votes, or a little rising 2,000 —
the vote being 20,000 in favor and 13,000 against — if we do not
rob the little towns with less than 600, or the towns with more
than 600 population, can't we get that proposition ratified by
the people? Let us try it. That proposition raised the basis
and classed 30 or 40 towns in New Hampshire which had a
population between 600 and 800. Now, then, without going into
the merits of the system, or discussing the Winch resolution, so
called, which gives every town one, and every ward one, or
the Pattee resolution, which gives every town with 600 one,
and every town with 2,400 additional population, or 3,000, for
the second representative, wouldn't every town vote in favor
of the latter, and wouldn't the town of Haverhill, which my
friend Whitcher represents, vote for it? Wouldn't the town of
Newport, which my friend Barton represents in this Convention,
vote for it, and wouldn't we give to the people what they would
consider fair, and wouldn't they consider it favorably? I say it
is not a proper thing for this Convention to do at this time to
report we cannot agree when we have not tried to agree. Why,
the gentleman from Haverhill, or the gentleman from Concord,
or the gentleman from Newport, or the gentleman from some
other place may not agree with me, but if we sit down hon-
estly and fairly and good-naturedly, and talk the proposition
over, we shall come pretty near compromising and agreeing be-
fore we get through. We Jiave here in this Convention as
reasonable men as the gentleman from Haverhill and myself,
or the others I have named, and, when we go at the matter
3B0 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
carefullj'^ and candidly and -deliberately, we can arrive at a
conclusion that we are not ashamed to send to the voters of
New Hampshire for ratification. Mr. Chairman, I hope this
Convention will not vote for the motion to indefinitely postpone
the matter until we have honestly, fairly and squarely met this
question before this Convention as men, and acted upon it.
Mr. Booth of Goshen. — This is the greatest tribute to woman's
sutt'rage of anything we have had yet. I think the women will
become disgusted with the actions here. Now, it looks to me.
as though we can just as well come together and vote on this
and settle the matter one way or the other. I don't care which
way you settle it, but give every town a chance to vote, and
as much more as you can afford.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill called for a division.
Division being had, 54 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
and 206 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the motion did
not prevail.
Question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Morse of
Newmarket to the amendment of Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth,
to the motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, —
On a viva voce vote the negative prevailed.
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Boynton of Ports-
mouth to the motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, —
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth withdrew his amendment.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, —
Mr. Towle of Northwood moved to amend the motion of
Mr. Madden of Keene, by striking out all of the motion begin-
ning with the words "based upon the town system," and in-
serting in place thereof "embodying Resolution No. 22, Relat-
ing to the House of Representatives."
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Towle of North-
wood, —
•
Mr. Wason of Nashua moved to amend the amendment of-
fered by Mr. Towle of Notthwood by substituting in place
thereof the words "based upon the town system, and that the
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 331
number requisite for the first representative shall be 600 in-
habitants and that the total number of representatives shall
not exceed approximately 300/'
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Wason of Nashua
to the amendment of Mr. Towle of Northwood to the motio'n
of Mr. Madden of Keene, —
Mr. ToAvle of Northwood accepted the amendment of Mr.
Wason of Nashua.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Towle of Northwood
to amend the motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, —
Mr. Batchelder of Portsmouth. — In the interest of clearness 1
would like to ask how many towns and wards there are now
in the state; if there are not now practically 300, so that this
results in practically one representative for each town and
ward?
TJie Chairman. — The Chair will state, for the information ot
the gentleman from Portsmouth, that he will find a table *^n
Page 3 of Resolution No. 22 which will give him the informa-
tion he desires.
Mr. Winch of Lamjdf n. — The question has been asked here, how
many representatives the town and ward system would have.
There are just 290; that is just the number there would be. If
you want to make a House of that number, and give every
town and ward one, that is about the only way you can get
at it. If you want to increase the House to any other extent,
then you can come at it in a little different way.
Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester. — I want to say just a word, and
that is that I think there is quite a different element of fair-
ness between the motion and the amendment. That is, the
motion on the part of the genlemari from Keene simply limits
the maximum number, without any reference to the number
required for the first representative, while the amendment is in
effect a motion to adopt here as our recommendation. the reso-
lution known as the Pattee resolution. Now, for fear that
because it is introduced by somebody from Manchester it ma^'
be assumed that it is Manchester's bill, I thought I would say
a word, speaking for m5'self alone. I believe we should not
tie this Committee down to any minimum number, that is, to
600, and I have in mind in saying that the fact that, after the
discussion held here ten years ago, which was a very complete
332 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
one, a different number was agreed on and submitted, and that
is the plan which has been referred to here as coming so near
being adopted by the people, and because of that fact was
probably as favorable a one as might be agreed to at this time.
I wish to state at this time, Mr. Chairman, that if either of
these motions shall prevail, the original motion should. It is
rather elastic; it says the number shall not exceed a certain
limit, 350, while the other is simply an attempt to get in one
of these resolutions binding the Committee to a minimum num-
ber, and I trust the amendment will be defeated.
Mr. Neicell of Surry. — It seems to me that we should not tie
the hands of the Legislative Committee by fixing the basis for
the first representative at 600. You all know I have introduced
a resolution making the basis for the first representative 800,
and 2,000 for each additional. Isn't it fair that these several
propositions should be considered by this Legislative Commit-
tee without their hands being tied?
Mr. Madden of Eeene. — The resolution I have introduced pro-
vides that each town and city shall have one, and each city
and town of over 5,000 inhabitants shall have the other 88 divided
among them. Xow, no matter how you tie the Committee
down, I intend to have something to say before that Com-
mittee and also to the Convention when that matter comes uj),
and I would suggest that the members of this Committee and
the Convention study over the resolution which I introduced,
No. 18.
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — I desire to call attention to this plan
submitted by the gentleman from Keene, Mr. Madden. I do
not believe it will take this Convention of fair-minded mea
lon^ to decide to throw the Madden resolution into the waste-
basket. Let me tell you why, for illustration. Under this
plan, small towns, like Temple, for instance, though good towns,
but having only about 300 population, have one representative
each, while towns like Littleton, Lancaster, Newport and Mil-
ford, with about 4,000 inhabitants, have only one representative
each, and then, on the other hand, the city of Somersworth,
with about 6,000 population, is given eight representatives.
That is, a vote in one town is a vote, and in another town or
city it is four or five or six or seven votes. Now, Mr. Chair-
man and Gentlemen, this is a very hard question. I sympathize
with the towns, the small towns, on this question. I was born
in a small town and I like the ]jeople of our small towns; but
I hope you will not over-jump the bounds of reason and fair-
ness in this matter, but bear in mind what is fair and honest
Tuesday, June 18, 191_\ 333
between man and man, and town and town, and town and city.
i insist that, by theory at least, I am entitled to as much
part in the vote of the state of New Hampshire, whether I live
in Milford or Temple or Hart's Location, and that my vote
ought to count about the same in whichever place I live. There
are present conditions we must consider, however. As we have
voted against the district system, let us make a reduction, if
possible, by the town system, and it seems to me the remarks
of the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Cavanaugh, submit the
most reasonable proposition, — town and city must both concede,
we must both give up, and let us make the population of 800
the basis for the tlrst representative and twice that population
for each additional member. That is the proportion that has
been required for the second representative, and so on for ad-
ditional members, ever since tliis Constitution was founded,
ever since the state was organized, and if this Constitution is
so good, as so often has been said here, the state having existed
under it for 120 j^ears successfully, let us not depart farther
from the element of fairness and proportion and equality re-
quired for the second member than under the Constitution of
our fathers.
I do not like to speak upon this subject. Our sympathies are
one way, and what we believe to be right and fair and equal is
somewhat different, but I do not believe in making this inequal-
ity any greater than it now is. I hope the resolution presented
by the gentleman from Keene, Mr. Madden, will be looked over.
That is all I ask of a Convention like this.
Mr. Madden of Keene. — Let me explain to the gentleman from
Milford that the reason Somersworth has five or six repre-
sentatives, is because Somersworth has five or six wards, and
Milford is only one organization.
Mr. Clement of Warren. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I am speaking upon this question simply in the
interest of absolute fairness and what seems to me absolute
openness. Now, this resolution, No. 22, introduced by the gen-
tleman from Manchester, is, from my standpoint, eminently fair
on the face of it, but someone asked me to speak upon that
question. Knowing the source from which it came, knowing
the source of the resolution, it struck me as rather strange,
Gentlemen, but it seems to me that the direct effect of No. 22
will be to give the towns, the small towns, their full representa-
tion. But it seems to be aimed directly at the labor organiza-
tions in the big cities an attempt to deprive them of their voice
in state affairs, where they can take legal action, and thence
334 Journal of Constitutional Conventjon.
drive them into illegal action. Now, I may be wrong, but it
strikes me that way.
Mr. Goss of Berlin. — As I understand this proposition, it is to
continue the town system, and to cut down the House of Rep-
resentatives at the expense of the cities. I think we might
just as well look the proposition squarely in the face. In order
to accomplish anything, we shall have to submit a proposition
which will be acceptable to the cities, because, before it be-
comes a part of the Constitution, it will have to receive a two-
thirds vote of the people, and it will have to get that two-thirds
vote largely from the cities. Now, then, gentlemen say that
they don't want to go home and say that they have done noth-
ing to cut down the representation of the House. I don't wanf
to go back to the city of Berlin and say I was in favor of taking
away from my own constituents the right to be represented
in our legislature, and of giving it to those who already have.
more than a proportionate share of representation in the Houst*.
Mr. Fifield of Conway. — Mr. Chairman, these gentlemen seem
to have turned the trick by supposing that we are all in favor
of cutting down the House. Now, Gentlemen, I maintain that
there is a strong sentiment here in favor of retaining its pres-
ent number. We have voted not to recommend the initiative
and referendum, for the reason that the House is so large and
the ^people so well represented that we can take care of these
things by our representatives. Now, Gentlemen, if we are
going to assume that, what is the object in trying to cut down
the House? Why not let it stand at its present number, with
good representation from all parts of the state?
Mr. Hoyt of Madison. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I felt
pretty safe, as a representative from a country town, when ths
motion went through here to continue the town system of
representation, and now it seems to me that we have wandered
away from it. We have wandered away from that very ground-
work on which the town representation rests, that each town
has a representative. Now, we are really getting into a poor
form of the district system of representation if we abandon 600
population as the basis for the first representative. We are
simply getting into a very poor form of district representation.
Now, in these little country towns the villages are four miles
apart and five miles apart and ten miles apart, and my oppo-
sition to the district system has been because you practically
disenfranchise a good part of the people there. It costs so
much time and money to go to the voting-places that voters
won't go, under a district system. One town is united with
Tuesday, June 18, 1912. 335
another town and you have got to go, perhaps, across a moun-
tain range. It seems to me the real question of representa-
tion is, not the number of people, but does every citizen in the
state have an opportunity to express his preference for a rep-
resentative and instruct that representative as to his policy?
Under the system that you will adopt here if you abandon 600
as the number required for the first representative, or adopt
the district system, you will practically do that thing, because
in the little country places they cannot go so far. In the
cities you don't have that objection. In a city ward, no matter
how many people live in it, — and I was born in one of th>^
largest cities of the United States' and lived there twenty
years, — people are not disenfranchised, even if the ward sends
but one member. They can walk from one city ward to an-
other in a few minutes. They have a chance to choose their
representatives, and the very groundwork of our town system
is to give each town a representative. If you don't do that,
you are getting ^into a very poor form of district representa-
tion. If 600. passengers are on a steamer in the ocean, they
need someone to represent them. They need a captain. If
there are 3,000 passengers on that steamer, they don't need
more than one captain. I do not think it is fair, or that it
would be ]*ust to all the best interests of the state, to abandon
600 as the basis for the first representative.
Mr. Barton of Newport. — I understand that all these different
phases which are being spoken of here, can be handled better
in the Committee. I think it is the best plan to get this reso-
lution out of here and into the Committee. The Committee, I
assume, will take the subject under advisement, will return
a majority and probably a minority report, and then you can
offer any amendments you desire. Now, don't you think iv^
are about ready to send this resolution offered by Mr. Madden
of Keene to the Convention? I hope that we won't insist at
this time on stibking on 600 or 800 or any of these details.
This is the broad question of whether or not we will get to-
gether on these various resolutions, iron them out in a Com-
mittee, and then come back and see what action the Convention
wishes to take,
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — If I may interrupt the gentleman, let
me ask him this question: If the matter should go before our
Committee, — he and I are members of the same Committee, —
would you prefer that we have specific instructions as to what
to do, or would j'ou prefer that we have some latitude? I bow
to the will of the Convention or of this Committee.
336 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Barton of Viewport.— \Ne want some latitude.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Then make that latitude broad enough
so we will have latitude.
Mr. Barton of ^^eicport. — I understand, under the motion of
Mr. Madden, the latitude is ample; that it was only restricted
by a friend of a particular bill, and I would like to get away
from that if I could, and come back to Mr. Madden's motion
by putting the bill back into Convention and through a Com-
mittee.
Mr. Towle of Northwood withdrew his amendment.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Madden of Keene, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
In Oonteintion.
(The President in the chair.)
Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord, for the Committee of the
Whole, to whom was referred Eesolution No. 1, Eelating to
the House of Representatives, Resolution No. 13, Relating to
the House of Representatives, Resolution No. 14, Relating to
the House of Representatives, Resolution No. 15, Relating to
the House of Representatives, Resolution No. 18, Relating to
the House of Representatives, Resolution No. 22, Relating to
the House of Representatives, Resolution No. 26, Relating to
the Election of Representatives in Cities and Towns of less
thgn 800 Inhabitants, and Resolution No. 35, Relating to the
House of Representatives, having considered the same, report
the same with the recommendation that the same be referred
to the Committee on Legislative Department with instruc-
tions to report as soon as possible an amendment to the Con-
stitution relating to the apportionment in the House of Rep-
resentatives, based upon the town system, and that the num-
ber of representatives do not exceed 350.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
. On motion of Mr. Lambert of Manches-ter the Convention
adjourned at 4.46 o'clock.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 337
WEDNESDAY, June 19, 1912.
The Convention met at 10.30 o'clock, according to adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the chair.)
Prayer was offered by the delegate from Newfields, Rev.
George E. Leighton.
The reading of the Journal having begun, —
On motion of Mr. De Gross of Bath, the further reading
was dispensed with.
Leave of Absence.
Mr. Young of Charlestown was granted leave of absence
for the afternoon session, on account of important business.
Mr. Eainville of Pembroke was granted leave of absence for
Thursday and Friday, on account of death in the family.
Reports of Committees.
Mr. Donigan of Newbury, for the Special Committee on
Woman's Suffrage, to whom was referred Resolution No. 7,
Relating to Female Suffrage, having considered the same, re-
port, as follows:
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed in the resolution.
The report was accepted.
MINORITY REPORT.
The undersigned, a minority of the Special Committee on
Woman's Suffrage, to whom was referred Resolution No. 7,
Relating to Female Suffrage, having considered the same, and
being unable to agree with the majority, report the same with
the recommendation:
338 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Resolved, That the amendment proposed by the' resolution
be agreed to by the Convention.
WILLIAM F. WHITCHER.
FRANK P. HOBBS.
OSCAR C. YOUNG.
FRED T. WADLEIGH.
JOSEPH B. SANBORN.
ADAM W. WIGHT.
ARTHUR J. BOUT^VELL.
GEORGE C. PARSONS.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill moved that the report of the
minority be substituted for that of the majority, and with that
motion pending, that the resolution lie on the table and be
made a special order for Thursday, June 20, at 10.32 o'clock.
On a viva voce vote the motion prevailed.
Mr. Eastman of Exeter for the Committee on Future Mode
of Amending the Constitution and Other Proposed Amend-
ments, to whom were referred Resolution No. 20, Relating to
the Election of County Officers, Resolution No. 21, Relating
to the Appointment of Solicitors, Resolution No. 30, Relating
to County Officers, Resolution No. 40, Relating to County
Commissioners, Resolution No. 41, Relating to the Register?
of Probate, Resolution No. 42, Relating to the Registers of
Deeds, having considered the same, report the same with the
recommendation that it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu-
tion as proposed in the several resolutions.
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation of
the Committee, —
Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord moved that the question be
divided so that the Convention consider Resolution No. 30,
Relating to County Officers, separately.
No objection being raised, the Chair ruled that the report
should be divided.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 339
Question being on the adoption of the report of the Com-
mittee on all the resolutions incorporated therein, except Res-
okition Xo. 30, Eelating to County Officers, —
The report of the Committee was adopted.
Question being on the adoption of the report of the Com-
mittee on Future Mode of Amending the Constitution and
Other Proposed Amendments, to whom was referred Resolu-
tion No. 30, Relating to County Officers, the same being that
it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as proposed in the
resolution, —
Mr. Allen Eollis of Conoord. — Mr. President, the question pre-
sented by the report of the Committee is whether the Consti-
tution shall remain as it is, and I will say in that particular
that the Constitution now provides that all county officials
shall be elected at reg-ular elections. It is a well-known fact
as to many county officials — as to several, I will say, county
officials, — that there is no logical reason why they should be
elected. Such officers as register of probate, register of deeds,
and perhaps some others, I think everyone is agreed that the
appointment of such officials is desirable. As to county com-
missioners, there are many who believe that they should be
elected, as you might say, in rotation. It may be that the
legislature can now arrange to have them elected one for six
years, and not as is now done; but on that question there is
some doubt. Now, up to some thirty or forty years ago, — I
may have it too long, thirty years ago, — the legislature did have
power to say whom should be elected and whom might be ap-
pointed. An amendment was adopted at that time and has since
been in force. It is not my desire to take up much time on
this proposition, and I simply have asked to have this separated,
so a division might be had, and we might get the sense of this
meeting as to whether the legislature may deal with this ques-
tion of the election or appointment of such county officials,
electing those whom they think should be elected, and having
those appointed whom they think should be appointed. I think
the vote might as well be taken directly on the report of the
Committee, in which event those who think the legislature
should have the opportunity to decide this question will vote
no, and those who do not will vote yes. I would say that I
think several members of that Committee were not in favor
of this report.
340 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Eastman of Exeter. — Mr. Chairman, I don't comQ here for
the purpose of opposing what has been said by the gentleman
who has just preceded me, but, as chairman of the Committee
making this report, perhaps a word is due from me in regard
to it. The subjects which are contained in these various pro-
posed amendments were brought to the attention of the Com-
mittee, and we had three hearings in regard to it. Now, there
was a difference of opinion in the Committee in regard to some
of the officials. There were some members of the Committee
who thought that perhaps it would be wise to have the so-
licitor appointed by the Superior Court, but, after consider-
ing the matter, and after conference with persons who arc
supposed to have some knowledge in regard to these sub-
jects, especially in regard to the appointment of registers of
probate, we reached the conclusion which is embodied in the
report of the Committee. Now, then, so far as the election of
various officials is left to the legislature, it 'is my opinion that
the terms of the county commissioners may be determined by
the legislature under existing provisions of the Constitution.
When there was objection made to the change proposed in re-
gard to county commissioners, which provided they should
hold terms of two, four and six years, respectively, and on«3
should retire at the end of each two years, it was suggested
that six years was a good while to have one man in the office,
if you didn't get a first-rate man; if you have a first-rate man,
and want to keep him six years, it is open to the people to se-
lect that man, and maintain him in office as long as they sec
fit. Another thing about it, this matter in regard to these of-
ficials was changed by an amendment to the Constitution in
1876, — you can figure out how long ago that was. Prior to that
time these officers were appointed, with the exception of reg-
isters of Deeds, but in 1876 it was suggested that these officials
ought to be elected by the people; the people ought to "Bave
more direct control over them than they had under the Con-
stitution as it then existed. And the change was made. Now
the proposition comes to change the Constitution, substantially.
back to the same position that it was in at the time when that
amendment was made, so, in view of the situation to'day, this
Committee reached the conclusion which is embodied in our
report. I, for one, am not in favor of changing the Constitu-
tion too often. Under existing conditions, the present method
has worked very well, and I think that seems to be the gen-
eral opinion. But, so far as a change is concerned, I do not
wish to influence the Convention one way or the other. I rise
to explain to you the action of the Committee.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 341
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I would like to inquire of the gentle-
man from Exeter if there is any provision in the Constitution
that forbids the legislature from lengthening the terms of
county officers?
Mr. Eastman of Exeter. — I will say for the information of the
gentleman that I do not know that there is. The Constitu-
tion does not put any limit on the terms of the county officials.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I do feel an interest in this subject.
In regard to the question of county commissioners, the sub-
ject of lengthening their terms has been before the legislature
several times, and we have voted upon it with the clear under-
standing that we had the right to make that change. There-
fore, as regards county commissioners, it seems to me no con-
stitutional provision is necessary. In regard to the registers
of probate and registers of deeds and the county solicitors,
in di vidua II3', I should be glad to have them appointed by the
Governor and Council, if that was the desire of the Convention,
but we have gone along with this change in the Constitution
since 1876, on the theory that the people ought to elect these
officials. Now, then, it is a fact in nearly all counties of the
state that the register of probate or the register of deeds,
if he proves to be an efficient man, is elected term after term.
The two positions are now regarded as non-partisan positions,
and if you do not desire to undertake to submit an amend-
ment to have these officers appointed, I do not see why the
legislature itself could not lengthen the terms of these two
officers, and have them chosen every four or six years, instead
of two years, and you would accomplish what is sought here,
a continuity in their positions without altering the Constitu-
tion. On the question of appointment of the sheriff and so-
licitor, there may be a very strong difference of opinioti in re-
gard to the advisability of it. For my own part, I should he
in favor of returning to the old system, but I have no desire
to press that view on the Convention.
On a viva voce vote the recommendation of the Committee
was adopted.
♦ Mr. Morris of Lancaster, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, to whom was referred Resolntion ISTo. 47, Relat-
ing to the Initiative and Referendnm, having considered the
same, report the same with the following resolution:
342 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed, the subject matter of said resolution having
already been acted on by the Convention.
MtNORiTY Report.
The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Legisla-
tive Department, to whom was referred Eesolution Xo. 47,
Relating to the Initiative and Referendum, having considered
the same, and being unable to agree with the majority, report
the same with the recommendation that tiie amendment pro-
posed in the resolution be agreed to.
ORVILLE D. FESSEI^DEN.
RAYMOND B. STEVENS.
The reports were accepted.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey moved that the report of the minor-
ity be substituted for that of the majority.
Question being on the motion to substitute, —
Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — Mr. President and Members of the
Convention, I would say in considering Eesolution No. 47 that
the Committee were practically unanimous. All the members
present, excepting the two who signed the minority report,
favored the majority report. Eesolution No. 47 has some ad-
ditional features in it which were not in the resolution con-
sidered by the Convention last week, — some features which
seem to the Committee even less desirable than the resolution
turned down last week. Now, for instance, this bill provides
for the initiative by the people. A number of voters equal to
eight percent of the total number of votes cast for Governor
at the last preceding state election may initiate a bill which
must be filed with the Secretary of State, referred to the people
and may become a law without ever having been before the
legislature. So it makes it possible for bills to be passed with-
out ever having the consideration of the representative body
of the people of New Hampshire. It seems to me that this is
a very important feature, and one which should be considered
strongly against this resolution by this Convention, and mem-
bers who voted for the resolution last week may properly vote
against the resolution as now presented, because of this par-
ticular feature. There are other bad features which other gen-
Wednesday, June 19, 9112. 343
tlemen will discuss. 1 hoije the motion of the gentleman from
Jattrey will not prevail.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — Mr. President, it seems rather strange
to me to hear a gentleman, who voted against the proposition
last week, advocating that this proposition is less desirable
to him than the one advocated last week. This proposition,
Eesolution No. 47, is practically an exact copy of the Oregon
plan for the initiative and referendum, and I agree with the
gentleman that it is not so desirable to those who believe in
the initiative and referendum as the proposition submitted last
week, being more conservative and requiring more signatures
to a petition. Resolution No. 4, considered last week, required
4,000 signatures to a petition for the referendum on measures
passed, or rejected by the legislature. Resolution No. 47 re-
quires five percent of the voters for the referendum, which
means 4,600 or 4,700, and for the initiative 8 percent, which,
based on the vote for Governor in the last election, is nearly
7,000 voters. - I claim that Resolution No. 47 is more conserva-
tive than Resolution No. 4 in th'at it is more difficult to get
matters before the people. No one in this Convention sup-
poses that anj' one is going to the trouble of getting 7,000
signers to an initiative petition until they have given the legis-
lature a chance to pass some such law, without the necessity
of going to the labor of getting signers to a petition.
Now, as to the number of signers on the petition. You re-
member at one of the hearings before the Committee on Equal
Suffrage last week, that ladies were present to show that they
had succeeded in getting a little over 7,000 signers to a pe-
tition. Every one of the members ^of this Convention knows
what a tremendous amount of labor was incurred in getting
7,173 signers to a petition favoring equal suffrage. Now, th<;
number of measures which will come before the people of
New Hampshire under the initiative is limited, if you require
7,000 signatures to a bill before it can go to the people. Those
who advocate the initiative and referendum are accused of
not trusting the legislature. We do trust the legislature. We
realize that representative government under legislative
methods is the only system that will ever succeed in so large
a community as this state. We wish, that the legislature might
hear sometimes a little better. Two little boys were going
to bed just before Christmas. One knelt and prayed to the
Lord for the presents he wanted. His little brother said,
"Johnny, what makes you pray so loud? The Lord isn't deaf.*'
He answered, "The Lord ain't deaf, but grandma is." Now,
344 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
that is the trouble with the legislature. They are not un-
worthy of trust, but sometimes they are a little deaf, and the
initiative and referendum gives the legislature a hearing
trumpet, so they can hear clearly what the people want. I
have heard it suggested that it has been told to those who
represented the smaller communities that the referendum would
be hostile to their interests. I want to quote from a table
that was compiled from the journal of the last legislature,
showing that the interests of the small communities will be
better conserved by the initiative and referendum than by the
legislature, as at present composed. Basing calculations on the
vote for Governor in the last election, we find that 55 percent
of the voters live in the large communities of over 2,000, and
45 percent in the communities of under 2,000. Now, that shows
very clearly that the burden of the total vote in the state is
in the cities and large towns. But let us turn to the legis-
lature and find how the cities and towns are represented.
Drawing the line between the two classes of communities at
2,000, we find 56 percent of the representatives in the last
House coming from the large communities, while in the Sen-
ate, which has equal authority with the House, 71 percent of
the senators came from the communities of over 2,000. So you
can see that the interests of the small communities are more
safely lodged with the people of the state of New Hampshire,
as a whole, than with the legislative body, which is composed
of a larger percent of legislators and senators from the larger
communities than their proportion of the popular vote.
Last week, you remember, a similar proposition came within
twenty votes of being adqpted, showing the strong sentiment
lavoring the initiative and referendum in some form in this
state. I do not believe we have a right to refuse the people
of New Hampshire the chance to have the initiative and refer-
endum in some form or other, when so large a proportion in
this intelligent body are in favor of this proposition, and I cer-
tainly hope enough of the gentlemen who voted against this
proposition last week will see the justice of leaving this
question, on which we are so closely divided, to the people to
decide, rather than to cut ofE all opportunity. Here is a single
illustration of our representative form of government: The
people in one town in this state voted in their town meeting
four to one in favor of some form of the initiative and refer-
endum. Here one of the delegates from that town votes
against the initiative and referendum, being at the same time
a representative of these people. How are those people to be
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 345
represented on this proposition unless the delegates from their
town vote in favor of allowing them to have it? By votes of
four to one they have asked for it. The same with the lirange
of the state. As has been shown, nearly four to one of the
Granges who took the trouble to express themselves on this
proposition have voted for some form of the initiative and
referendum. How are they going to get the chance to get it
unless this Convention submits the question to them? I cer-
tainly hope that this Convention will, on the ground that Reso-
lution No. 47 is more conservative a proposition than Resolu-
tion No. 4, vote to submit this question to the people.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I disagree with the gentleman from
Jaffrey in his explanation of representative government. In-
troduction of the initiative and referendum is what the gen-
tleman from Laconia stated the other day, a revolution in the
form of government. Revolutions may be peaceful, but they
are nevertheless revolutions. Thomas Jefferson, in speaking of
the equal rights of men, said, "Modern times have the signal
advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by wKich
these rights can be secured, to wit, government by the people,
acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by them-
selves."
There is nothing new in this proposition of the gentleman
from Jaffrey, nothing that the fathers of the republic did
not consider in framing the National and State Constitutions.
Between 1776 and 1792 in this state was the formative and con-
structive period of our Constitutions. The fathers, in framing
National and State Constitutions, had as their guide, not only
the experience of the remote past, but the experience of their
imme:liate present. In what the historian Fiske calls the criti-
cal period of American history, from 1783 to 1788, the country
was bordering on a condition of almost anarchy. At that timo
the people w^ere in distress. They were deeply in debt, with-
out a currency, and there was more or less of turbulence in
the thirteen colonies. Prompted by what they saw and real-
ized, the patriotic men of the country came together and formed
the National and State Constitutions, with the restrictions under
which we now live. I would like to give you illustrations, but
I have only time for one, to show why the fathers provided
for representative government instead of a pure democracy.
In the state of Rhode Island there was a demand for paper
money and the legislature, in response to that demand, issued
$500,000 in script, to be loaned to the people upon security of
their real estate. The money was issued at par and accepted
346 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
by the people. The trouble began when they undertook to pass
it. The merchants refused to accept It at its face value. The
legislature, upon demand of the people, was again called to-
gether and passed a forcing act, imposing a fine of $500 against
any individual who refused to accept the currency at par, one
half of the fine going to the informer. Finally, a case was
brought before the Supreme Court of the state, who decided the
act unconstitutional. The legislature appointed the judges,
pud that body had the power of summary removal. The people
demanded the removal of the judges because of their decision,
and four of them were removed from office. The people also
demanded that the elective franchise be taken away from all
voters who refused to accept the currency at its face value.
This was going too far, and the measure failed. The paper
money had been issued in May. In November following it was
worth sixteen cents on the dollar. Here you have the initi-
ative of the people in their demand for a paper currency, the
referendum to a people and their demand for a forcing act to
make it good, and the recall of judges because their decision
of a constitutional question did not meet popular approval.
In New Hampshire and Massachusetts, there were bitter com-
plaints against the Courts, and in both states the Courts were
terrorized and forced to adjourn their sittings. In New Hamp-
shire, a mob marched to Exeter, where the legislature was sit-
ting, and threatened it with dissolution if it did not grant their
petition.
Now, then, I say, citing these facts, that the men who framed
our State and National Constitutions had in mind the exact
things that are being proposed by these modern methods, and
they provided for the discussion of measures by representatives
of the people, for the deliberation of legislative assemblies and
for the protection of Courts against turbulent recall. Of
course, legislatures make mistakes, but the question is whether,
if you refer legislation to the people, assembled in mass, they
will better understand the questions submitted than do their
chosen representatives.
I wish to cite two cases in Oregon where the referendum has
been tried. The people at the election in Oregon, held in 1910,
passed upon proposed laws, which filled a volume of 200 pages,
and they passed upon them all in a single day, each voter record-
ing his verdict at the polling booth upon both the candidates
and the proposed laws. In the ordinary legislative body, made
up of no different material from that of which the people are
composed, an important question may be considered for a day, or
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 347
even for a week; and then, with the arguments fresh in their
minds, the legislators record their votes upon the single meas-
ure. What a delightful jumble w^e should have if forty dif-
ferent statutes were voted upon in the space of a half hour
by the people assembled at an election!
Another case was this: There are two methods of pursuing
the salmon fisheries in the Columbia River. In the lower and
sluggish waters of the stream, fishing is done by the net, and
in the upper waters by the wheel. The net fishermen desired
to prohibit fishing by the wheel, and they procured sufficient
signatures and initiated a law having that object in view. On
the other hand, the wheel fishermen at the same time wished to
restrict fishing oy the net and they initiated a law for that pur-
pose. Both laws went before the people at the same election,
and they generously passed them both, and thus, 'as far as the
action of the people was concerned, the great salmon fisheries
of the Columbia were practically stopped.
The gentleman from Jaffrey speaks of the greater pro-
tection there will be to the people of the small towns in re-
ferring legislative questions to the popular vote for decision.
I say to you people who are desirous of maintaining the town
system of representation in the legislature, that, if you change
from a representative government to the initiative and refer-
endum, you will be taking away from yourselves the power
you now have. You have influence in the legislative body be-
yond your numbers, you have an influence that has been re-
spected in this state, and that has secured liberal appropriations
for the benefit of the rural towns. The cities and large towns
furnish the bulk of the state revenue and they have the votes.
Do you think that in a campaign before the people on the ques-
tion of appropriations, with hostility arrayed between the
small towns and the large towns and cities, that you could make
yourselves felt as you can here? I say no. I say it is for the
interest of the country towns to vote against the initiative and
referendum.
Let me say further that in discussing the matter, gentlemen
have omitted to speak of a method of improving the legis-
lature of this state that requires no constitutional amendment.
Under the old system of annual elections, we had the best legis-
lative bo-dy of any state in the Union. It was then the cus-
tom to send a representative to the legislature for two terms
if he behaved himself, and more if he showed large ability.
What was the result? You had half the members of the legis-
lative body who were experienced men, who knew how to do
848 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
the business. The other half were new men, who were anxious
to return a second time, for in those days it was a crime "to
die a yearling." You had the most economical legislature iu
this country, if you will return to that old custom of electing
legislators for two terms and select your best men instead of
passing the office around, you will do more to correct the mis-
takes of the legislature to-day than you can by adopting the
initiative and referendum.
Mr. Wolf of Berlin. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Con-
vention, I feel it a duty to call to the attention of the mem-
bers of this Convention the fact that the people in Berlin,
when I returned home, were very much more interested in the
initiative and referendum than anj'thing else, and the question
that was put up to me more than anj^ other question was: Why
did you allow them to kill the initiative and referendum propo-
sition? We want a chance to vote on it, and we consider we
have a right to vote on it. And thej^ instructed me to come
down here and do all I could to bring this thing to a vote in
such a way that it would finally be referred to the people. The
last gentleman who has spoken called atention to the condi-
tions in Rhode Island about the time of the Revolution. It
occurred to me that this condition of anarchy was brought
about by the rule of a few at that time, and the Revolution
was the result of allowing a few to rule the Colonies. Further-
more, the conditions which the gentleman has described as
taking place in Rhode Island have, without question in my
mind, proven that if the initiative and referendum had been
in force Rhode Island would never have had paper currency, be-
cause the majority of the people did not want it; the paper
currency came from the demand of a few and not a demand
of the majority. We hear Jefferson quot^ed a great many times
against the initiative and referendum. I am sorry that Jeffer-
son is not here to defend himself, for I believe he would have
advocated it, because it means representative government, and
it is the only way we can get true representative government
that truly represents. I hope, in conclusion. Gentlemen, that
you men, especially of the small country districts, will vote in
favor of the initiative and referendum. Mr. Duncan has proven
conclusively that it does give you more power than you have
at the present time, and not less. The statement made by the
gentleman from Concord that you will have less power cannot
be proven, and I think you can safely take Mr. Duncan's fig-
iires as conclusive on that point.
Mr. Wellman of New London. — I crave the indulgence of this
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 349
Convention but a few moments. I was not present at the vote
that was taken last week, being detained on account of busi-
ness. I wish to raise my voice briefly in favor of the initi-
ative and referendum. I believe, Gentlemen of this Convention,
that there is a demand on the part of the people of the state
of New Hampshire that they have a chance to say whether they
want the initiative oii referendum or not. I simply want to
take the argument of the gentleman from Concord regarding
the fisheries in the Columbia Elver, and make one statement
which he did not. After the people of Oregon had voted,
through initiative, that these provisions should be made for
the protection of the fishing on the Columbia River, then the
legislature got into the harness and enacted a fair and equit-
able restriction for the fishing industry. That shows what
the initiative and referendum will do.
Now, Gentlemen, I have not been a citizen of this state for
a very long period of time, but I have been interested in it.
My previous education was in a state whose problems are simi-
lar to those of the state of New Hampshire, and all my edu-
cation has been along the line that would lead me to believe
that I am a citizen in a democracy that is firm. We were told
recently in this House that we could not with confidence trust
the legislature to enact laws, and now the same reactionaries
come forward to say that we cannot trust the people to enact
just and equitable laws. Whom can we trust? A few honor-
able gentlemen in the front seats of the giant House which
is so unwieldy. No, Gentlemen, I believe you can trust th>i
people, and I believe that this is not a weapon to be placed
in the hands of the people that will be misused.
Two hundred pages of printed material were in the hands
of the voters in Oregon at the last election. There were no
lobbyists who had the opportunity of walking up and down
the House, where the whole people of Oregon were assembled
together. The voter, in his own home, had the opportunity of
sitting down by the side of his wife, of going over this mat-
ter calmly, and of reading the arguments as they appeared
there in black and white. There was no opportunity to hear
*'the eagle scream," and have the mind clouded by issues that
were not in point. He had the opportunity to decide the
question as to its right and wrong. Gentlemen, though there
have been many laws proposed, yet, if you will read the hij5-
tory of the initiative and referendum movement in Oregon, you
will find very few laws have been passed. If my figures are
correct, 725 bills fv^ere offered at the last session of the legi«.-
350 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
lature of that state, and more than 200 of them passed, while in
the whole history of the initiative and referendum movement Id
that state only a few over twenty initiated bills have been
passed. So it seems to me we may rest safely upon this propo-
sition that the people of the state are interested in the general
welfare, and, being interested in the general welfare of the
people, the people, as a whole, cannot be persuaded to legislate
against their own welfare. I thank you.
Mr. Rowe of Kensington. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I have only a few words I am going to say. I am
going to talk as fast as I can, and say all I can in these few
moments. We have heard about the gentlemen who sit in the
front row. I happen to sit back, but, for these gentlemen who
sit in the front row I am going to say, they are poked fun at
because they do sit in the front. I notice when some measure
is going to be voted on there are gentlemen walking back
and forth in the rear of the hall who are interested in the
measure, and they do not sit in the front rows either. I won't
call any names. I took opportunity myself to notice that they
were not the gentlemen who sit in the front rows. I want to
say that just for the benefit of the gentlemen who sit in the
front seats. I like to have a square deal, although I do not
sit in the front row. A man whose honesty I do not question
said to me this morning, "Young man, you are going on record,
and they can tell in the future how you voted on these things."
I answered, "Yes, I know I am going on record, and I am once
more going on record against this measure when it comes up
again." And, for the sake of the young men, I appeal to yoj
to vote against this measure. I hope it will be defeated. Don't
say, "What for?" I left on my office door one day a notice,
"Will be back at half past one," and some one wrote under it,
"What for?" Don't say that to me. We have heard about a
majority here, that there are just two or three votes moro
needed. We are governed by a majority, are we not, in this
Convention? And if there was only one vote lacking, if there
was one vote to defeat this measure, I don't see but that would
be the end of it. I -don't see but that we are to be governe.l
by the motion or the measure that gets the most votes. We
have heard about Oregon; we have been sung to about Oregon
for the last few years. If I remember correctly, Jonathan
Bourne. Jr.. in Oregon, has evidently gone to that bourne from
which no traveler returns. He was the man who has talked
about these things so much there, and the people of Oregon,
who have known him, and seen him, and loved him, and hugged
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 351
him, why didn't they return him to the United States Senate,
if he is a saviour, and so on? We have heard about fishing on
the Columbia River, and how they voted, and now they cannot
fish at all in the river. Perhaps it is just as well not to fish in
that river, but it shows there are to be conflicting laws. Take
the 250 pages of arguments. Do you suppose the people in the
country are going to wade through such a book? I voted for
one referendum, that which we now have relative to organic
law. I was younger then. I remember the talk going around.
They said, "What are these things about? What are we both-
ered with them for? We have sent people up to the legislature.
We don't want to bother with it; we had rather be at home at-
tending to our business. We will vote 'no'; we guess it is right
just as it is." And I think that jou will find that will be the
general result. They will vote "no,"; they will trust us up
here. If j^ou cannot find a good doctor, are you going to doc-
tor yourself? That seems to be the proposition here. If you
don't know where to find a good doctor, doctor yourself. If
you can't find a good legislator, go yourself. That is a nice
argument! I, for my part, don't approve of it. We have heard
that the Grange has endorsed this. I have had a little experi-
ence with petitions. My stars! they don't half look at these
things. Thej^ will sign anything to get you out of the way.
Some men, I will admit, do consider these things that are put
to them in the secret orders. I claim I can get a petition to
do almost anything, if I start around and try as hard as I can.
I guess I may have said pretty nearly enough, but I again ap-
peal to the young fellows, I appeal to the men from the coun-
try districts, and I appeal to the older men to go on record
against this measure.
Mr. Mower of Jaffrey. — Gentlemen, I am the other man from
Jatt'rey. I have ^ad it put up to me that I am false to my
constituents because I voted against this measure. I did vote
against it. The facts in my town are these: The gentleman
has said four to one have voted in favor of it. They did. We
have heard little else in our town for the past year but initi-
ative and referendum. We have had it put up to us for break-
fast, dinner and supper, and at our annual election 72 voted
in favor of it out of the voting population of 350. Now, Gen-
tlemen, when I voted against it, I think I knew where 1 was
at, for I have lived in our town all my life, and I think I repre-
sented those who sent me down here. Now, Gentlemen, I think
we can point to some bright men whom we have sent from
year to year to represent us in the House, and in the Senate,
352 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
and 1 believe that just as soon as you attach this amendment
to our Constitution you belittle our Constitution. I am willing
to go on record as being opposed to this measure.
Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord, — I should not have considered it
necessary or advisable to say anything on this subject if it
had not been for the most astounding statement, which is
undoubtedly true, made by a member of this Convention, who
knew what he was talking about, that, up to ten years ago, the
legislature of ]Sew Hampshire was absolutely controlled by
the railroads. That is a statement by a man who was a mem-
ber of several of those legislatures; a man who has known
more about legislation in the state of New Hampshire during
the last twenty or thirty years than any other man in this
assembly, and that is a statement by him, which we all know
to be true. Now, fears were expressed on the subject of tax-
ation that if the corporations had a motive, had the desire,
they might again control the legislature of New Hampshire.
The corporations will never control the people of New Hamp-
shire, no matter how hard they try; and, so I say that I am
moved to express my views on the initiative and referendum
because I agree with the gentleman that there may be danger
that the corporations will undertake to control the legislature
of New Hampshire again, as they did control it for many
years, ending about six years ago. It might seem that my
advocacy of any measure here doomed it to defeat, and so the
friends of this measure will have to pardon me for speaking
on this particular subject, but I remember my legislative ex-
perience. And, speaking of railroad control, in 1907, in the
legislature, I voted in favor of about a half dozen laws that
the people wanted, and every time I voted with the minority.
I was returned to the legislature in 1909; I voted the same
way, exactly, on the same measures, and every time I was In
the majority. Now, when I vote according to the dictates of
my conscience and my best judgment, I am willing to let time
decide what the result shall be.
Now, there is a practical proposition that we have before us.
I think if the gentleman had told the reason why the railroads
controlled the legislatures, and how it happened to control
the legislators, he would have told you that up to 1889 we had
a most extraordinary railroad fight in New Hampshire, extend-
ing from 1883, when two railroads fought each other during
the three or four legislatures up to the legislature of 1889.
As long as they fought each other the interests of the people
were fairly secure, and the people learned the facts about th«
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 353
railroad systems of the state, which they needed to know in
order to bring to bear the proper pressure on their representa-
tives. In 1889 these two contending- factions entered into an
agreement, and divided up the railroad territory in the state,
and, incidentally, after they made the agreement, passed laws
and made arrangements, in order to make effectual the control
this gentleman has spoken about.
Now, I have no desire to be sensational; I don't think I could
if I tried; but we have another railroad fight looming up in
the immediate future that will make the railroad fight of '87
look like a prize drill exhibition. We have the New York,
New Haven & Hartford Railroad- system, now in the control
of the Boston & Maine. We have in this fight this tremendous
Grand Trunk Railroad system, with all the capital of England
and Canada, and it happens, through no fault of New Hamp-
shire, that this territory has been selected as the final battle-
ground between those two gigantic interests, because the Grand
Trunk cannot get an outlet to the port of Boston without
passing through the state of New Hampshire. Now, anybody
can regret the fact that the state of New Hampshire is un-
wittingly and unwillingly put into this position. The fight is
coming, and I think I am stating things within the bounds of
fact when I say, there was never such a railroad fight in this
state, or in any other state, but that was settled by the two
contending parties coming together and dividing things up
to suit themselves. If the time arrives in New Hampshire
when these two get together, and divide up the interests, what-
ever legislation is passed I want to have go to the people for
ratification. And so I say, the state of New Hampshire needs
the initiative and referendum, and it needs it nmv. And I sa3''
further that this is one of those questions, such as was spoken
of yesterday, which the people have a right to pass on. It
strikes me that I have not the right, — I am not speaking for
the rest of you; you have a right to do as you please, — I con-
sider, in my situation, that I have not the right to forbid the
people to pass on this question of initiative and referendum
for themselves.
Mr. Hobhs of Wolfehoro. — Mr. President, I am aw^are that the
revision of a Constitution is a serious matter, and those w^ho
have that duty to perform bear a grave responsibility.
Any method by which, in a deliberate and orderly manner,
the actions of our public officials or measures that may be ob-
jectionable may be reviewed by referendum vote of the people
is far better than, and should supersede, denunciation of either
354 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Court or officials. This denunciation breeds contempt of law,
and lawlessness can accomplish no good results to mankind.
Let me say at the beginning of my argument that I am
heartily in favor of the resolution before this Convention at
this time, when divided.
The referendum vote of the people should be taken at a time
when temporary passion has passed and opportunity has been
given to consider fairly and to debate the question at issue —
and that has been provided for in the resolution before this
Convention.
The makers, the framers of our Federal Constitution and
our State Constitution, were great men, were able men, but,
however able, they could not anticipate or solve the new^ prob-
lems of life and government, — corporation and individual, —
which have taken place in the 3'ears that are past, and are
now constantly taking place. Go back to the years before the
Civil War. Contemplate the situation then and now, if you
will, and changes are on us ever since, and will be to the end
of time,
Mr. President, the makers of the Constitution built for the
conditions then existing. Their great aim was to protect the
rights and liberties of the individual citizen; they emphasized
wider freedom because life was then essentially the individual
life. But, as individual life has come and more, giving birth
to crowded community life, the rights and privileges once
deemed essential to the perfect liberty of the individual are
often found to stand in the way of public welfare and to breed
wrong and do injustice to the community at large. For, bear
in mind, it is the public good which demands our attention.
Seek the public good and public welfare and you will promote
the individual good, which, in itself, is the upbuilding of the
community and in the interest of humanity. The country
grows in population, grows in wealth, grows in intelligence,
and our Constitution must also grow and keep pace with
changed and changing conditions.
The initiative and referendum do not decrease the im-
portance of legislative bodies, nor do they withdraw authority
from those who are elected to represent the people. On the
contrary, when the people have the initiative and referendum
with which to protect themselves, they can safely confer a
larger authority upon their representatives.
When the Constitution provides for the initiative and the
referendum, the people simply say to their representatives,
"Do your duty, follow your judgment and your conscience, and
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 355
the more accurately you interpret our wishes the less we shall
have to do."
The fact that the people can act through the initiative and
referendum makes it less likely that they will need to employ
the remedy. There will not be so many bad laws to com-
plain of when the people reserve the right to veto, and it will
be easier to secure the enactment of good laws when the
people are not absolutely dependent upon legislators for the
enactment of such measures as they may desire.
Direct legislation exerts an indirect, as well as a direct, influ-
ence, and when the system is fully established and the people
thoroughly understand it, it is not likely to be employed often,
because those elected to represent the people will be more in
sympathy with their constituents. The referendum ruins the
business of the lobbyist and grafter, because a crooked legis-
lature cannot "deliver the goods." It is a fine club for use
on crooks. These two weapons of popular government are
especially useful in the matter of franchise grabs and crooked
tax laws. These direct processes of passing laws the people
do want and vetoing the laws the people do not want, and
recalling public servants who prove to be crooks, have become
ncessary in modern days, because commercial interests have
gone into the governing business through machine politics,
contributing money to town, county and state machines, and
getting government privileges in return.
The new method of governing, by direct legislation, — the
initiative and referendum, — has received widespread approval
in over half the area of the United States, because it has been
found that a thorough-going corrupt practices act and olhci-
needed remedies could not be passed through legislatures
elected by corrupt processes.
These principles are essential in order to restore integrity
of government. The initiative and referendum stimulates the
interest, the patriotism and the confidence of the citizen voter,
and raises the intelligence of the electorate. It" prevents the
legislator being tempted to do wrong. It stimulates him to
do right. He cannot sell public franchises without considera-
tion of his own private advantage and of the disadvantage of
the people, because the people can veto his acts. It limits the
number of bills in the legislature, and puts an end to blackmail-
ing of corporations and commercial interests. It establishes
the legislature in the confidence of the people by merit. Above
al), it gives stability to property and stability to government.
When the people can have any law they want, and veto any
356 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
law they do not want, they can obviously have as good a gov-
ernment as their intelligence and sense justifies. It perfects
representative government, and makes the representative truly
representative. It provides the people with the means to put
an end to corrupt practices and establish integrity of gov-
ernment. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of
this matter.
The initiative and referendum is strictly constitutional, under
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It
is a part of the organic law of Maine, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, Oregon and Nevada. It has
been adopted by the legislatures or Constitutions of California,
Washington, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Wis-
consin and Ohio. It has been made the issue by one or both
parties of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Massachu-
setts, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas and other
states, and is in use in some of the foreign countries. It is
sweeping the Union because of the urgent necessity to end
corrupt practices and the commercial control of government.
This is what actually happens in parliament-governed
countries, such as Great Britain. A party majority rules till
there are certain evidences that it is no longer in harmony with
the country. The cabinet resigns; parliament is dissolved; an
election is held. The representatives remain or retire, accord-
ing to the popular verdict. Given the machinery for really
popular elections, such a system furnishes, probably, the most
perfect working of popular representative government.
The initiative and referendum does not overthrow repre-
sentative government; it has not come to destroy, but to ful-
fill. The purpose of representative government is to repre-
sent, and that purpose fails when representatives misrepresent
their constituents. Experience has shown that the defects of
our government are not in the people themselves, but in those
who, acting as representatives of the people, embezzle power
and turn to their own advantage the authority given them for
the advancement of the public welfare. All of the Constitu-
tions of the states and the amendments of the State Consti-
tutions are determined by a* referendum vote. Thus, Gentle-
men, those great men, the framers of the Constitution, take in
the people when that document is to be dealt with.
That great and serious duty of amending the Constitution,
they were willing the people should share with them the re-
sponsibility. Why not let the people have a share in other
matters?
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 357
It has cost centuries to secure popular government; the blood
of millions of the best and bravest has been poured out to
establish the doctrine that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed. All this struggle,
all this sacrifice, has been in vain, if, when we secure a rep-
resentative government, the people's representatives can betray
them with impunity and mock their constituents, while they
draw salaries from the public treasury.
Let me call to your mind, if you please, the proof of some
of these assertions. The Constitution of this country, us
founded by those great and good men, they incorporated into
that document the institution of slavery, and when, in the
fifties, the people began to see the wrong therein, and de-
manded no further extension, you will remember the question
was, Shall new territory, new states, come into the Union slave
states or free states? It was Kansas and Nebraska coming
in, and they voted on the question of slavery, and they voted
under the guidance of a God for the right to come into the
Union free.
Mr. President, I say. Sir, that that vote tells you where the
people stood then and ever stand. It is my belief that, if the
matter could have been referred to the people, slavery would
have been voted out of the Constitution and the Union pre-
served without bloodshed. But it was not so. Millions of
money was spent, hundreds of thousands left their homes, left
their friends, left their lives or ruined their health on the bat-
tlefield to preserve this Union. By that blood, by bullets in-
stead of ballots, slavery was abolished and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution added, and the Union pre-
served. Motto, trust the people.
If this work that we are here to perform is to be referred
to the people for their approval or disapproval, — ^and it is, —
the great work of the revision of the Constitution, why should
we hesitate to let the work of the legislatures that are to fol-
low us be subjected to the same tribunal, the people, for ap-
proval? I see none.
In reply to those who have preceded me, and to those who
may follow here today, let me call to the stand one who was
always on the side of human rights, the immortal Lincoln.
Lincoln spoke on the battlefield of Gettysburg of the unfin-
ished work of those who died there. He said, "Every genera-
tion finds the work of the last unfinished. Every generation
leaves to the next an unfinished work. Everywhere the work
of government is in the line of bringing the government nearer
358 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
to the people. I believe in everything that tends to bring the
government nearer to the people and to give the people larger
control over their government."
Those are the words of Lincoln, and I submit they are applic-
able here today.
Mr. President, I am in favor of this resolution because I
believe the time has come when the people should have a bet-
ter hand on their government. I am in favor of this resolution
because it brings the government nearer to the people, and
because I believe the nearer we get the government to the
people the better government we will have. I admonish you,
I warn you, that this is a part of the unfinished work left for
us to perform. Therefore, I urge the adoption of this reso-
lution.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — The gentleman from Concord, Mr.
Hollis, if I remember rightly, said that in the legislature of
1907 he was a member, and he voted for some half dozen
measures, more or less, that the people wanted, and he was
in the minority; that he was returned to the legislature in
1909 and voted for the same half dozen measures, and voted
with the majority. It seems to me that, putting those two
statements together, we had a referendum then under the Con-
stitution as it is. The people had an opportunity to discuss,
to meditate upon measures that he supported in 1907, and
which were defeated, and, following his line of argument, the
people sent to the legislature of 1909 men who passed fhose
measures, and that was without tinkering with our Constitu-
tion, without removing restrictions, without striking a deadly
blow at representative government. In the fundamental law
there are some restrictions, as there ought to be, and I am
opposed to this proposed amendment because I am opposed
to starting out in an open boat without rudder on any un-
charted sea. I believe in standing by fundamental princi-
ples that have worked satisfactorily in the past, according to
the gentleman's own admission, and will work satisfactorily in
the future. I hope this amendment will be defeated.
Mr. Drake of Pittsfield. — I think that this subject was pretty
fully discussed when we had Resolution No. 4, introduced by
the gentleman from Jaffrey, before us, and I think it was
shown at that time that the initiative and referendum, in the
hands of the people, would prove a strong weapon of defense
against the encroachments of special privilege, should the oc-
casion demand. To prove that there is danger from such a
Bource, I will quote you, as my authority, the words of tho
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 869
gentleman from Concord, who spoke to us yesterday, which
were these: "It is true that just now the people of this state
have shorn the corporations of their political power, but the
whirligig of time may reverse this condition and give us back
the old conditions." If this should prove true, wouldn't this
be of immeasurable value to the people of this state? The only
argument that can be made against the initiative and refer-
endum, as applied to the organic law of the state, is that the
people cannot be trusted. That, of course, is a denial of the
very principle of popular self-government. Genuine govern-
ment by the people is satisfactory because it is most efficient
and just. A number of the members of this initiative and
referendum Convention do not look on tlieir duties here as I
do. The people took the initiative and called this Convention
to consider various subjects, for there were questions before
the people that they wanted a chance to put into our Consti-
tution, and everything we vote to do here has the referendum
attached to it. I think our duty here is not, like a legislative
body, to discuss these things and decide them as we think, but
to put these questions into the best shape we can for the
people to vote on. Take, for instance, the Grange, a conserva-
tive body, — you cannot say they run wild, thirty thousand
people, — and they ask, more than three to one, that this be
submitted to the people for them to vote on, and certainly, if
two thirds of the people of this state vote that this should be
a part of our Constitution, it certainly should be so. The
initiative and referendum, in some form, should be submitted
to the people, and, if two thirds of the voters are in favor of
it, the people should have it.
Mr. Clement of Warren. — Gentlemen, the question that is up
here at issue was ably and eloquently discussed by the gentle-
man from Concord, who was the first speaker. He went back
to the days of the early government of provinces, and gave us
a very eloquent discourse. I fail to see where that is of any
practical moment to us. I regret that that gentleman and his
friends did not take up another question that is of practical
moment to the members of this Convention, and every citizen
of the state of New Hampshire, namely, why the orders of our
Public Service Commission to the American Express Company,
that they cut down their rates, are absolutely defied today in
the state of New Hampshire? And that order is defied. No
g-entleman is getting up here and getting very much excited
over it, but it is today the only practical anarchy existing in
the state of New Hampshire. And for what reason does" it
360 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
exist? That they may get, as they have in the past, usurious
dividends for their stockholders,
Mr. Biisiel of Laconia. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I do not propose to appeal to the prejudices of
this Convention in what I say on this subject. I do not pro-
pose to introduce here the railroad question in the state of
New Hampshire again. If we cannot discuss this question on
higher grounds than appeals to prejudices, I think we would
better adjourn.
I was a member of the legislature of 1883, when, as the gen-
tleman from Concord, Mr. Hollis, has said, the railroad fight
began, and I voted against the Colby bill to consolidate rail-
roads, but shall not discuss that matter now. I am opposed
to the initiative and referendum in New Hampshire because it
establishes the fourth House in the state of New Hampshire.
We already have three, — the Senate, the House of Representa-
tives, and the Third House. I am opposed to establishing in
New Hampshire the Fourth House, and that is what you do
when you appeal to the people outside of the representatives
whom the people send here. I am opposed to this thing be-
cause it is an utter degradation of representative government,
and it will lead to its abolition, if it is carried to its logical
conclusions. When you begin to submit some matters to the
people as a whole, you have got to end up with submitting
all matters to the people as a whole, and you will find it so.
One of the crying evils of the times is too much legislation.
We have got already too large representation in New Hamp-
shire, and far too much legislation. When you can tap every
man on his back in the state of New Hampshire and say, "You
are a legislator, you are just as good as any man you send
there to the legislature," you simply interest him then in hunt-
ing up everything under the sun that he can find for a new
"issue," and get a petition to put it before the people in a
new law. Ah, Gentlemen, it has been said sometimes that we
have too many cranks already. I don't know of any scheme
which would start into operation so persistently the men who
bear that sobriquet as the initiative and referendum. I do
not know of anything so well calculated to create turmoil.
The state of Oregon, at the next election, while electing state
and national officials, has got to pass on more than forty laws.
They have got to pass on those laws, even without examina-
tion in a Committee. Worse than that, they have taken away
the veto power from the Governor as to such laws and re-
moved all check in legislation by the executive. There has
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 361
been no way provided in which any hearings can be had. There,
is a little pamphlet submitted to the people, which will grow
in years to a very large book at the rate it is now growing,
where these things are discussed in a very brief way. The
people are to make up their opinion without the benefit of
committees, or testimony, or hearings, and they have encour-
aged the use of this new toy, so they at present take some
interest in this matter, as evidenced by the forty laws now
pending there.
But, Gentlemen, you passed a primary law in New Hamp-
shire because you said people did not take interest enough
to go to their caucuses, and under that primary law you now
get out but a small fraction of your voters, and, if yqu will
observe the action of the primary, you will find in the future,
as in the case of your old-time caucuses, a less and less num-
ber of voters will take enough interest in the primary to go
and vote to select men who are to be your candidates; and for
a very good reason, and that is, that out of the men who are
born there is but a small percentage of those who take in-
terest enough in public affairs to go ahead and post themselves
on any question and qualify themselves to act. So, too, you
will find that, as a less number are availing themselves of
primaries, so a less and less number would act under initiative
and referendum, and by and by you will have laws passed by
minorities, and you will have destroyed representative govern-
ment founded upon the will of the majority, and the majority
will no longer rule.
Now I hold. Gentlemen, that this question is a question of
a revolutionary change in the form of our government. We
have got at the present time pure and simple representative
government, where the men who do your work can do it as
honestly as you people can do it at home. You must bear in
mind. Gentlemen, that a stream cannot rise higher than it;3
fountain, and the representatives you send to this body, or
to the legislature, come from yourselves. If you do not and
cannot choose the right men to come here and represent you,
it is your own fault; it is the fault of the electorate of the
state of New Hampshire if they do not put men in the legis-
lature of the state of New Hampshire who will honestly, fear-
lessly and thoroughly represent them. And you know, Gentle-
men, that if the people of the state of New Hampshire would
insist on being represented in that way, and people of other
states, too, you would find no trouble arising which would
need the initiative and referendum to cure it. Gentlemen,
362 JouitNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
what reason have you to think you can do any better legislat-
ing- than the men you choose?
Gentlemen, you must bear in mind that in a great country
like ours, — with a population increasing as ours is from immi-
gration, — we have been getting men into this country so fast
that it has been almost impossible to assimilate and make them
such citizens as we wish them to be, and hence there have
been some things done in legislature of which we complain.
I say your stream cannot rise higher than your fountain, but
it does not follow that we need revolutionary methods to cure
it. I say, too, you degrade your legislators into a set of pup-
pets when you require them to come here, either under pledges,
which is one of the great features in this legislation in Oregon,
or under notice of a referendum. You pledge the legislator
before he gets to the place where he is to act for you, and
where he is supposed to act to the best of his judgment, and
when he was sent for that purpose, and then say to him
that all he does must be reviewed by you in a referendum.
You degrade him by this process.
Now, the next thing you propose to do is to degrade hira
still further by saying, "Yes, you shall go there and repre-
sent us, but what you do shall not be the law; we do not dare
to trust you for that, but what you do we are going to take
hold of, and see whether we approve of it." Why not abolish
your House, and why not abolish your Senate? Why not abol-
ish this system of government? Now, Gentlemen, you may
think, when I say that there is revolution in this, that there is
something extravagant in what I say, but, Gentlemen, in the
state of Oregon, at the next election, they are to pass over
forty things. The first I see in the list is this article among
the forty: A new Constitution, abolishing the present state
government, and substituting an entirely new form of govern-
ment; and that is revolutionary. That is what you are going
into here. Don't you think you can stop here with the initi-
ative and the referendum? Just as sure as you adopt that
thing now you will next be asked to adopt the recall. One
great body at Chicago, in Convention today, is divided on that
matter in such a way that it is hard to say which part will
be in the majority. There are men there who are just as
anxious to have the recall as others here are to have the
initiative and referendum. There are men who would be fight-
ing for it here, just as I am against it here today.
I am not in favor of the socialistic democracy, which yo»i
are going to establish with initiative and referendum; that
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 363
will be the first step when you abandon the present form of
g-overnment, and after you get the socialistic democracy, then
will come socialism, pure and simple, and, if I am able to
reason out what has made this people of ours different from
other peoples, and what has made civilization, it is because
men have got together and acted reasonably and under fixed
laws to insure some stability, and by choosing men to repre-
sent them in making such laws. If we should lapse into so-
cialism, it will be a move backward towards the state of
savagery from which we emerged when we began to establish
civilization in this world; for socialism is only possible by
drawing men to one dead level and by taking from them the
enlightened selfish principle, which has proved the one great
creative engine in the world, — enlightened self-interest; the
great stimulus of men to energy and thrift will have been
removed, and the attempt to form one mould and then flux
all men in one great melting pot, and out of it to draw the
material to form all men alike in one mould, will be a tre-
mendous failure. The protection of the individual by written,
stable Constitution and laws has led to our present civilization.
To discourage individualism and to adopt socialism is to be-
gin the journey backward to savagery.
Mr. Davis of New Ipswich. — ^Gentlemen, we have heard so much
about representative government that I really want to say a
word or two about it myself. I am not against representative
government. Oh, no! but let's see whom it has represented for
the last hundred years. We must judge it from a monetary
standpoint, of course, because we have spent more money and
time in this Convention protecting money than anything else, si
money must be the standard. Now, Gentlemen, the facts and
figures are as follows: One hundred years ago, when this
country consisted of but comparatively a few millions of
people, the wealth of the country was controlled by over 120,-
000 people. Today, Gentlemen, when we approach 100,000,-
000 people, the majority of the wealth, the entire wealth, mind
you, is controlled by less than 20,000 people. Now, whom has
your representative government represented, the individual or
all of the people? I came here. Gentlemen, instructed to con-
sider the greatest good to the greatest number, and if I am
proud of one thing it is that I stand for the best of the people,
whom I represent and with whom I live. Now, Gentlemen,
this is not a sentimental question. This is not a question
for which we must go back to our forefathers. Just because
our grandfather carried a brick in his hat, — God bless him! —
364 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
no reason why we should. It is a business matter, and we
should consider it as such. A man who holds one of your most
responsible state positions said to me recently, "Davis, what
was good enough for my grandfather was not good enough for
my father; what was good enough for my father is not good
enough for me; and what is good enough for me is not good
enough for my children." Now, he was right there. With all
due respect to our forefathers, I honor them and I am proud
of them, but what was good enough for them is not good
enough for me; neither is it good enough for you.
Now as to the initiative and referendum, I want to talk to
you about that as a practical business man. The business of
this state is the most important business in the state, and you
are here to represent it as business men. How many of you
manufacturers would run your boilers without a safety valve?
Many? I think not. How many of us would drive motor cars
without an emergency brake? It costs us nothing practically;
it is there; we may never use it, but when we need it we want
it, and though something extra, it is a mighty good thing to
have. If you neglect this opportunity to protect your people
as you should, with the initiative and referendum, yotr will
regret it. I know it. From three different towns the con-
stituents said to me, "Davis, what do you mean by letting them
vote dowm that referendum? We want a chance to say what
we want to do about it?" That is what they want. I tell
you honestly, from the bottom of my heart, you will make the
greatest error if you do not allow them to vote on it, — do not
submit it to them. We are not a legislative body, we are not
the tribunal; it is for us to be fair and just merely, and when
the matter is close, let them decide, and I hope you will do so.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord.— Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, this is a proposition to enlarge the powers of the
electorate. It is a proposition to change the fundamental
structure of the governmental system under which we have
been living and governing, up to the present time. Is it wise
to make this radical change in our organic law? Is it prudent?
Is the proposition practicable? What, in fact, when analyzed,
is this proposition found to be? We hear much, at the pres-
ent time, with reference to remanding to the people theii
powers, or enlarging the powers of the people. Who are tha
people? The population of the state of New Hampshire,
under the last census, was approximately 430,000. Are all
those the people, within the meaning of the term as it is now
used and understood, in a political sense? If so, they, that
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 365
is, this entire population, are not permitted or empowered to
participate in government, except through a selected few, the
electorate, the voters. The voters comprise about one fifth of
the population. They have been selected, through a variety of
laws, from time to time, which designated who the voters
should be. Going back to the time when Massachusetts and
New Hampshire comprised one colony, or was governed by one
system, one authority, to be a voter, one had to have the cer-
tificate of his church membership a^d his good character from
the local clergyman. That rule, or requirement, existed for
a few years after New Hampshire resumed her position as a
separate colony in 1679. Then there was attached to the quali-
fication of the voter the requirement that he should have prop-
erty. This qualification, or requisite, was subsequently re-
moved, leaving simply the age limit, the naturalization and
the birthright as the essentials. There are now only about
one fifth of the population who are endowed with the privilege
of voting. These voters, this part of the population, thus
privileged are really the agents and trustees in whom is de-
posited the authority and right to represent the whole popu-
lation. Ours is a representative government. The voters are
authorized, and only authorized, with reference to state mat-
ters to elect representatives through whom the state's affairs
are administered, and laws are enacted for the government of
the people and the protection of their rights. We have, since
the foundation of our government, had the initiative and
referendum, in their broadest sense, in the towns, in the ad-
ministration of our local affairs; and never have the towns
abandoned these privileges until their populations, respectively,
reached limits or points where it became impracticable for
them to consider directly and materially, in the town, their
own concerns. When it became impracticable to consider in
town meeting their own affairs intelligently, — the affairs about
which they were fully informed and in which they are per-
sonally and directly interested, — they inaugurated the city gov-
ernment plan of representation, the only plan practicable for
the larger population. So that now in this state we have
eleven municipalities governed by the representative plan, gov-
erned as cities. That is, eleven of the towns of the state, on
account of the size of their population, had to abandon the
town system, the democratic system, and adopt the city or
representative system. These towns had to make the change,
or did make the change, from the town to the representative
system because it was found impracticable to do the work of a
366 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
large population thorugh the town or democratic method;
that is, in a meeting in which all the voters could be present
and participate.
Since the larger towns, on account of the size and the
population thereof, have found it impracticable to administer
practically and intelligently through the town system, where
all could participate, the affairs of the town, is it reasonable
to expect that the people of the entire state can, in their ag-
gregate capacity, or acting simultaneously, in the different
sections, deal directly, more intelligently, and more practically
than can the smaller population of the cities, who found that
they could not, on account of the size of the population, in-
telligently and practically deal with their local affairs? Stated
in another way, this proposition, in effect, is to create another
and an entirely distinct, independent legislative body. At the
present time, under our present Constitution, the legislative
power of this state is vested in a Senate and House of ReprK>-
sentatives, over whose action the Governor has a veto. Under
the proposed plan, the majority of the electorate, that is, the
majority of the voters, are to be endowed with the power of
overruling the action of the legislature, and avoiding or escaxj-
ing entirely the veto power of the Governor.
This method of dealing with public affairs is not new; it is
old. It was employed by the ancients, — and it failed. Under
its operation, or use, by the ancients, they witnessed the end
of their government and the loss of their rights and liberties.
With a knowledge of that historical fact, the fathers who
founded this and the earlier Constitutions of this country were
familiar. They had the power and might have adopted, as a
form of government, a pure democracy. But they rejected it;
and Jefferson reflected the voice and views of his associates
as well as himself when he said that the people had at lai^t
found the only practicable method of preserving their rights
and liberties, namely, through a representative government se-
lected by themselves. Jefferson, if living today, as was previ-
ously suggested during this debate, would be opposed to this
proposition, to this radical innovation. He knew, from his
thorough knowledge of the history of governments, the de-
structive effect of the initiative and referendum with respect
to protecting the rights of the people. He knew from his
mastery of the science of government, through intelligent and
thorough study of the history of governments, how the
people's rights and liberties had been lost instead of pre-
served through the use of the initiative and referendum as
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 367
a method of government by the electorate in the older govern-
ments of the world. He and his associates, having such
knowledge, sought to prevent and provide against a recur-
rence of such result to the people of this country by adopting
the present representative form of government. And to this
form we should adhere. This system is practicable. It is
simple. It is fully safeguarded. Switzerland, they tell us, has
the initiative and referendum. Switzerland, however, uses this
method now only in its local concerns, — only in and for the
government of its subdivisions, corresponding to our towns.
Its use has been practically disregarded because it is found to
be inapracticable, so far as general legislation is concerned;
and its use, at the present time, is confined to those subjects
in which the people are locally, directly interested, and in
which they are fully informed. So that, even if we were to
summon the experience of Switzerland to determine our action,
her people tod^y are practically limiting the system of initi-
ative and referendum to local affairs, leaving the management
and direction of general affairs to their representative body,
corresponding to our state legislatures and the Congress of
the United States. This has been done because the other
method has been found to be impracticable. Therefore we
had better adhere to our representative form of government,
that form through which the rights and liberties of the people
have been thus far so well protected and safeguarded. And,
guided by our experience in the past, we have every reason
to confidently expect that an honest, intelligent, upright dis-
charge of their duty by the electorate, the voters, will continue
to secure and protect the rights of the people. Therefore let
us stand by this system, which has, by practical experience,
demonstrated its utility and capacity to efficiently and effect-
ively protect the lives, liberties and possessions of the people.
Mr. Wason of Nashua moved that the Convention be in re-
cess for one hour and that a vote be taken on the question
fifty minutes after recess.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
After Recess.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey, to
substitute the minority report for that of the majority, —
368 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Abbott of Wolfeboro.—^ir. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I am the other member or delegate from Wolfe-
boro, and, like my friend from Jaffrey, not in favor of this
resolution. However, I did not think it would be necessary
for me, coming- from the town of Wolfeboro, to do any talking
whatever before this body, but I have sat here for two days
and listened to the gentleman from Pittsfield dragging un-
warrantably, and I believe unnecessarily, the great and good
order of the Grange .into this discussion. I think I have some
right to speak, as a member of that body, as I am master of
the Grange in my town, and I want to say a few words to you
in regard to the Grange in this matter.
A good many of you will remember that thirty or forty
years ago the Grange was composed wholly of farmers and
their wives, or nearly so, and a resolution, a demand, a de-
pire, a request coming from a body of that nature deserved
great attention and consideration. At the present time, how-
ever, at least twenty-five percent of that order is composed
of boys and girls from fourteen to twenty-one years of age,
and I would like to ask if you think the votes of boys an!
girls should have any great weight before a body of men such
as is assembled here? I have heard this matter of thirty thou-
sand Grangers, — that thirty thousand in round numbers means,
of course, men, women and children. Now, in regard to the
matter before the Convention. There was sent down to our
Grange, and I doubt not to every subordinate Grange in thig
state, a statement that the Grange was in favor of this, and
a request, some of you might call it a command, — you can
call it a very earnest suggestion at least, — that every sub-
ordinate Grange was supposed to support this resolution, but
there is one member who declines to accept any such sug-
gestion. The matter came up, and out of over eighty present,
in a membership in the neighborhood of 200, there were six
who voted for this resolution, and I would like to say to the
gentleman from Pittsfield that if that is a fair vote of the
rest of the subordinate Granges in New Hampshire, his armv
of thirty thousand has dwindled to a corporal's guard.
I do not believe that the Grange as a body should attempt
to hold the organization as a club over the heads of the mem-
bers of this Convention, or of any legislature, and I believ",
and earnestly believe, and say it in the interests of thai
order, that the sooner it quits meddling with everything that
comes up before the people, just so much stronger and more
lasting it will be. It is indicative. Gentlemen, the statement
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 369
of the gentleman from Pittsfield of his thirty thousand'
Grangers backing this resolution, of what these thirty thou-
sand might attempt to do if this referendum was in force in
the state of New Hampshire. It shows you the power that
some secret society might have to carry out its ends, be they
good or be they ill. Therefore, Gentlemen, I hope there is
no member of this Convention, whether he belongs to the
great order of the Grange or not, who will be deterred from
Toting as his conscience dictates, regardless of anything that
has been said by the gentleman from Pittsfield, speaking for
the Grange.
Mr. Smith of Peterboro. — I made a statement last week when
a similar proposition was before this Conimittee, in regard
to the vote of California upon bills referred to the people.
That was questioned by the gentleman from Jaffrey, Mr.
Duncan. I have taken pains since then to go into the library
in this city, and have in my hand a compilation of votes sub-
mitted to the people in 1908. I have thirteen amendments
recorded here. On not one of the thirteen did one-half vote
who voted for President at that same time. For President
in 1908, 386,597 voted. One-half of that number would be
193,298, and, of these thirteen amendments submitted to the
people, not one of them received, negative and affirmative,
one-half of those votes cast for President. I simply make this
statement to place myself correctly upon the record and in
the memory of these people present.
Two years later, twenty-three amendments were submitted
to the people of California. I haven't the record here be-
cause it has not been printed in permanent form, but I have
it in pamphlet form, and not one of those twenty-three amend-
ments received half of the votes of the state. I have looked
at those figures, and I find that every amendment which was
passed was passed by less than twenty-five percent of the
Toters of California at that time.
Now, there are one or two phases of this bill which I wish
to refer to. One is the initiative. Upon the petition of eight
percent of the voters at the' last election for Governor, a
proposition can be presented to be voted upon by the people.
When presented it cannot be amended, and it cannot be
changed, but must be submitted in the exact form in which
it comes from the petitioners. I think that is one of the most
radical amendments that can be made. There is hardly a
measure introduced into the legislature of New Hampshire,
•or before this Convention, that w^ill stand that test. They
370 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
come here, go before a Committee, they are ameiided, they
are changed so as to affect the meaning of them radically.
When you place it within the power of eight percent of the
voters to draft such a bill and present it to the people, and
let twenty-five percent of all the voters pass it, without
change and without amendment, you do something which is
radical, something which is unjust, and something which is
not called for. A referendum, a recall and initiative is in some
respects the same. It is a move in the wrong direction; it is
a move to undermine the Constitution of New Hampshire; it
is a move to set aside and place the Constitution of New Hamp-
shire in the same position that you place the laws of New
Hampshire, so that it can be changed session by session by
the legislature, in the same way that the laws can be changed.
It is placing the Constitution and laws .upon the same basis.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I have no disposition to question the figures of
the gentleman from Peterborough. I have no doubt that they
are absolutely correct, byt they are no argument at all against
the initiative and referendum. Why? Because the initiative
and referendum were not adopted in California until 1911.
The figures which the gentleman from Peterborough quotes are
arguments against our present method of amending the Consti-
tution, and not against the initiative and referendum. Cal-
ifornia, up to October, 1911, amended the Constitution the
same as we do in the state of New Hampshire, and the figures
quoted by the gentleman from Peterborough relate to the exact
situation which we have in the state of New Hampshire, and
not to the initiative and referendum.
He alludes to the difficulty of amending propositions sub-
mitted by the initiative. I could point out to you, if I had time,
where this is an advantage and not a disadvantage. Numerous
measures are submitted to the legislature in very good form,
and there jokers are inserted in them, and sometimes they are
emasculated by amendments. I say to you, it were oftentimes
much better that a measure should be submitted to the people
in the form in which its sponsors asked for it to be submitted,
than to allow it to be emasculated by members of the legis-
lature.
I was rather amused this morning when the gentleman from
Haverhill informed us that he was opposed to this proposition,
inasmuch as I had previously noted in the Concord Evening Moni-
tor a clipping from the WoodmiUe Neivs, of which he is editor,
in which it says: "The people are the court of final resort, and
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 371
in these matters of grave importance the people, as a wnole,
may be safely trusted." What does that mean but initiative
and referendum?
A gentleman on the floor of this Convention said this morn-
ing that the logical conclusion of the initiative and referendum
was to establish a pure democracy. I deny that fact. I say it
could be possible to establish a pure democracy by the initi-
ative and referendum. I say this, too: If I should go to the
station at Concord and take a train which might be going to'
Boston, it would be no sign that I intended to go to Boston.
I might get off at Mancliester or Xashua or Lowell, or any
other place, and if I didn't know enough to get off where I
wanted to, I ought to be carried through to the destination,
and I believe the people of the state of New Hampshire are
competent to decide where they want to get off.
Gentlemen say this is revolution. Revolution is a proud word
in the history of the American government. The men whom
we delight to honor are revolutionists. George Washington,
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, John
Adams and Samuel Adams bear the proud title of revolutionists,
and, if it is revolution to advocate the initiative and referendum,
I am proud to be called a revolutionist. I suppose every man
who has advocated new ideas has been called a revolutionist.
I suppose Abraham Lincoln, from the point of view of the
southern slaveholder, was a revolutionist of the deepest dye,
but I am proud to rank myself with Abraham Lincoln as a
revolutionist. Lincoln said this should be a government by th"»
people, of the people and for the people. I am content to
rest the case on that.
A gentleman said this morning that this is establishing a
fourth House. Shouldn't we have a fourth House if the fourth
House is to be the state of New Hampshire? Whose govern-
ment is this but the government of the people of the state of
New Hampshire? They are the ones who have the final say
on everything we do here today, and I believe they should have
the final say on the action of the legislature. The question
to be re-echoed from these old Granite hills of New Hampshire
is this: "Shall the people rule?" And the answer that is going
to be re-echoed from these old Granite Hjlls of New Hampshire
is, "The people shall rule through the initiative and refer-
endum, and this government of the people, by the people; and
for the people shall not perish from the earth." I thank you.
Mr. Stevens of Lan^aff. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I want
to call particular attention to the argument made by the gen-
372 JOURNAI* OF CONSTITUTJONAL CONVENTION.
tleman from Laconia, an argument to my mind so- surprising
that I could hardly believe my own ears, and I went to the
stenographer and got an exact copy of his words. He sayp,
*'I am opposed to the initiative and referendum because it
establishes the fourth House in the state. We already have
three, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the third
House." I wonder how many men in this body understood what
he meant by the term, "the third House," one of the legisla-
tive bodies we have had in this state for years. The third
House is the lobby, composed of agents and attorneys of the
special interests who have been aroifnd every session of this
legislature for the last thirty years, and will be for the next
thirty years, endeavoring to control legislation in the interests
of the special class they are paid to serve. As long as we
have a third House, as long as we have this private, secret
body of men, who are here, the ablest men in the state, — and
I don't blame them for coming here, I don't blame the special
interests for having people here to protect them, — but as long
as we have that secret, private body which seeks to control our
legislatures, and especially our Senate, we need to cantrol that
third House, — the people of the state of New Hampshire to
legislate after them.
Why, that is the chief argument, the chief reason, the chief
cause for the demand for the initiative and the referendum,
that we can control this secret third House. I wish, Sir, we
had a public journal in which were recorded the votes, the dis-
cussions and the decisions of this third House, as we have pub-
lic records of our House andi our Senate. If it wouldn't make
absolutely certain and absolutely sure the adoption of the initi-
ative and referendum in this state, nothing under Heaven ever
would.
One more suggestion: The gentlemen say that the ordinary
man, the ordinary voter, is not capable of deciding these quos
tions, that he does not take an interest in them. Now, there
is some truth in that suggestion. I have been surprised my-
self when I went home from some session to see how little
interest citizens of my town took in what the legislature wad
doing. There is a reason for that. Men take an interest in
and become fitted to do those things they are required to do,
and the very fact that at present our people have so little real
control over the legislature, and are so far removed from it,
is clearly the reason why they take so little interest in these
questions. If these questions were put up to them to decide,
discuss and argue, they would take an interest, and we should
get a good decision.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 373
We have been carried back to ancient history all over* the
world. We have been told this thing- is a failure in Switzer-
land, a success in Switzerland', and a success in Oregon. We
have been told that it was the recall that ruined Egypt, the
referendum that brought about the fall of Rome, and the initi-
ative that destroyed the democracy of Greece. I say, with all
due respect to the eminent historians who put that argument
up here, that every man who has studied the history of Rome
knows what caused the downfall of the republic of Rome. The
unequal distribution of wealth and unequal distribution of po-
litical power corrupted the Roman empire. Luxury corrupted
its government and poverty corrupted its lower classes, and
when barbarians came there was nothing to stop them. And
the only way civilization can protect itself from the danger
of unequal distribution of w-ealth and political power is to
give to all the people the full and final decision of what the
government shall be, and what measures shall be enacted for
the public welfare.
Mr. Barton of Newport. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, it has been stated here that the third House is a
very dangerous element in connection with our present system
of legislation. I do not agree with that statement. I do not
like corrupting influences about the legislature, whether they
are in favor of special interests, corporations, or individuals,
but, under our present Constitution, we have the right to pe-
tition this body; we have a right as citizens to come down to
the legislature and interview its various members and explain
to them what we and the people at home want. Now, in one
breath this gentleman advocates the people speaking; in an-
other he proposes to gag them. He says you may stay at home
and vote, but must keep away from the General Court. I main-
tain that it is the duty of every voter in the state of New
Hampshire who has any interest, when the legislature is in ses-
sion to come down here and see the people who are making
the laws, call it third House, manipulation or anything else.
Such a course is not only proper, but in line of public dtity.
At the present time we have a right to petition the General
Court. Do you know of any body of citizens who ever pe-
titioned the General Court who were not respectfully heard and
their arguments considered? Are we not thus amply protected?
The public who are interested bring their petitions, interview
their representatives, have hearings, and then leave the matter
to be threshed out in the House and Senate. I submit to you,
Gentlemen, that this is the very best way we could possibly
devise.
374 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
We have laws on our statute books requiring everybody wlio
appears here in the interest of a corporation to register pub-
licly, so we all may know who A, B and C stand for when they
come before any Committee.
Speaking of fear about getting started, this gentleman, Mr.
Duncan, says a man who starts on a train down here ought
to know enough to get off when he has gone far enough, but
that gentleman must know that there are a whole lot of trains
that don't stop at every station, and if you get off at these yoa
have got to jump, and hundreds of men have lost their lives by
jumping.
Abraham Lincoln! That man's name has been taken in vain
more in the last six months than that of any man who ever trod
this earth. Abraham Lincoln stood for the government of the
people, by the people, and for the people, on the Constitution,
He never said anything derogatory to the Constitution. He
was not a revolutionist, and you, Mr. Duncan, can't put him
on your list of authorities. Abraham Lincoln stands, and
always will stand, as the greatest man of peace this country
ever produced. Bringing in these old saints to back up this
sort of clap-trap makes my blood boil.
Now, about this measure. My soul and body! Have you read
it? Down in the 87th line they strike at .Article 4 in the Con-
stitution and would virtually cut the heart out of that. Now,
Article 4 of the Constitution contains the provisions for estab-
lishing Courts and regulating offenses. Right here they pro-
pose to get in their first attack on the Courts. Then in respect
to Article 5. It says: "Amend Article 5 of Part Second by add-
ing at the end thereof the following: Except as provided in
Article 2." Article 2 is this proposed amendment. Article 5
deals with the whole subject of taxation that you and I have
been talking about so long, so they would' throw into this pot
the Courts and all subjects of taxation. What do you know
about that? This is what they are trying to accomplish. They
have stuck this provision on to the end. I dare say they would
be glad to drop it now and say they would be contented to
go along with the rest, just as Mr. Duncan did on his measure.
This resolution would allow the straight initiative and refer-
endum. Now Mr. Duncan comes out and says this is not so
strong as his resolution, which onlj^ provided for a referendum.
What do you think of that proposition? Apologized in the
first place for his own measure, and wouldn't offer us the initi-
ative direct, and now comes out with initiative and referendum
full fledged, and says it isn't so strong as his other bill. We
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 375
are not looking for consistencj'. We would like to get in touch
with something that is reasonable.
The statistics that thej' quote are ridiculous. They remind
me of that statistician who said that if all the cattle that were
slaughtered in this country could be put into one great cow,
with her head she would be cropping grass at the equator,
while with her tail she would bat the flies off the north pole,
and if all the hogs that are slaughtered in this country in
one year could be put into one hog, he could dig the Panama
Canal in two roots and a half, and his squeal would jar the
aurora borealis. They are great on statistics, but they don't
come to anything.
The railroad fight that Mr. HoUis speaks of is today going
along under the general law, and may not come before the leg-
islature. And do he and his friend think they cannot handle
that business? If they do, they depreciate their own ability.
That bill is supposed to take care of any of those things and
they will probably never come before the people.
Now, Gentlemen, it is a j)retty short time that I am given
here to close up a subject so full as this. It is absolutely
wicked, Gentlemen. We voted the thing down once. They are
trying to get a little hold here. They haven't covered the re-
call in just so many w^ords, but, I tell you if you don't stop
this thing now, it will be like the railroad train that starts
and don't stop. It is up to you and me to stand firm, w^ith
our hands together, good examples of North American white
men, not a bunch of people who go off half cocked. Let us
stand here. Gentlemen, for the things we believe are right,
that have been tried, and throughout one hundred twenty-five
years have revealed but one or two little sags, little drops,
from what is called strict virtue.
The time having arriyed at which it was voted that a vote
be taken, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord demanded the yeas and nays.
The demand was seconded by Mr. Drew of Lancaster, Mr.
Smith of Peterborough, Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey, Mr. Boynton
of Portsmouth, Mr. CHfford of Franklin, Mr. Lambert of
Manchester, Mr. Wolf of Berlin, Mr. Barton of Newport, and
Mr. Wason of Xashua, and the yeas and nays were ordered.
376 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
YEAS.
EocKiNGHAM CoTJNTT. Benson, Ingalls, Holmes, Towle^
Batchelder of Nottingham, Moran of Portsmouth, Foote,
Gowen.
Strafford County. Clark of Barrington, Folsom, Main,
Sherry, Sanders of Madbury, Eoberts, Ereston, Beaudoin,
Grant of Eollinsford, Brown of Somersworth, Cote, Flanagan,
Letourneau, Leclerc of Somersworth.
Belknap County. McDuffee of Alton, Moore of Barn-
stead.
Carroll County. Andrews of Bartlett, Fifield, Robert-
son, Hoyt of Madison, Lamprey, Hobbs of Wolfeboro.
Merrimack County. Buxton, Farrand, Marden of Con-
cord, Hollis of Ward 3, Concord, Hollis of Ward 4, Concord,
Hatch, Gallagher, Henneberry, Dean, Bean of Franklin,
Woodbury of Franklin, Jones of Franklin, Wilkins, Mitchell of
Hooksett, Boutwell, Sargent, Wellman of New London, Drake
of Pittsfield, Sawyer, Goodhue.
Hillsborouoh County. Eldredge, Fessenden, Dutton,
Ware, Hayden, Tarbell, Lindquist, Shontell, Broderick, Con-
nor of Ward 5, Manchester, Eagan, Howe of Manchester, Ma-
gan, Ryan, Sheehan, Morse of Manchester, Rodelsperger,
Schiller, Tinkham, Van Vliet, Geoffrion, Turcotte, Chevrette,
Connor of Ward 10', Manchester, Donnelly, Leclerc of Man-
chester, Eaton, Wadleigh of Milford, Conner of Mont Vernon,
Rancour, Parker of Nashua, Gaffney, Moran of Nashua, Shea,
Tolles, Clancy, Dionne, Ducharme, Theriault, Davis of New
Ipswich, Smith of Sharon, Nelson.
CheiSHIre County. Slade, Winn, Temple, Duncan, Stur-
tevant, Faulkner, Twitchell, Connors, Ball, Fisher.
Sullivan Coun-ty. Neal of Acworth, Quimby of Clare-
mont, Upham, Comings, Parker of Dempster, Bailey of Suna-
pee, Newton.
Grafton County. Spooner, Updyke, Clark of Haverhill^
Curry, Stevens of Landaff, Brummer, Bailey of Littleton,
Clement, Green of Woodstock.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 37T
Coos CouN^TY. Smith of Berlin, Stewart, Sullivan, Wolf,.
Sheehe, Whitcomb of Dalton, Wight, Cleaveland, Hancock,
Potter, Baldwin, Pike, Garland, Haarvei.
XAYS.
EocKiNGHAJM CouNTY. Pressey, Griffin, Knights, McDuf-
fee of Candia, Collins of Danville, Marston, Shepard, Webster,
Anderson, Eastman of Exeter, Sanborn, Emerson, Lane,.
Healey, Eowe, Collins of Kingston, Leighton, Willey, Hay-
ford, Dow, Hill of Plaistow, Entwistle, Hett, Batchelder of
Portsmouth, Boynton, Sise, Mitchell of Portsmouth, Guptill^
Brown of Eaymond, Drake of Eye, Gordon, Levering, Jewell
of South Hampton, Cochran.
Stkafk)ed County. Hurd of Dover, ISTeal of Dover,
Whittemore, Foss, Hall of Dover, DeMerritt, Knox, Willson of
Farmington, Snell, Hanson, Berry of New Durham, Eichards,
Meader, Marcotte, Hoyt of Eochester, Wallace, Haines, Dur>
gin.
Belknap Cotjnty. Bean of Belmont, Morrill of Centre
Haribor, Morrill of Gilford, Parsons, Prescott, Eichardson,
Busiel, Young of Laconia, Veazey of Laconia, Drake of La-
conia, Estes, Thyng, Wright, Fellows, Tilton.
Carroll CO'Unty. AViggin, Chandler, Shirley, Wormwood,
Huckins, Morey, Trickey, French of Moultonborough, Weeks
of Ossipee, Wentworth, Pollard, Berry of Wakefield, Abbott.
Merrimack CoimTY. Smith of Allenstown, Stone of An-
dover, Kittredge, Clough of Canterbury, Shaw of Chichester,
Tibbetts, Lyford, Mitchell of Concord, Corning, Morrill of
Concord, Bancroft, Kimball, Martin, Quimby of Concord, Hill
of Concord, Burnham, Tripp, Gardner, Clifford, Little, Doni-
gan. Young of Northfield, Fowler, G. W., of Pembroke, Fow-
ler, H. T., of Pembroke, Eainville, Clark of Pittsfield, Wad-
leigh of Sutton, Carroll.
Hillsborough Cou^^ty. Harvell, Soper, Patch, Hadley,
Seeton, Hardy, Flanders, Haslet, Brown of Hudson, Eicher,
Sayers, Tait, Brown of Manchester, Lambert, Pattee of Man-
chester, Warren, Wilson of Manchester, Crawford, Jones of
878 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Manchester, Libbev, Pillsbiiry of Manchester, Cavanaugh,
Fairbanks, Garmon, Haselton of Manchester, Young of Man-
chester, Chatel, Stevens of Manchester, Woodbury of Man-
chester, Biron, Demers, Gagne of ward 9, Manchester, Parker
of Merrimack, Keyes, McLane, Greeley, Andrews of Xashua,
French of Nashua, AVason, Eunnells, Woodbury of Nashua,
Hobbs of Pelham, Jones of Peterborough, Smith of Peter-
borough, Colburn, Bales.
CuEislHrRE Comrrr. Prentiss, Pierce of Dublin, Blake,
Hubbard, Mower of Jaffrey, Cain, Norwood, Pressler, Well-
man of Keene, Clark of Keene, Madden, Fuller of Marlbor-
ough, Craig, Euffle, Fletcher, Nims of Eoxbury, Spalding of
Stoddard, Goodnow, AATiitcomb of Swanzey, Stone of Troy,
Spaulding of Walpole, Nims of Westmoreland.
Sullivan Coui^y. Brooks, Rossiter, Davis of Croydon.
Booth, Howard, Winch, Barton, Johnson of Newport, Phil-
brick, Hixson.
Grafton Com^Y. Mathews, Gammons, Parker of Ben-
ton, Whipple, Barney of Canaan, Merrill, Young of Easton,
Carlton, Wells, Barney of Grafton, Jewell of Groton, Storrs,
Whitcher, Moore of Hebron, Carter, Hatton, True, Water-
man, Cakes, Eastman, Veazie of Littleton, Shute of Lyman,
Grant of* Lyme, Gilchrist, Ford, Carr, Keniston, Weeks of
Plymouth, Herbert, Green of Waterville, Shute of Went-
worth.
Coos County. Goss, Harriman, Johnson of Colebrook,
Lang, Clough of Jefferson, Drew, Morris, Watson, Simpson,
Knapp, Pattee of Stratford, Bowker.
Pairs.
Mr. Leddy of Epping was paired with Mr. Scammon of
Exeter.
Mr. Shaw of Salisbury was paired with Mr. Howe of Hins-
dale..
Mr. Hamblett of Nashua was paired with Mr. Phaneuf oi
Nashua.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 379
Mr. Newell of Surry was paired with Mr. Young of
Charlestown.
Mr. Kurd of Claremont was paired with Mr. Robinson of
Newport.
Mr. P. J. Smyth of Berlin was paired with Mr. Evans of
Gorham.
One hundred and thirty-two gentlemen having voted in the
affirmative and 229 gentlemen having voted in the negative
the motion did not prevail.
Question being on the adoption of the report of the Com-
mittee, —
On a viva voce vote the recommendation of the Committee
was adopted.
Mr. Wason of Nashua, for the Committee on Legislative De-
partment, to whom was referred Resolution No. 12, Relating
to the Jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, having consid-
ered the same, report the same with the following recommen-
dation:
Resolved, That the resolution be agreed to.
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the report of the Com-
mittee, —
Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — Mr. President andi Gentlemen of the
Convention, I won't take very much of your time, but I think
this resolution needs a little explanation, as it is a matter of
a technical nature, and perhaps not generally understood. In
the first place, I would' saj thut the title of the resolution is
perhaps a little misleading. The title is "Relating to Juris-
diction of Justices of the Peace." Now, as a matter of fact,
this, resolution does not change the jurisdiction of justices of
the peace, either with respect to criminal matters or civil mat-
ters. It relates solely to the jurisdiction of Police Courts. 1
want to explain briefly the present situation and past history
of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace and Police Courts.
Up to 1812 the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace in criminal
380 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
matters was confined to offenses wherein the punishment was
forty shillings, or a public whipping or setting in the stocks.
In 1S12 the legislature passed an act by which the offense of
larceny of property not exceeding $6.66 in value was to be pun-
ished by a fine of not exceeding $10 or imprisonment of not
exceeding thirty days. Justices of the peace were given jur-
isdiction of the offense.
In 1842 the legislature passed a general jurisdiction act for
justices of the peace, giving them jurisdiction of all offense's
wherein the fine did not exceed $10 and the imprisonment did
not exceed thirty days. This remained the law until 1867.
The legislature in 1867 undertook to increase those penalties.
As I understand it, it did not increase the number of offense*
which came within the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, but
it did increase the penalties. It increased the penalties so that
all offenses that were within the jurisdiction of justices of the
peace were punishable by fine not exceeding $20 or imprison-
ment not exceeding six months, or both. From 1867 down to
1896 we were acting under that law, not knowing that it was
unconstitutional, and many cases, no doubt, were tried and
heard and respondents convicted under an unconstitutional law,
or at least what the Court later said was an unconstitutional
law. In 1896 the legislature undertook, and did pass, an act as
follows: "Police Courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with
the Supreme Court in any criminal acts where the fine does
not exceed $200 and the term of imprisonment does not exceed
one year."
The next year there arose in the Police Court of the city of
Concord the case of State v. Gerry, 68 N. H. 495, wherein the
constitutionality of this law of 1896 was called in question, and
the Supreme Court of this state, through Chief Justice Carpen-
ter, who delivered the opinion, held that the law of 1896 was
unconstitutional. In the opinion of Chief Justice Carpenter we
find the following language referring to the law of 1867,
wherein justices of the peace were given jurisdiction of offenses
punishable by fine of $20 and not exceeding six months* im-
prisonment. "The question of the constitutionality of this ap-
parently increased jurisdiction of a justice of the peace has
never been raised. Whether it is to be or may be sustained on
the ground that the increase is ostensible rather than actual, —
that ten dollars in 1812 and 1842 and twenty dollars in 1867
was no more in value than forty shillings in 1784, and that im-
prisonment in jail for six months is not more than a just and
reasonable equivalent for the barbarous punishment of a pub-
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 381
lie whipping and setting in the stocks, or on the ground of
usage and acquiesence, — is a question not raised and not neces-
sary to be considered." ,
The lawyers of the state were very ready to accept this
hint from Judge Carpenter, and the next year the case of State
V. Jackson, 69 N. H. 511, was carried to the Supreme Court from
the Police Court of the town of Littleton. In the case of State
V. Jackson, Judge Chase wrote quite a long, elaborate opinion,
and the result was that the Court held that this law of 1867,
giving justices of the peace and Police Courts jurisdiction of
offenses punishable by fine of twenty dollars, was not consti-
tutional, in so far as the penalty was above the sum of ten
dollars. In other words, the Court set the limit of the pen-
altj at ten dollars, but the question of imprisonment was nob
decided in the case of State v. Jackson. ,
That remained open until 1908, when, in the case of Wil-
marth v. King, 74 N. H. 512, Chief Justice Parsons wrote an
opinion holding that the Court could not determine, as a ques-
tion of fact, that six months in jail was more than the equiva-
lent for the barbarous punishment of public whipping or set-
ting in the stocks.
So now, jurisdiction of justices of the peace and the juris-
diction of Police Courts is limited to a fine of ten dollars, but
they may impose a sentence of six months in jail.
The purpose of this amendment is to straighten out this situ-
ation. It is to empower the legislature to re-enact the law
in so far as it relates to Police Courts, which we acted under
for about thirty years, not knowing it was unconstitutional.
Perhaps I need to say nothing more in explanation of it. It
seems to me that the safety of respondents is well taken care
of by the right of appeal. There has grown up, as I under-
stand it, in many Police Courts of the state, a practice of al-
lowing respondents to come into Court, waive the jurisdiction
of the Courts, and waive their right of trial by jury, so that
they may be fined in that Court. This is done to save expense
and for the good of the respondent himself, that he may not,
perhaps, lie in jail thirty or sixty days awaiting trial. It
seems to me this practice is very questionable and wrong. It
shows the necessity of some increased jurisdiction of Police
€ourts.
This amendment, if adopted, will also be a great saving to
the counties of the state. I will give you just one illustration
showing how it will be a saving. We will suppose that in the
-town of Bethlehem, in the county of Grafton, someone is
382 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
charged with an offense of aggravated assault immediately fol-
lowing the term of Court in that county in September. If he
has a desire to plead guilty, — perhaps I ought not to have se-
lected the offense of aggravated assault for illustration, but
some offense not punishable by confinement in state prison, —
if he wants to plead guilty, that plea cannot be accepted, and
that case cannot be disposed of. The only alternative is to
bind the respondent over to appear before the grand jury. He
is bound over. We assume he cannot get bail. The county will
be obliged to stand the expense of the conveyance of that
prisoner from Bethlehem to the jail in Haverhill, bear the ex-
pense of summoning witnesses before the grand jury, bear the
expense of taking the respondent from jail to the Court at
Woodsville, and back again, simply for the purpose of having
his sentence imposed. In the meantime the respondent has
lain in jail five months or more at the further expense of tliG
county.
Now, that is wrong to the county; it is wrong to the respond-
ent. It seems to me a large number of these cases might be
taken care of if the legislature had the right to pass an act
which would increase the jurisdiction of Police Courts. It
would be a great saving to the counties and the respondent's
rights would be safeguarded. I believe that the resolution
ought to be adopted. ,
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Mr. President, this amendment was
submitted ten years ago by unanimous vote of the Convention,
after thorough discussion, and simply because it was not un-
derstood it failed by a little less than one thousand votes.
The Committee was unanimous in its report in favor of its
being again submitted to the people.
Mr. Wason of NasJma. — Just one word more: My friend, Mr.
Lyford from Concord, took part of the words out of my mouth,
and I subscribe to all he said. At the Convention ten years
ago my brother Morris, who then came from Lisbon as I re-
call it, and who was then county solicitor for Grafton County,
introduced this same amendment. It passed, as the gentlemarr
from Concord says, unanimously, and went, with other amend-
ments, to the people, and came within 949 votes of being
adopted, without any effort being made, and the reason why
it wasn*t adopted was because nobody paid any attention to it,
went as a matter of course. Now, Brother Morris has had
experience to observe the working of the statute under the
Court's interpretation of the jurisdiction of Police Courts, while
he was solicitor. I myself, since that time, have had some op-
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 383
portuiiity to judge of it in my own county, and I agreed with
him then, and I agree with him more now. It is a matter that
is needed for economy's sake and for convenience of the re-
spondent.
Take, for instance, in our county, our Court, as you gentle-
men from Hillsborough County know, is burdened with a lot of
work. Many of these minor offenses can be settled in the Po-
lice Courts, and effectually settled, and the respondent's rights
are protected, mind you, because, if he is dissatisfied with the
finding of the Police Court he can appeal and be tried in the
Superior Court, just the same as though the Police Court simply
had the right to bind him over or make him furnish bonds to
await the action of the Superior Court. Now, then, there will
be a saving of the time of the Superior Court, as I- have said.
Take the towns of Peterborough and Hillsborough, which are
thirty-five or fortj' miles distant from Nashua, where one oi
the ternis of Court is holden. An offense where the respond-
ent may be brought before the justice of either of these Courts
might be settled to the satisfaction of the state, and to the sat-
isfaction of the respondent without the respondent being
obliged to furnish bonds. It would save the cost of prosecution,
and. the laws of the state could be just as effectively enforced
as under our present method.
One word more: The practice has grown up to have the
respondent, by writing, sign an agreement waiving his rights
under the law and the Constitution. This is done in many
cases. I don't know whether that is legal or not. I have grave
doubts about it, and I think my Brother Morris shares that
same opinion with me. I do know that it is not proper, and
I know that we ought to furnish the authority to the Police
Courts so that a respondent can be tried and his matter de-
termined without waiving his constitutional rights, and I do
not think a man can properly do that. So I say nobody will
be hurt; it will make our Constitution and the laws of the
state conform to the practice, and I believe next time that it
will be adopted by the voters.
Mr. Clifford of Franklin. — I do not know that there is oppo-
sition to this proposed amendment, but I wish to add my sup-
port to the same. The proposed amendment, if adopted, would
relieve the Superior Court of much of its criminal work, and
respondents charged with misdemeanors from a large part of
the costs they are now obliged to pay as a result of witnesses
appearing, not only before the Police Courts, but before the
grand jury, this relief being particularly needed by respondents
of limited means.
384 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Oreeley of Nashua. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I wish
to say just a few words upon this question. The gentlemen
who have preceded me have stated the leg-al situation, but there
is a broad principle involved that you may desire to support.
As the law now is, any man who is arraigned in Police Court,
when the fine exceeds ten dollars, is not guilty, and cannot be
found guilty until he is found guilty by a jury. Now, this
resolution is wrong, in my opinion, in this, that in the first
instance, in all criminal cases within the final jurisdiction of
this bill, a man who goes into Police Court is either acquitted
or he is found guilty. He is found guilty without a jury trial.
Now, Gentlemen, if there are reasons for this radical change,
then a change should be made. Throughout the history of this
state, from the foundation of the Constitution, it has been
otherwise, and' it seems to me that at the present day the
reason for the change does not exist. It seems to me that
every man who goes into a Police Court for any alleged crime
exceeding a petty misdemeanor is entitled to be called not
guilty until he is proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Gen-
tlemen, the effect of this resolution is this, — it is the same
broad principle upon which you decided the referendum, the
same principle upon which you decided the taxation question.
In the first place, in the question of referendum, you decided
that it was not wise, as a matter of public policy, that the
people of the state should have so unrestricted a say upon
matters of legislation. On the matter of taxation, you decided
that the body of the legislature should not have an unrestricted
say as to the manner of taxation, but here in this resolution
you say that one man shall impose on another man the stigma
of guilty in major criminal offenses without a jury trial. Gen-
tlemen, that is opposed to the whole current of our history,
and for that reason, if for no other, I oppose the resolution.
Mr. Batchelder of Portsmouth. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,
I simply want to add a word to say, as a former solicitor, and
liaving experience similar to that of the gentleman from
Nashua and the gentleman from Franklin, that I agree thor-
oughly with them. A resolution of this sort is necessary to get
rid of the burden of petty cases that now have to go through
-the grand jury and the Superior Court, where they do not
belong.
Mr. Eastman of Exeter. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I am in favor of the adoption of this proposed
•amendment, having had' some experience in criminal matters in
■the last twenty years. According to my observation, the pro-
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 385
posed amendment is in the Une of progress, and does not pr-d-
vent anybody from trial by jurj'. As has been suggested by the
gentleman from Nashua, it enables the Court to dispose of
small matters, and more frequently than otherwise, at the re-
quest of the respondent himself, who does not like to lie in jail
six or eight months awaiting trial by jury; and' certainly, if
the case is one beyond the jurisdiction of Police Courts now
established, or which shall be established by this proposed
amendment, he has this right of a trial by jury. There is no
more argument in favor of rejecting this proposed amendment
than there is argument in favor of saying there should not be
any convictions for criminal offenses unless the respondent is
tried by jury. I hope the proposed amendment will prevail.
Mr. Wason of Nashua. — Just one word in reply to my Brother
Greeley of Nashma: I want you to remember that his objection
is that a single judge, a Police Court judge in Manchester,
Nashua, Milford, Peterborough or Concord, naming over the
large places, pronounces a man guilty without a jury trial.
That is so for the moment, but if the man feels that he is not
guilty, and the judge says that he is, he can appeal to the
Superior Court and, under our Constitution, go to twelve men
of his peers and they finally will say whether he is guilty,
and, until they render that verdict, he is an innocent man
under our law, and if they render a verdict acquitting him,
he leaves the court house an innocent, free man. Momentarilj'",
while he or his counsel in the Police Court are getting onto
their feet to tell the judge who is hearing the case that they
wish to appeal, he is a guilty man, and no longer.
Now, Gentlemen of the Convention, I have no special interest
in this matter. You have heard what my Brother Eastrpan
from Exeter, — and you know his experience in criminal mat-
ters, — says. Yoa have heard' what Brother Clifford of Frank-
lin says, and he is solicitor for Merrimack county. You have
heard what Brother Morris says, and he has been solicitor
of Grafton county, and Brother Batchelder has been solicitor
of Rockingham county. None of these men have any interest
in this subject except to relieve the Superior Court, and give
the respondent in any case the right to dispose of his matters
without filing a written plea waiving his constitutional rightg.
Another thing, in the larger cities there are ordinances
passed relating to this and that for the government of per-
sons in that city. Many of these ordinances carry a penalty
not exceeding twenty dollars. Take one for illustration: Sup-
pose in the city of Concord, or in Nashua, on recommendation
386 Journal of Constitutional Contention.
of the Board of Health, an ordinance was passed that if any
man spit upon the sidewalk he should be fined not exceeding
twenty dollars. Under the decision of our Court, interpreting
the Constitution as it stands today, the Police Court of the city
of Concord, unless the man waived his right of appeal, could
only bind the respondent over. He would have to wait to have
his case go before the grand jury and before the Superior
Court. The same would be true in Nashua. This amendment
proposes that the gentleman who has violated that ordinance
can be tried before a judge at a given Court, and if he knows
he is guilty say so, have his case heard and settle, without
being bound over for one, two, three or perhaps four months,
until a grand jury can determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to warrant bringing in an indictment against him
that he spit upon the sidewalk. Mr. President, I believe that
this Convention will submit this proposition to the people for
ratification.
Mr. Wolf of Berlin. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, I would
like to say a word in favor of this resolution of Mr. Morris.
I am on the Board of Health in Berlin, and we have just the
same difficulties that my friend Mr. Wason has described in
Nashua. I am very sure that if this resolution is passed and
the people ratify it when it is finally referred to them, that it
would be of great assistance in enforcing the local health laws,
and I am, therefore, heartily in favor of it.
Mr. Cain of Keenc— 'Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Con-
vention, while I have known nothing in regard to this reso-
lution until I heard it, still, as solicitor of some years' experi-
ence, I am in hearty accord with it, because I have seen just
such operations as have been described here in connection with
the Police Courts. And, so far as the objection raised by the
gentleman from Nashua is concerned, it deprives the respond-
ent of no right he possesses. The mere fact the respondent
may be found guilty in Police Court is no evidence of guilt in
Superior Court, any more than if a true bill is found by the
grand jury, and I think the rights of the respondent will be
fully protected in this matter and it will be a great aid to the
civil authorities.
Mr. Toimg of ManelieMer. — Without any desire to shut off
further debate, but with a feeling that everyone is ready to
vote upon the question now, I would call for the previous ques-
tion.
The Presi<l^nt.— The previous question is not provided for in
the rules of this Convention, and the Chair will recognize the
gentleman from Nashua, Mr. Greeley.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 387
Mr. Greeley of NmJina.—'Sir. President and Gentlemen, I ask
the indulgence of the Convention for a word more. My point
has been wholly misunderstood. I have not said that under
this resolution the man who stands convicted in Police Court
does not have a right of appeal. The resolution expressly says
that he does, and no harm can result to him from that. But
the point of my objection is this: Under a law enacted in
pursuance of this resolution, the moment a man is found guilty
by a single judge in a Police Court he goes forth from that
Police Court a convicted criminal, and he stays a convicted
criminal until he assumes the burden of going into the Superior
Court, and is acquitted by jury. This should not be so, and is
not so under existing law, and never has been so in this state.
At the present time a Police Court justice, in any offense where
the fine exceeds $10, can only bind over and can only find
probable cause. In that finding no criminalty attaches. The
man is still innocent and he stays innocent until he is found
guilty by a jury. That is existing law. But, under this reso-
lution if adopted, a man convicted of a major criminal offense
by a single justice in a Police Court is guilty, and he stays
guilty until he assumes the burden of the initiative and a jury
find him innocent. The policy of our law throughout the his-
tory of our state has established this safeguard for every
man's good name, which this resolution would take away.
Now, Gentlemen, the Committee have made their report on
this matter. I do not for a minute think any remarks of mine
will induce them to change that report. But there is one
thing we can do, Gentlemen; we can go back to our constit-
uents and tell them our views about this matter.
Suppose, Gentlemen, that any one of you have a family.
Suppose you live on a street and opposite your house is an-
other house of some character which you do not like. Sup-
pose some criminal offense is being committed there. What do
you do? Your first step is to make complaint to the proper
authorities. They make an arrest. Suppose, under this reso-
lution, a law is in force, and the man arrested is arraigned in
Police Court and acquitted. What rights have you then? Ab-
solutely none. You can sit back and twiddle your thumbs.
Your complaint of an important criminal offense has been
disposed of for good and all by a single Police Court justice.
The person of whom you complained is acquitted, and is a free
man, and cannot be placed in jeopardy twice for the same of-
fense. This would be liable to happen at any time, and yo-i,
as complainant and a citizen working for your livelihood,
would have no feasible redress.
388 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
What can you do under existing- law? If you, as complain-
ant, don't get justice in a Police Court, for police judges are
fallible, — and an offender is discharged, you can, in spite of
that discharge, present the same case to a grand jury and re-
quire your neighbors and fellow citizens to pass upon the
reasonableness of your complaint. If they find the complaint
is justified, the person complained of is still innocent, but the
state is then required to show his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, and a jury must find him guilty before he can be called
guilty.
These are the points I make. In a word, the underlying ob-
jection to this resolution is this: Excessive power for any ono
man, — I don't care who he is. Police Court judge or otherwise,
good, bad or indifferent, — is a dangerous thing for him to have.
No safeguard to a good name is too great. No one man should
be permitted to affix on your character the stigma of guilt of
any important offense. That should happen, if happen it must,
only after formal indictment and a jury trial.
Someone has said that county solicitors would be accom-
modated by a law enacted in pursuance of this resolution;
that it would relieve them of many burdensome cases and save
their time. But is not the proper place to make a complaint
of that kind before the legislature? If a county solicitor's
duties are onerous and he needs more pay, the legislature,
under existing law, may give him more pay. If he needs assist-
ants, the legislature may give him assistants. This involves
no question of a constitutional amendment, but to incorporate
into our Constitution and make a part of our organic and
fundamental law a principle which has never existed and ought
not to exist in this state, that any man may be convicted and
found guilty of any major criminal offense before indictment
and a trial by a jury of his peers, — this is radically wrong.
On a viva voce vote the recommendation of the Committee
was adopted and the resolution was referred to the Committee
on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amend-
ments Agreed to by the Convention.
Mr. Martin of Concord, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, to whom was referred Eeeolution No. 52, Relat-
ing to Betterments, having considered the same, report that it
is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as proposed in the
amendment.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 389
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the report of the Com-
mittee, —
Mr. Young of Mancliester. — ^As I am the father of that resolu-
tion, and as I wish to preach the funeral sermon over the reso-
lution, I trust the members of the Convention w^ill support the
report of the Committee.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Mr. Martin of Concord, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, to whom was referred Resolution No. 32, Amend-
ing Art. 5, Sect. 2, of the Constitution, Establishing Better-
ment Laws, having considered the same, report that it is inex-
pedient to amend the Constitution as proposed in the resolu-
tion.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
On motion of Mr. Lyf ord of Concord, the use of Represen-
tatives hall was granted the Legislative Committee for this
evening for a hearing on the various resolutions relating to
representation in the House of Representatives.
On motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, the Convention
adjourned at 3.4.0 o'clock.
Afternioo'n Session.
The Convention met immediately after the morning ad-
journment.
(The President in the chair.)
On motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill the Convention re-
solved itself into Committee of the Whole, for the consid-
eration of Resolution No. 29, Relating to the Recall.
390 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
In CJoMMrr^E'E of the Whole.
(Mr. Hurd of Claremont in the chair.)
Mr. Barton of Newport moved that the Committee now rise,
and recommend to the Convention that it is inexpedient to
amend the Constitution as proposed in the resolution.
On a viva voce vote the motion prevailed.
In Conye^^tion.
(The President in the chair.)
Mr. Hurd of Claremont, for the Committee of the Whole,
to whom was referred Resolution No. 29, Relating to the Re-
call, having considered the same, recommend to the Conven-
tion that it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as pro-
posed in the resolution.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
On motion of Mr. Quimby of Claremont, the Convention re-
solved itself into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of
considering all resolutions pertaining to representation in the
Senate, the same being, —
Resolution No. 2, Relating to the Senate.
Resolution No. 25, Relating to the Senate.
In Committee of the Whole.
(Mr. Warren of Manchester in the chair.)
Mr. Lyford of Concord.— The Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment has one or two measures of that kind which I could re-
turn now unofficially if it is desired to have them before the
Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Upham of Claremont. — When the matter of representa-
tion was taken up, I moved an amendment that the Committee
of the Whole take up the matter of representation in the Hou*-e
and Senate together, and now there is to be a public hearing"
tonight on the question of representation in the House, while
the Senate matter is apparently skipped. Why wouldn't it
\Yednesday, June 19, 1912. 391
be a saving- of time if this matter could also be taken up at
that public hearing?
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — If the gentleman will allow me, I will
say we have had so many requests to speak on the question ol
representation in the House, that I doubt if we ought to, in
justice to this question, consider the two together before our
Committee.
Mr. Barton of Newport. — With an idea of getting these bills
all together before the Committee, where they may be dis-
cussed tonight, I would make the motion that we go into Com-
mittee of the Whole, if necessary, to report these bills back to
the Convention, and that they may be referred to the Com-
mittee on Legislative Department.
The President. — If the gentleman from Claremont, Mr. Quimby,
will withdraw his motion to go into Committee of the Whole,
then the motion of the gentleman from Newport will be in
order to recall these matters from the Committee of the Whole
and refer them to the Standing Committee; otherwise the gen-
tleman's motion is not in order. Does the gentleman from
Claremont, Mr. Quimby, insist upon his motion?
Mr. Quimby of Claremont. — If there is anything else of im-
portance to take up, I will withdraw the motion; but, if there
is not, I insist upon my motion.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — I would like to say just a word on
this question. All the bills concerning representation in the
House were discussed in Committee of the Whole, and an
agreement reached by the Committee of the Whole that we
should stick to the town system, and that the House should
be reduced to a number not in excess of 350. Now, no proposi-
tion concerning the Senate has been discussed at all in Com-
mittee of the Whole, and it is just exactly as important a mat-
ter as the matter of representation in the House, and before
this thing is sent to any Committee to put into any shape, I
think we ought to have the sense of this whole Convention, and
find out how we feel on the question of the size of and repre-
sentation in the Senate. I think that will save time and give
everybody a fair chance.
Mr. WMtcher of Eavei'MU. — I hope the motion of the gentle-
man from Claremont will prevail. It was understood the other
day that these matters of representation in the Senate should
have the same chance for discussion as those pertaining to rep-
resentation in the House, and that discussion ought to be in
Committee of the Whole. I agree with the gentleman from
Xandaff, Mr. Stevens, in that respect.
392 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
The President. — The Chair would state that, in the Committee
of the Whole the other day, representation in both the Senate
and House was under consideration, but that the Committee
passed a recommendation regarding the House alone, and that
report was adopted by the Convention, and the matter of the
House was sent to the Legislative Committee, but they were
both under consideration at the time, and that leaves the mat-
ter of the Senate in the way of unfinished business in Com-
mittee.
Mr. Cfoss of Berlin. — It is necessary for someone to commence
the discussion upon this question, and, as it particularly con-
cerns the section which I represent, I take the opportunity to
open it. A resolution. No. 27, has been presented by me, but
I have not heard it mentioned up to the present time. The
reason, I apprehend, is that, not being present at the Conven-
tion at the time when that resolution was presented, I had
asked the Secretary to have it referred to the proper Com-
mittee, where it appears to have been sent, but no action taken
upon it.
In the resolution which was presented by me, there were
provisions for three things, which, it seems to me, ought to be
taken up and considered at the same time. One was for a
change in the representation in the House, one for a change
in the representation in the Senate, and one, a subject which
I do not remember to have heard brought up anywhere else,
a change in the compensation of the members of the legis-
lature, and I believe that the latter is an important matter for
our consideration. The members of our state legislature are
the poorest paid officials in the state of New Hampshire, and
have been for many years. The Constitution which was adopted
in 1792 did not fix the rate of compensation for the mem-
bers, but provided that the legislature should fix their com-
pensation. I have been unable to find what the compensation
was earlier than 1830, but I do find a resolution in the acts
of the legislature of 1830, giving to the members of the legislat-
ure, House and Senate, compensation at the rate of $2 per day
and ten cents a mile travel. Now that was what they were re-
ceiving almost ninetj' years ago. The compensation of mem-
bers of the legislature today is $200, fixed by the Constitution,
and we have our mileage paid by the state. The compensation,
you will see, of members of the legislature today is substan-
tially the same as it was in 1830. Our legislature now lasts
for a period of about one hundred days, and a member gets
$200 for the session. As compared with the salaries of other
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 393-
olticers of the state, there has been a manifest injustice done
to the members of the legrislature. In 1830 the Governor re-
ceived a salary of $1,000; today the Governor has a salary of
$2,000. The justices of the Court of Common Pleas and justices
of the Supreme Court received, at that time, $1,200. Today,
the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the chief justice
of the Superior Court receive $4,200 each, and the associate
justices receive $4,000 each. The same relative difference in
the salaries of other officers of the state between 1830 and the
present time will be found if a comparison is made.
So the resolution which I introduced provided for some relief
in the matter of compensation for the members of the legis-
lature. It has been suggested that it was a good custom, and
that the old practice was to send a member from the same
town for more than one term, his first term naturally being*
more or less of an experience for him, and fitting him for more
active duties later on; and that we do not keep it up now.
There is, however, a very good reason why we do not and can-
not, and it is that a man does not feel, especially from my
end of the state, that he can give substantially ten or twelve
weeks of his time and not get enough to pay expenses out of
it; so that is a subject w^hich I think ought to be taken up In
connection with the others.
Xow, just a word in regard to the town system of representa-
tion. I quite agree with the gentlemen of the Convention that
the old town system is first rate. The first difficulty is whether
or not an equitable method of reducing it can be found. If
we can, whj^ that is first-rate. But if we cannot, I would, never-
theless, pay our representatives ahd senators larger salaries.
One reason why I was in favor of the district system was be-
cause I thought through that system we could reduce the mem-
bership of the House to two hundred or thereabouts, and we
could double the pay of our members without increasing the
expense of the state; but, if that cannot be done, I believe we
should increase the pay anyway, because, even if we should
pay our members $300 or $400 a session, we should not be pay-
ing any more in proportion to the wealth of the state than
they were paying in 1830, when they were paying $2.00 a day.
Now, a word in regard to the Senate. The Senate, or the
function of the Senate, as it was formulated by the fathers of
the Constitution, evidently was to act as a check upon hasty
legislation in the House. It was originally the practice that
the Senate should only be elected from the property class.
Their function, apparently, was to conserve the financial in-
394 JouiiNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
terests of the community against hasty action by the popular
branch of the legislature. Now, the founders of the Constitu-
tion appear to have realized that that Senate might be smaller
than the House of Representatives, but they did not probably
anticipate that it would be relatively so much smaller, as it has
been most of the time since it was created by the adoption of
the Constitution of 1784. The Senate appears to have devel-
oped from the Committee of Safety, which was elected in 177G,
I believe, from the Provincial Assembly. At that time the
Assembly consisted, if I am right, of fiftj^-four members, and
this Committee of Safety of twelve, so that at the beginning
this Committee was about one fourth the size of the Assembly,
When the Constitution was adopted, in 1784, the Senate w'as
made twelve in number, probably from this Committee of
Safety, and at that time the House consisted of between eighty
and ninety members, so that the ratio of the Senate to the
House was about one to seven. The Senate has a fixed num-
ber, which does not require change with the changes in popula-
tion or valuation, so the Senate remained at twelve until there
was a Constitutional Convention which proposed a change.
That did not occur until 1876, by which time the House had
grown up to more than three hundred members. Then the
membership of the Senate was changed to tw^enty-four mem-
bers. The House has increased another hundred members, and
the Senate still remains at twenty-four. Now, it seems to me
that that imposes too much of a burden on too few men, if
twenty-four can veto any act which has passed four hundred
representatives.
So small a number checking or stopping the action of a body
as large as four hundred necessarily are more or less criticised
by the four hundred men whose actions they overrule. It is
natural that a member of the House should say, "Why, a mem-
ber of the Senate doesn't know any more about this than I
do. Here are four hundred of us who passed an act, and it is
a shame that twelve or thirteen men, or a^majority of the Sen-
ate, can sit over there in another room and say no to every-
thing we do," and of course it throws more or less odium upon
the members of the Senate.
Mr. Baj-ton of Newport moved that unanimous consent be
given Mr. Goss of Berlin to discuss the question ten minutes
extra.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912.
Objection being raised, —
Unanimous consent was not granted.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I wan-t
to call the attention of the members of this Committee to Ar-
ticle 25 of the Constitution, which is under consideration, par-
ticularly to the first and second line: "And that the state may
be equally represented in the Senate, the legislature shall, from
time to time, divide the state into- twenty-four districts." "That
the state may be equally represented"; I want to say to you in
a moment that at the present time, under our present district
system, that statement is not true. The state is not divided
into equal districts, except on a basis of property. We have
been told that the Senate was originallj^ formed to protect
property. We have had abundant proof in the past one hundred'
and twenty-five years that property has been amply able to
protect itself, and we should, I believe, at this time change our
Constitution so that we may have the different portions of the
state equally represented in the Senate, a condition which
does not now prevail.
District No. 1 had 4,900 votes cast for senator in the last
election; District No. 16 had 1,849; District No. 18 had 5,782;
District No. 24 had 1,930. That means that in District No. 16
one voter had as much power in the election of senator as three
voters in District No. 18. I believe that is not what is con-
templated by the Constitution, — "that the state may be equally
represented in the Senate," — and it seems to me that should be
changed. I have examined the Constitutions of the states of
the Union quite closely, and I cannot find another state which
has the same provision ns ours, that the basis of representation
in the Senate shall be property. Massachusetts discarded it
years ago. The average vote for senator in the last election
was 3,326. Of course the difficulty comes in districts where
there are large property interests and few people.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, that is not
what the Constitution contemplates, and I certainly hope that
the provision of the Constitution providing for the sub-divi-
sion of the state into senatorial districts on a property basis
will be done away with, as far as this Convention can bring It
about.
Mr. Gamnaugh of Manchester.— Ur. Chairman and Gentlemen, I
just want to say a word or two on this matter at this time, and
that is, I think there should be a change in the law relating to
396 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
the making up of the Senate, increasing the number to whatever
might be agreed to as a fair increase, and making the basis of
representation population rather than taxable propertj'. Now,
in the session of 1905, I happened to be a member of the Senate
from the 16th District. The 16th District in the city of Man-
chester includes Wards 1 and 2 and those two wards have 2,326
voters. The 18th District in the city of Manchester includes
Wards 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10; the number of voters is well over
8,000. Now, that is the situation which confronts us in the city
of Manchester. The proportion, or rather the disproportion,
is not so great in the 17th District, but in the 16th District the
senator who happens to be elected represents 2,326 voters; tho
gentleman who is elected, representing the 18th District, rep-
resents Wards 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and there are over 8,000 voters.
The senator who represents the 17th District, which includes
Wards 3, 4, and 7, represents a total of 3,900 voters. Now, at
this stage of the debate, or explanation, that is about all I wish
to say on this matter. I want to bring these facts before the
members of this Committee, as emphasizing the position which
I take, that the basis of representation in the Senate of our
state should be on population rather than the amount of tax-
able property in any district. So far as the city of Manches-
ter is concerned, of course, it may be said we would want thia
because we shall benefit by it. I presume w^e shall benefit by it,
If this change is made, but we shall benefit by it because we
have the people there, — we have the population there, — and I
think the same basis should be used for membership in the
Senate as for membership in the House; that is, population.
And if we are going to pass laws here, or make any change at
all in the matter of representation, — if any change is going lo
be made in the representation in the House, the representation
from the city of Manchester, of course, is going to be reduced
greatly. According to the provisions of one of the resolu-
tions, it is going to be reduced twenty-eight; according to an-
other resolution, if it should be adopted, we are going to have
thirty-four less than we shall otherwise have. If the law re-
mains as it is, we shall have fifty-nine men in the House from
Manchester. One resolution provides for five, another for
twenty-eight, another for thirty-one, and so on. Let's consider
both the House and Senate propositions together when we get
to them. I want the members to undersand it is not because
I am from the city of Manchester that I think the proper way
to represent the people of this state is on the basis of popula-
tion, and I am willing to see the number of senators increased
Wednesday June 19. 1912. 397
from twenty-four to that which will be reasonable in the mindvS
of the members of this Convention.
Mr. Cross of Berlm. — I believe in Committee of the Whole a
member has the right to speak more than once. When my time
expired, I was about to discuss the basis upon which repre-
sentation in the Senate is founded. The original basis of rep-
resentation in the Senate was a property basis. In a modified
form, a property basis has been continued to the present. The
Constitution provides that the legislature shall, from time to
time, divide the state into districts on a basis of valuation.
The last districting was made in 1876, at the time when the
number of senators was increased from twelve to twenty-four,
and naturally, as the state has increased in wealth, those dis-
tricts have grown out of proportion. I anticipate that very
soon, whether any change in the number of senators is or is
not made, the matter of redistricting the state for senatorial
purposes will come up for consideration. The number of dis-
tricts being twenty-four, each district should pay its twenty-
fourth part of the $1,000, which is the basis upon whicli money
is apportioned to the various towns and cities. That would give
$41,67 as the amount of state tax, which should be paid by each
district. Now, we find that District No. 1, which is the district
in which I live, pays $59.97, or about $18.30, more than enough
to entitle it to a member in the Senate. Several of the dis-
tricts pay not far from $30.00 for the senatorial district. Dis-
trict 24 pays $31.70. Districts 14 and 15 each pay approximately
$31. I couldn't compute exactly what some of the districts
paid because where a district is made up in part of a city the
assessment was made against the city as a whole. In those
cases the only way to compute the valuation was by taking
the proportionate part, as near as it could be guessed. The citj-^
of Manchester, however, pays $162.40, or just about enough for
four senators under the present system of apportionment. It
has only three. So it appears to me that very soon, whether
we take this matter up before this Constitutional Convention
or not, this question is sure to come up, and there will have to
be a redistricting. Moreover, everybody who has spoken on the
question, as far as I remember, favors representation by popula-
tion, and it seems to me that it is the only proper way^, the
proper basis upon which to found representation in our Sen-
ate. Now, we find that the population varies greatly amongst
the various districts. District 24 has a population of 9,719, while
District 18, which comprises wards 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of Manches-
ter, has a population of 41,998; I don't suppose that District
398 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
24 will want to be wiped out. It is the Portsmouth district,
taking in all of the wards of Portsmouth but one, and also
takes in the town of Newington. Now, if the Senate is raised
to fifty in number it would give a senator to each 8,611. That,
as you see, would be ample to give a senator to District 24,
and have about a thousand overplus. It would give an oppor-
tunity for evening up the representation in other parts of the
state, without disturbing the present districts very seriously,
so that, for obvious reasons, it would be well to have a Senate
of about that size. It would be more convenient to figure out
than it is now.
In the next place, it would give us one senator to about every
eight representatives. That is, we would say that one man in
the upper House was sufficient to pass upon the doings of eiglit
members of the lower House, and provide a check to any hasty
action on their part, and it would be getting back somewhere
near what the proportion was when the Constitution was
adopted in 1783, and became effective in 1784. So, then, I would
suggest, — and will say I haven't any very great desire to have
any particular number used, — that if you conclude to make a
change in the Senate, and conclude to bring it up to about
what the fathers evidently thought it should be to be propor-
tionate to the other House, you use a number somewhere in
the neighborhood of fifty.
Mr. Dean of Danbury moved that the Committee report to
the Convention that it is the sense of the Committee that the
Senate he increased and the division of districts be made on
a basis of population; and recommend that all resolutions re-
lating to the Senate be referred to the Committee on Legisla-
tive Department with instructions to report an amendment to
the Constitution increasing the Senate and that the division
of districts be based upon population.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Dean of Danbury, —
Mr. Quimby of Claremont.—Mr. President, the members of the
Convention are here surely to act advisedly and for what they
consider to be the best interests of the future legislation of
the state, and I will say I am particularly interested in these
topics which we are discussing this afternoon, — the matter c)f
the number of our senators and the mode of dividing the state
into senatorial districts. I am not especially particular what
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 399
the number shall be, still I think forty, as stated in the amend-
ment which I have presented to the Convention, is perhaps best
suited to the conditions of the state. It has been stated upon
the floor of this Convention that if we increase the Senate we
shall have to increase the size of the Senate chamber, but I
think that is somewhat erroneous. The Senate chamber is
large enough to accommodate forty members in its present size,
without any crowding whatever. One of the things to be con-
sidered in this matter of increasing the Senate is, What is the
need of it? And that is the important matter. It has been
suggested quite frequently here in this Convention that there
is more or less lobbying done here among the legislators. Now,
that being the case, which it is recognized to be, then let's
have the Senate a little larger, so that our senators will not
be so much embarassed by the lobbyists that come before them,
but they will be a body that will not be so easily influenced b3''
one or two orators who may appear to them, but that they
will get back to the people who elected them, and find out their
desires, and then come to the Senate prepared to vote as the
people at home want them to, and not as two or three orators
may dictate. It has also been brought out, and I do not see
why there should be this inequality or unevenness between the
number of the Senate and of the House. It seems to me out
of proportion. If you reduce the number of the House to about
300 members, then you can increase the Senate to forty mem-
bers, and you will then have a body of legislators that is more
evenly balanced. The proportionate number of the senators to
the representatives would be miich smaller than it would aver-
age in most of the states in the United States. Now, we come
to the latter part of the amendment, which has been quite
fully discussed by former speakers, that of districting the state
according to the population and not according to property. I
hope this feature of the resolution will go through, and that
the Convention will see fit to adopt some measure which will
increase our Senate and provide a more equal way of district-
ing, and I hope at this time, as we report progress on this
measure to the Legislative or Standing Committee, to whom
these measures go, that we will not state the number thirty-
six, as has been suggested by this resolution, but leave all these
matters open to the Committee, and let them judge whether
it shall be 36, 50 or 40 or 31. I think we have one bill for 31,
one for 36, one for 40 and two for 50. Therefore I recommend,
or hope, that the Committee will report all of these measures
favorably, and let the Standing Committee decide which is best.
400 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Quimby of Claremont moved to amend the .motion by
inserting the words "do now rise and,'' after the word, "Com-
mittee."
Mr. Dean of Danbury accepted the amendment.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Dean of Danbury as
amended, —
Mr. VpMm of Claremwit. — I think in the matter of the size
of the Senate in Xew Hampshire that it has always been dispro-
portionate. The number of senators is much less in this state
than in the other states. We have a very much larger House
than other states, and the smallest Senate. I believe that in
the long" run it would be for the greater good of the public if
our Senate should be increased to forty-eight or fifty members,
and that our House be decreased to 350 or 300 members. That
would make the ratio one senator to seven or eight representa-
tives, and it would be a far more proportionate representation
than the present one, and I hope this matter will not be lost
in the preliminary shuffle or by any possibility be overlooked
when the question of the number of representatives for th«
House comes up, because the two things are associated, or
ought to be. I have not prepared a motion to offer at this
time.
Mr. Johnson of Colebrook moved to amend by inserting the
words, "and that the Senate consist of fifty members.'*
Mr. Wdson of Nashua. — I hope the gentleman from Colebrook
will withdraw his motion. There is not a quorum here, and
the motion would make trouble if insisted upon, and probably
adjourn the Convention without making any progress.
Mr. Johnson of Colebrook. — I am not particular about the num-
ber, but I think it should be increased above the present num-
ber.
Mr. Johnson withdrew his motion.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Dean of Danbury,' —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 401
In Convention.
(The President in the Chair.)
Mr. Warren of Manchester, for the Committee of the
Whole, to whom wexe referred all resolutions relating to repre-
sentation in the Senate, having considered the same, report
that it is the sense of the Committee that the Senate be in-
creased and the division of districts be made on a basis of pop-
ulation; that all resolutions relating to the Senate be referred
to the Committee on Legislative Department with instructions
to report an amendment to the Constitution increasing the
Senate, and that the division of districts be based upon popu-
lation.
The report was accepted and the recommendations adopted.
Change; of Refekeinc'E.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke moved that the orders
whereby Eesolution Xo. 28, Providing for Election by Plurali-
ty Vote of the Governor and Other Officials, and Eesolution
No. 55, Relating to Election of Senators, were referred to the
Committee on Legislative Department, and Resolution No. 34,
Relating to the Election of Officials by Plurality Vote, was re-
ferred to the Committee of the Whole, be vacated, and the
same referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Execu-
tive Department.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Mr. Hurd of Claremont moved that the orders whereby Res-
olution No. 44, Relating to Councillor Districts, and Resolu-
tion No. 57, Relating to the Council, were referred to the Com-
mittee of the Whole, be vacated and the same referred to the
Committee on Bill of Rights and Executive Department.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
On motion of Mr. Clement of Warren the Convention re-
solved itself into Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of
considering Resolution No. 38, Relating to Corporation Sala-
ries and Dividends.
402 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
In Committee of the Whole.
(Mr. Broderick of Manchester in the chair.)
Mr. Clement of WatTen. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, we have not had any really radical proposition be-
fore us, and I understand that this Convention will not con-
sider such a proposition favorably, but I wish to present it, and
I will do so in the fewest words possible. We are here to lay
a foundation for future legislation, and we should set our
faces to the rising and not to the setting sun. To go back to
primal causes, this question arises, Why is a trust formed? That
takes up the great question before the people of this country.
Why is a trust formed? There can be but one answer to it,
that trusts are formed in order to earn bigger dividends. I
claim there is but one issue before the people of this country,
and that is the question of usurious dividends, — usur}-. W^a
know many of the corporations of today, commencing with our
great insurance companies, not only pay big direct dividends,
but they have indirect dividends in another form, that is, biij
salaries. Salaries in New York have been as high as $100,000.
In Massachusetts, the president of the American Woolen Com-
pany receives $100,000. Gentlemen, I don't believe that, as a
matter of moral right and justice, any man's services are worth
$100,000 annually, because the men under him, with the small
salaries, are the ones who do the actual work. Now, it is recog-
nized that if there are any conservative institutions, they are
the religious institutions. Eeligion has always been the con-
servator of conservatisrh. Xow, then, Gentlemen, to show yon
that the religious people of this country, and the most conserva-
tive institutions, are taking up these questions, I want to read
this statement, which was adopted unanimously by the bishops
at the Quadrennial Methodist Episcopal Conference in Minne-
apolis recently, and sent out to the people:
"We live in an age in which the vast enterprises essential to
the progress of the world require the association of men of
large means under corporate management. Out of this neces-
sity have grown serious wrongs and consequent resistance.
"Organized capital stands indicted at the bar of public judg-
ment for the gravest crimes against the common wetfare.
Among the counts in that indictment are such as these:
"1. Conspiring to advance prices on the staple commodities
indispensable to the life, well-being and progress of the people.
"2. Resorting to adulteration of foods, fabrics and materials
in order to increase profits already excessive.
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 403
"3. Destroying the competition in trade, through which re-
lief might be expected under normal conditions.
"4. Suborning legislation, and thus robbing the people of the
first orderly recourse of the weak against the strong.
"These are sins against humanity. If God hates any sin
above another, it must be the robbery of the. poor and defense-
less. Otherwise His love fails when it is most needed and
might find its largest opportunity. There is no betrayal more
base than that which uses the hospitality of a house to plunder
its inmates, unless it be that form of treason which so per-
verts the purpose and machinery of popular government as to
turn its power against the people who trust and support it.
This is not saying that all corporations deal treacherously with
the people. There are honorable exceptions. But enough is
known of the heartless greed that fattens off the hunger-driven
millions to warrant the strongest protective associations on
the part of the people."
Like the prophets of Israel, the Methodist bishops have trans-
lated the truth of the eternal into the terms of current life.
This resolution which I have placed before you proposes a
limitation on dividends and salaries of corporations, where they
draw $100,000, or where they pay big dividends, — or what I call
usury. There is no reason why you should not forbid exces-
sive dividends in corporations, and I contend this measure is
not a radical one. Two professors have gone out from Welles-
ley College, one of the foremost colleges in New England, pub-
licly maintaining that money should receive no interest what-
ever. That is radical. But that shows the character of the
real questions before the people, and it is time that we hard-
headed business men, as legislators, should take them into con-
sideration, and know what is going on along these lines. That
is the only reason why I have brought this resolution before
this Convention. I do not expect that you will take favorable
action on it, but I do predict that the legislation of the future,
Gentlemen, twenty years hence, will take cognizance of the
lines that are here laid dowm, and that you will need constitu-
tional foundation for legislation of this kind. I thank you, Gen-
tlemen.
Mr. WMtcJier of Eav^rliill.—l rise to make a motion, but, be-
fore making it, I only wish that the gentleman from Warren,
who dilated on the action of the general conference of the
Methodist Episcopal church that has just closed its session in
Minneapolis might have said that they didn't regulate the sal-
aries^ — that a large proportion of the ministry of that church
404 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
are not receiving salaries of more than $500, and that these
bishops, of whom he has spoken, are allowed $5,000 each, with
an allowance of $1,000 for house rent in the cities where the
episcopal residences are established. I only mention that be-
cause that general conference has been brought in herr as an
example of what we ought to do.
Mr. Wliitcher of Haverhill moved that the Committee do
^ow rise and recommend to the Convention that it is inexpe-
dient to amend the Constitution as proposed in the resolution.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hiU —
Mr. Wdson of NasMa.—l rise to second the motion of the gen-
tleman from Haverhill. He and I are in perfect accord today.
I also wish to say a word in answer to the gentleman from
Warren, Mr. Clement, inasmuch as his argument why we should
change the Constitution is based upon the action of the Metho-
dist Conference at Minneapolis. I don't know but it would be
more effective and more proper to recall the action of the
Methodist Conference nearer home, namely, in the southern
part of New Hampshire. In their closing hours, when they say
there wasn't a quorum present, — I couldn't say because I wasn't
there; I was out of town that daj^ or I might have been there, —
they endorsed as the leading citizen of this country Theodor*;
Roosevelt. Whether that ought to be put in the Constitution
along with this proposed amendment is for you to determine.
Mr. Stone of Andover. — I want to say a few words relative to
this amendment. Since this Convention has been in session,
some have been charged with being connected with those who
are in favor of corporations. I was opposed to the initiative
and referendum because I believe it is revolutionary, and an in-
sidious attack upon Constitutional government. I was opposed
to the other measures of that nature because I believe that
the Constitution ought to protect the humblest citizen in thft
land, and is not for the purpose, as the gentlemen have charged,
of protecting corporations; but there is a distinction between
corporations and an individual. An individual has certain rights
which cannot, or ought not, to be taken from him, not even by
a majority of the people, and when the majority of the peop^.e
deprive him, or attempt to, of certain inherent rights, as stated
in the Declaration of Independence, then comes the time when
he has the right to retaliate. I was opposed to these amend-
ments, as I have stated before, because I believe they are dan-
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 405
gerous, — not that I don't trust the people, but I believe it is
dangerous to allow any majority to take certain rights from
the people. Corporations do not stand that way. A corporation
is born in the halls of the legislature. It has not even the right
to exist without the consent of the legislature. If a man is
engaged in manufacturing, you have no right, in my judgment,
to inquire what he is making, or to attempt to fix the salaries
of his ofiicers. A corporation is different; you can control it;
it has not even the right to exist, and, the moment it attempts
to do things improperly and wrongly, that moment its creator
has a right to destroy its creature. I do not know whether it is
best to give that power to the people, and I don't like to tinkei*
with the Constitution. I think it is about right. They talk about
the railroads. I am not going to say anything in particular
about the railroad; it has been the cleanest of all our corpora-
tions, as far as oppressing the people is concerned. Have you in-
quired into the salary, large salaries, of the officials? I know,
and you know, probably ofiicials who received, ten or fifteen
years ago, a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars a year are now
put up to $5,000 or $6,000. They are voted those salaries simply for
the purpose of enabling those people to receive an unwarranted
compensation for services. The man who is working in the
mills at Lawrence gets $1.50. What do the ofiicials get? I think
we have a perfect right to know. No doctrine of personal rights
applies to corporations; we make the corporation and we have
a right to control it, and it seems to me one of the troubles lies
in the fact that in an endeavor to correct abuses we might
strike you and me as individuals, because I have no sympathy
with socialism, I have no sympathy with those who think they
know better what life I should lead than I do myself, provided
that I grant to my fellow citizens the equal right to do as they
see fit. I have no sympathy with the tendency in that line.
What causes that tendency? It has been the injustice that th«3
people have seen and the unfairness of corporations that we
have created. This amendment permits the legislature to fix
the salary, or to examine into it, and look after the dividends,
and may forbid corporations to over-value their property. That
has been the great trouble. There are corporations that are
doing business today that a few years ago held property, its
honest valuation, its machinery, its mills, its water power, we
will say, at $50,000 or $100,000. They have got together and
formed a trust. We have a right to know what they are doing.
This gives us the right. I am in favor of the principle embodied
in this resolution.
406 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — I made a pledg-e with myself about fif-
teen minutes ag-o that I would not speak again before this Con-
vention while it was in session. I am compelled to do so by
something I discovered in our Constitution. It seems to me that
this is not a radical proposition that is put forward by the gen-
tleman from Warren, Mr. Clement, because, if I remember the
acts of the Constitutional Convention of 1902, ten years ago,
a member of that Convention, a former senator, Hon. William
E. Chandler, if I mistake not, introduced an amendment, which
was submitted by the Convention and later adopted by the
people, and I will read it to you. It is Article 82, the last part :
"Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is
an inherent and essential right of the people and should be
protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend
to hinder or destroy it. The size and functions of all corpora-
tions should be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fic-
titious capitalization, and provision should be made for the su-
pervision and government thereof: — Therefore, all just power
possessed by the state is hereby granted to the General Court to
enact laws to prevent fhe operations wTfhin .the state of all
persons and associations, and all trusts and corporations, for-
eign or domestic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to
raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free
and fair competition in the trades and industries through com-
bination, conspiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to
control and regulate the acts of all such persons, associations,
corporations, trusts, and officials doing business within the
state; to prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize
civil and criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs
herein declared against."
I believe that the proposition of the gentleman from War-
ren, Mr. Clement is absolutely unnecessary, when we have this
provision already in the Constitution. I think it covers all the
things that he advocates in his amendment.
On a viva wee vote the motion of Mr. Whitcher prevailed.
In Convention.
(The President in the chair.)
Mr. Broderick of Manchester, for the Committee of the
Whole, to whom was referred Resolution No. 38, Relating to
Corporation Salaries and Dividends, havinpj considered the
same, report the following resolution: —
Wednesday, June 19, 1912. 407
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed in the resolution.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
CHAXGE OF ReF'EEENOE.
Mr. Barton of Xewport moved that the order wherehy Ees-
olution No. 3, Relating to Future Mode of Amending the
Constitution, Resolution Xo. 11, Relating to Future Mode of
Amending the Constitution, and Resolution No. 16, Relating
to Future Mode of Amending the Constitution, were referred
to the Committee of the Wliole, be vacated, and the same
referred to the Committee on Future Mode of Amending the
Constitution and Other Proposed Amendments.
Mt\ Gmmmugh of Mancli€Stei\ — I think the matter of the
amendments proposed by myself and Mr. Wadleigh of Milford
ought first to be considered in the Committee of the Whole. As
was sugg-ested this afternoon, it might be done tomorrow. I
would suggest that that matter be left in the Committee of
the Whole.
Mr. Barton of Newport withdrew his motion.
Mr. Hurd of Claremont moved that the order whereby Res-
olution No. 8, Relating to the Election of Certain Officers, was
referred to the Committee of the \\niole, be vacated, and the
same referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights and Execu-
tive Department.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Mr, Dean of Danbury moved that all Standing Committees
be instructed to report to the Convention all resolutions in
their possession not later than Friday morning, June 21, at 11
o^clock.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Mr. Cavammigh of Mamchester. — If the matter of Resolution No.
10, Relating to Voting Precincts, is in order at this time, I wish
to state that it appears that, according to the opinion of the
408 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
judges of our Supreme Court rendered recently, the legislature
has authority at the present time to establish these precincts.
As it would be unwise to encumber the ballot with unnecessary
amendments, I would suggest that the resolution be recalled
from the Committee which now has it under consideration, and
that the resolution be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester moved that the order where-
by Resolution No. 10, Relating to Voting Precincts, was re-
ferred to the Committee on Time and Mode of Submitting to
the People the Amendments Agreed to by the Convention, be
vacated, and that the vote whereby the Convention agreed to
the amendment proposed in the resolution be reconsidered.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Cavanaugh, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Question being on the recommendation of the Committee
of the Whole that the amendment be agreed to by the Con-
vention, —
On a viva voce vote the negative prevailed.
On motion of Mr. Wason of Nashua the Convention ad-
journed at 5.20 o'clock.
THURSDAY, June 20, 1912.
The Convention met at 10.30 o'clock according to adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the chair.)
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Rev. Charles C. Gar-
land.
The reading of the Journal having begun, —
On motion of Mr. Hill of Concord, the further reading of
the Journal was dispensed with.
Leave of Absence.
Mr. Bean of Franklin was granted leave of absence for Fri-
day, on account of important business.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 409-
Committee Reports.
Mr. Buxton of Boscawen, for the Committee on Bill of
Rights and Executive Department, to whom was referred Res-
olution 'No. 4:5, Relating to Residence Qualification of Voters^
having considered the same, report the same with the follow-
ing resolutions: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed in said resolution, sufficient authority now being
in the legislature, covering the subject matter.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. Fuller of Exeter, for the Committee on Bill of Rights
and Executive Department, to whom was referred Resolution
No. 46, Relating to the Qualification of Voters, report the
same in a new draft, with the following recommendation:
That said resolution in its new draft be agreed to by the-
Convention.
RESiOL.uTio'N No. 46 IN ITS New Draft.
Relating 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 eli-
gible to office under the Constitution of this state who shall
have been convicted of treason, bribery, or any wilful violation
of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but
the Supreme Court may, on notice to the attorney-general re-
store the privileges of an elector to any person who may have
forfeited them by conviction of such offences." so that Article
11 shall read:
Art. 11. All elections ought to be free; and every inhabi-
tant 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 Con-
410 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
stitution of this state, who shall not he ahle to read "the Con-
stitution in the English language, and to write, provided, how-
ever, that this provision shall not apply to any person pre-
vented by a physical disability from complying with its requi-
sitions, 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 furtJier,.
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, bribery, or any wilful violation of the
election laws of this state or of the United States; but the Su-
preme Court may, on notice to the attorney-general restore
the privileges of an elector to any person who may have for-
feited them by conviction of such offences.
Mr. Fuller of Exet€)\—MT. President and Gentlemen, it seems
to me that it is needless to make any speech on this subject
at this time. I merely call the attention of the Convention, or
such as are interested in this resolution, to the fact that the
only chang-e made in the resolution as originally introduced
is to strike out all offenses not relating to elections, with the
exception of treason, and to give the power of restoring rights
of suffrage to the Supreme Court rather than to the legislature.
The report of the Committee was accepted, the recommen-
dation of the Committee adopted, and the resolution in its
new draft referred to the Committee on Time and Mode of
Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed to by the
Convention.
• Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, called for the Special Order for
10.32 o'clock, the same being Resolution No. 7, Relating to
Female Suffrage.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill, to substitute the report of the minority. Resolved, That
the amendment proposed by the resolution be agreed to by the
Convention; for the report of the majority, Resolved, That it
is inexpedient to amend the Constitution as proposed in the
resolution, —
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 411
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill moved that a vote on the
question be taken at 12 o'clock today.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill to vote at 12 o'clock, —
Mr. Dean of Danhury. — A very large number of gentlemen here
desire to be heard on this amendment. It seems to me, as it
is now quarter of eleven, that you are limiting the debate to a
very short time for each speaker.
Mr. Donigan of Newbury moved to amend by making the
time 12.30 o'clock.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Donigan of Newbury,
to amend the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, —
On a viva voce vote the negative prevailed.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill,
to take a vote at 12 o'clock, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill, to substitute the report of the minority for that of the
majority,—
Mr. WMtcher of HaverJdll. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, in
1902 the Constitutional Convention sent to the people a pro-
posed amendment, striking the word "male" from the Constitu-
tion by a vote of 143 to 94. That amendment was voted upon in
the March following, and was rejected by a vote of 21,788
against the amendment to 13,089 in favor. The question has
been asked more than once, Why send this proposed amend-
ment to the people again? I think there are good and suf-
ficient reasons why it should be submitted to the people,
reasons growing out of what I regard to be a change in pub-
lic sentiment during the ten years which have elapsed since
the amendment was submitted, and which is indicated by the
attitude that leading male citizens, representing all shades of
political opinion and belief, have declared, and I will take the
time of the Convention, — our Standing Committees consist of
twenty, — I vdll take the time of the Convention to name twenty
412 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
of those representative men, saying-, at the same time, that I
might extend the list almost indefinitely.
I will name such men as Robert P. Bass, Jacob H. Gallinger,
Henry B. Quinby, Frank A. Musgrove, Samuel D. Felker, Oliver
E. Branch, Lyford A. Merrow, Solon A. Carter, Clarence E. Carr»
Gordon Woodbury, Winston Churchill, John M. Gile, Henry H.
Metcalf, Henry F. Hollis, Daniel C. Eemich, Sherman E. Bur-
roughs, Herbert O. Hadley, Robert J. Merrill, William B. Rotch,
George T. Cruft. If these names do not represent w^hat we
recognize as every possible shade of opinion in our state, I
do not know names that can be representative.
After the defeat of the amendment, the question of municipal
suffrage for women came before the legislature of 1905. The
Judiciary Committee made a favorable report upon it of 7 to
2. It was made a special order, but came up so late in the
session that it did not come to a vote.
In 1907 the municipal suffrage question was reported by the
same Committee on Judiciary unfavorably, and a roll-call dis-
closed a vote of 77 in favor of it to 224 against it, and it was
indefinitely postponed.
In 1909 it was favorably reported bj' the Judiciary Commit-
tee, and the vote was 115 against it and 86 in favor, and, two
thirds not voting, it necessarily went over into unfinished busi-
ness and was not called up again.
In 1911 there was a unanimous report from the Judiciary
Committee, of which my esteemed friend from Moultonborough^
Mr. French, was a member, and it was defeated on roll-call by
a vote of 121 in favor of, to 160 against. You will note, Mr»
President, that there was a steady increase, so far as our legis-
lature was concerned, in favor of conferring suffrage upon
women.
Since that amendment was submitted, the State Grange, a
numerous body, which had voted adversely upon the proposi-
tion several times, the Sta\e Grange representing the rural dis-
tricts and rural sections of the state, has voted emphatically
in favor of equal suffrage. The Federation of Labor, represent-
ing, as I may say, the great masses in our state, has also voted
as emphatically in favor of equal suffrage. I think, Sir, that
there has been a change in public sentiment sufficient to war-
rant the submission of this proposition again to the people.
Furthermore, Mr, President, I do not believe that any ques-
tion is ever settled until it is settled rightly, and I believe in
the submission of this amendment, because it is an amendment
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 413
in the interest of equal rights, justice, fair play and fair deal-
ing. Two extended hearings have been held before the Spe-
cial Committee, and the chief arguments that have been ad-
vanced against the conferring of suffrage upon women have
been that the women themselves do not want it, and the old
argument that there should be a bayonet behind every ballot.
I have the highest respect for the women, the estimable
women, representative women, who appeared before the Com-
mittee in opposition to this amendment. They said they did
not wish to be burdened with additional duties; they did not
wish to be burdened with the ballot, but, Sir, believing, as I do,
in their conscientiousness, in their willingness to perform any
duty placed upon them, I believe the very women who opposed
it would be those who would exercise the right to vote were
the right given them. As for the bayonet behind the ballot, as
for women being deprived because they do not enter the field
as soldiers, why, Sir, as I came through Doric Hall this morn-
ing, I saw hanging, and hanging appropriately, in that hall,
representing the heroes of the state, the portrait of Harriet P.
Dame, representing scores and hundreds of women, who, in the
great struggle for the Union, toiled and sacrificed and suffered
and ren^^ered services equal to the services of any man in th«
field.
I have in mind, Sir, too, the women on the farms and hill-
sides of New Hampshire, the women in the tenements in our
•cities, who remained at home, sacrificed, suffered untold agonies,
as fathers, sons and brothers had gone out in the field, women
who were back of the men in the field, and women to whom all
honor is due.
I believe, Sir, in equal rights, in the square deal, in fair play.
I believe. Sir, that the ballot of this country, upon which we
depend for the solution of the complex problems that confront
lis, needs the votes of the women more than the women need
the ballot. I believe. Sir, that had we one hundred women in
Chicago today associated with some nine hundred mien, the
disgusting exhibition to which the American people have been
treated for the last three days would never have occurred.
I believe, Sir, that right is right, — right is right, — and that
right will prevail. I hope that the minority report may be
substituted for that of the majority.
Mr. Dorvigan of Newbury. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I am not going to occupy more than a minute or
two of your time, but I have a message to deliver to you. I
tiave a message to deliver to you from that splendid body of
414 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
New Hampshire women who came before the Committee on
Woman's Suffrage to protest against having the ballot thrust
upon them. That splendid bodj' of w^omen told that Commit-
tee, Gentlemen, that they had at home, in their homes, all the
affairs that they can attend to now. They asked that Com-
mittee, and they asked you. Gentlemen, not to thrust the bal-
lot upon them. They asked you to let them stay at home ancl
attend to their homes and their firesides and their children^
and I want just to deliver their message to you, Gentlemen.
I believe, Gentlemen, that that body of women who appeared
before the Committee represent ninety percent of the women of
New Hampshire. I have no doubt in my own mind that ninety
percent of the women of New Hampshire were well represented
by that splendid body of women, who protested so eloquently
against having the ballot thrust upon them.
Gentlemen, vote no.
Mr. Bemi of Belmont. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, it was
my privilege twenty-five years ago this summer to be a mem-
ber of the legislature and vote in favor of woman's suffrage,
as it was then presented to the legislature. I have never seen
any time during the intervening years when I regretted the
action that I then took. I have not inquired especiallj^ whether
the women desired the ballot or not. If it is their right, they
should have the privilege, whether they exercise it or not. If
we could imagine a condition of chaos where there were no
rules nor regulations governing society, and we were meeting
together in groups for that purpose, I don't believe that the
proposition would be made to exclude women from participating
in bringing that about. I think they would be accorded that
privilege with the same readiness that it is given them now
in the various social organizations in which they have the
privilege of membership. No question is ever raised in the or-
ganization of the Grange, or of the church, or any other body
in which they have the privilege of membership, of excluding
them from the right to vote.
I know objections have been raised on account of physical
limitations. If that is applied to the men, then a vast number
will be deprived of the right of suffrage. All men are not
capable physically of being blacksmiths, carpenters, soldiers
or woodchoppers, but that does not deprive them of the right
of suffrage. And we hear it stated that the natural sphere of
woman is in the home; that it is her duty to devote her life
work exclusively to the upbuilding and uplifting of the home,
all of which I subscribe to most heartily. The home would be
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 416
incomplete, it would be vacant and void if there were not re-
vealed within its sacred precincts, the face of the wife, the
mother, the sister or the daughter, showing at what a height
woman is placed by modern civilization, and yet there is no
department of life more dependent upon the laws that govern
than is the home. Xo matter whether those laws be of pro-
bate, criminal laws, temperance laws, or any other kind, the
home is vitallj' interested and affected by them all.
In the first Assembly of this state, after the state severed
her allegiance to Great Britain, held in Exeter in 1776, the mem-
bership of that Convention w^as founded entirely upon the
home, groups of one hundred families being required to give
membership in that body. It was then considered and conceded
that the interests of the home were vital in all matters of legis-
lation, and now% Gentlemen, shall we say that only a portion
of the home shall have any right or voice in saying what the
laws shall be that govern them? Shall w^e leave it to the male
portion of the home to say whether a probate law is just, or
a temperance law right, or a criminal law best? I believe thac
is a matter that affects both sides intimately and directly.
In the early days it was not considered improper for the
wife to join her husband in repelling the attack of the savages
upon the home, and it was a common experience in frontier
life for the women to engage with the men in all the conflicts
to protect the home from the outside enemy, and therefore,
Gentlemen, it seems to me that it would be right and just to
give the wife the ballot, to aid her and as an extra weapon for
her to protect the home from the outside enemy.
M7\ MitcheU of Concord. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I am opposed to striking from the Twenty-seventh
Article of Part Second of the Constitution the word, "male."
My opposition to this resolution is because it proposes the im-
position of an additional burden upon woman, — a privilege she
does not need, an obligation she does not seek, and upon her
should not be involuntarily imposed this burden. I maintain
that the great majority of the women of this state are opposed
to equal, or woman, suffrage. I challenge the successful con-
tradiction of that proposition. If any gentleman who favors
this proposition desires to test it, let him propose to submit,
as ought to be done, this proposition to the women of the state.
When they, a majority of the women of the state, express a
desire for this privilege, a readiness to assume its duties an.l
burdens, and vote in the affirmative upon the proposition, it
will be time enough for man to grant w^oman This privilege.
416 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
I do not question the efficiency, the ability, virtue, or the
integrity of the women of New Hampshire. They are capable
of properly performing any duty they voluntarily and intelli-
j-ently assume. They are the peers of the women of any com-
monwealth or society of this or any other country. They are
amply qualified and superbly equipped by capacity and edu-
xjation to deal with any proposition that should be assumed by
or imposed upon them. They have always shown their capacity,
up to their limitations, to effectively discharge their duty anvl
intelligently deal with every proposition the burdens of which
nature designed that they should assume. Harriet P. Dame,
to whose good work attention has been directed, and the other
distinguished women whose sacrifices and virtues were so justly
commended did not have, or need, the ballot to accomplish their
noble and patriotic work. Woman, up to the present time, has,
without the burden of the ballot, accomplished her great work
for civilization and humanity.
We are told that this proposition should be submitted to the
people. They say that members of thlB Convention have been
committed in favor of it. To me that is incredible. We stand
here commissioned, having imposed upon us an obligation to
deal with this proposition fairly, as it appears to us now and
here, after listening to the evidence and the arguments; anrl
it would be as improper and as impudent to commit, or attempt
to commit, a member of this Convention in advance as to com-
mit, or attempt to commit, a juror before he heard the evidence,
the arguments of counsel, and the charge of the Court.
They say that we should submit this proposition to the
people. They say "we are opposed to it," but submit it. Gen-
tlemen, such cowardice is unworthy of the proposition here
under consideration; it is unworthy of the members of this
Convention, as well as being unworthy of either the women
who favor or oppose it.
This proposition, too, vitally affects the people of the state,
and should be dealt with in accordance with our intelligence
and our conscientious convictions 'at the present time. Our
duty, as members of this Convention, imperatively demands that
we should not shirk our obligations with reference to this or
uny other question submitted to us. Let us, here and now, do
our duty, deal with this proposition as men, and thereby be
entitled to the respect of ourselves, our fellowmen, and the
:good women whose rights and interests are here involved.
They tell us that other states have adopted it, Colorado and
■five other WcKtern states. The question is not what the people
of other states have done, but what should we do.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 417
It will be recalled that, but a comparatively short time ago,
many or several of those states adopted free silver. New Hamp-
shire, in that crisis, stood firm for sound currency. Today it is
universally recognized that we were right. The people of
Utah, one of the states cited as favorable to this proposi-
tion, and is now practising woman's suffrage, tolerates polyg-
amy or Mormonism, while the people of New Hampshire
adhere tenaciously to the Christian marriage. It cannot be
seriously suggested that we should adopt this innovation simply
because the people of some of those other states have deemed
it wise to adopt it. The advocates of this proposition have sum-
moned from Washington a distinguished gentleman, Mr. Taylor,
to testify in relation to the practical operation of woman's
suffrage in Colorado. In answer to this, I will summon Judge
Hallett, a judge of the United States Court in Colorado, who
says: "It has produced no special reforms, and it has had no
particular purifying effect upon politics. There is a growing
tendency on the part of most of the better and more intelli-
gent female voters of Colorado to cease exercising the ballot.
If it were to be done over again, the people of Colorado would
defeat woman's suffrage by an overwhelming vote."
This is the testimony from Colorado that I am willing to
consider this proposition upon.
Another witness that I am prepared to summon is Daniel Web-
ster, a son of New Hampshire, a statesman whose portrait
adorns this hall. This great son of New Hampshire, upon this
subject, said: "The rough contests of the political world are
not suited to the dignity and delicacy of women.* It is by the
promulgation of sound morals in the community, and more
especially in the training and instruction of the young, that
woman performs her part toward the preservation of free
government."
Another question which I respectfully submit to this Con-
vention, using the language of another: Why should the great
majority of women, who, as everybody knows, are either in-
different or opposed to woman's suffrage, be forced to accept
it against their will, when there is no sound evidence that any
miaterial good is likely to accrue, either to themselves or to
the state?
Gentlemen of the Convention, woman now has all the rights
she needs in New Hampshire. Suffrage is not a necessity; nor
would it be an advantage to her. Suffrage is a privilege
Tsurdened with important obligations and great responsibilities.
Woman stands preeminent in her sphere. She stands enthroned
418 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
as the queen of the greatest republic on earth, — the home, the
household. There she sits enthroned in the affection of her
family, the respect of the community, — the queen of the house-
hold, the saintly mother, the devoted wife, and the affectionate
daughter. Woman has achieved great results for modern,
Christian civilization. Do not embarass her, or impair her great
usefulness.
It was woman who, at the dawn of Christianity, warned the
Governor, who yielded to the demand of the multitude who
called for the innocent blood of the Saviour, to desist; but the
Governor could not or did not resist the demand of the multi-
tude who insisted upon the sacrifice. She it was who followed
Him to crucifixion. She was found at the sepulchre, faithful
and devoted, and during the progress of Christian civilization,
down "through the corridors of time," she has been found the
unselfish promoter, great handmaid, and eloquent advocate of
our modern civilization, the great cornerstone of our republic.
Do not. Gentlemen, remove her from this splendid field of use-
fulness and activity. Leave her untrammeled in her great
work; permit her to continue, unpolluted by the mire of active,
practical politics. Leave her unembarrassed to do her great
work in the future as she has done it in the past, and thus
we will all realize and cheerfully acknowledge, as we now do,
that "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules
the world."
Mr. Lyfoi'd of Concord. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, I accept
the challenge of my colleague from Ward 4 to settle this ques-
tion here and now, and I am voting for this proposition, as T
have voted for other propositions in this Convention, because
I believe in it, and not because I desire to shirk any responsi-
bility. The gentleman from Concord says that women are
competent to deal with any proposition that may be put be-
fore them. I agree with him in that statement, and upon that
single point I desire to address this Convention.
I yield to no man in this Convention in my desire for purer
politics, state and national. I differ with some of them as to
the best method of reaching this result. I do not believe that
you can legislate men purer; I do not believe that you can
accomplish great results solely by legislation, or by constitu-
tional amendments. The stream cannot rise higher than its
fountain. The source of power in this country is the people.
The people are the sovereigns, and your legislatures will be
what the people make of them. The great crying trouble
today, in this country, is the indifference of the people.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 419
Now, then, that must be reached, — it may be a longer process
than by mere legislative acts, — but it must be reached by the
education of the youth of the land to their civic duties, as
you educate them to their moral duties in the home; and how
are these civic duties to be imparted to the youth of the land
except at the fireside and in the schoolrooms of the coun-
try? At the fireside it is the mother who instills into the
youth his moral duties. It is in the schoolroom that the
instruction of the youth comes principally from the women of
the land. If you will strike from your public schools some
of the fads that now prevail in them, and substitute therefor
an education of the youth in their civic duties, so that the boy
or the girl, when he becomes of age, will feel that same Inter-
est and that same desire to perform a civic duty that he does
to perform a moral duty, you will have accomplished more
for this country than by statutes or constitutional amendments.
If you enfranchise women, you give to them an incentive to
educate the youth of the land, both in the home and in the
schools, in their civic duties. Clothing them with suffrage, you
put the responsibility upon them, and you put them where my
colleague fom Concord says they are competent to meet an
issue; you give to them the responsibility of meeting that issue,
and they will know the reason why.
I yield to no person in the tribute that I would pay to
women, but because they have done splendidly in the home,
because we owe so much to them, does it mean that their
work stops now while the work of man goes on? No. En-
franchise women, so that they will have an equal interest with
us in the prosperity of our state, our nation, and our munici-
palities, and you not only have effective helpmeets in them,
but you have an educational force that, in the succeeding gen-
erations, will give you a class of voters who will no longer be
indifferent to the privileges accorded them, and you will ac-
complish more than you would accomplish by mere legislation.
Mr. Howard F. Hill of Concord. — Mr. President and Gentleman
of the Convention, .this Convention was called for two purposes:
First, the adjustment of representation; second, the matter of
taxation. A third theme of grave importance has arisen, that
is, the initiative and referendum. These things, in the main,
have been disposed of. The time has now come, after a short
period of aerated wind upon this subject, to take a vote, to clear
the decks, to heave this resolution over among the rubbish, to
adjourn, and go home; a consummation most devoutly to ^e
desired.
420 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
I live in an old house at the South End. I sit in one of the
back seats. I do not represent a small town, but I represent a
small ward. That house I spoke of is situated upon one of the
side hills, which slopes gpently toward the river. Sometimes,
in the spring season, there is a little seepage which enters
the coal bins and the lower story of the barn. That can be
endured. In front runs an electric railroad, which bears on
its cars the legend of that iniquitous and mischievous corpora-
tion, the Boston & Maine. Every seven and a half minutes in
a summer day one of those cars thunders through my parlor.
In the nights there is a convulsion, so that it seems as though
the earth were shaking, in every bedroom. Still, that railroad
is of some convenience.
Behind the house there are about twenty railroad tracks
and anywhere from two to eighteen locomotives getting up
steam. When the first tint of golden-fingered dawn appears
above the horizon, there is one of those clam-shell coal grabs
diffusing gentle benedictions, which involves the season of puri-
fication, which every man regards with horror, spring cleaning.
Our household is well sooted. Nevertheless, what shall I do?
Here is a house, which, like Daniel Webster's "venerable men,"
came down to us from former generations. What am I ffoing to
do? Buy a new lot, tear down the old house, put up a new
one? No. I guess I'll stand it during the remaining period of
my sojourn.
Again, a second course is open. Shall I go to work and re-
construct that house? Shall I build a sleeping porch for it,
put an elevator in, plate glass windows, bathroom conveni-
ences with every bedroom, new means of heating, a cupola,
and a mortgage? Not much. I guess that old house will stand
it a little longer. Think of this house as a sort of pro tern,
parable. I am depicting the Constitution. It has served us
many years. It has done good work, after its way. What shall
we do with the Constitution? Shall we dump it, throw it on
the scrap heap? We most certainly shall, if we inject a new
class of seventy or eighty thousand raw voters who have not
given any attention in this direction.
There is still one other course that is open to us. Stay by
the old house. There are not many years to stay. The old
house is something sacred. There children have been born in
love and honor and sanctification. They have gone forth to
receive the dews of baptism on their brows, and the sign of
the cross. They have been carried away, too, in little white
boxes, plants in the garden of the Heavenly Father, the land
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 421
which we confidently look for. There have been fair brides go
from that house, with orange blossoms. They have lived their
day. Perhaps they have passed on in mellow youth; perhaps
survived to be elderly women. That house is sacred. There
have been the old ones who have given us nurture and educa-
tion. They, too, have gone to their long home to await the
resurrection summons and the coming of the Master. That
house is sacred. I guess we'll keep it. If the roof leaks, we
will send for the appropriate artisan. If the soil pipes give
us trouble, we will have them fixed. But we will stay by the
old house because its memories are consecrated.
So it is with this Constitution. I say we do not want a new
Constitution. Nobody proposes it, that is, in form; they may
in substance. We do not want to go to work and devitalize it
and reconstruct it by injecting a new list of uhinstructed voters;
by extemporizing a new constituency among this people. We
will simply go along and live in the same old way. But we
will have this Constitution fixed, just as we would that house.
If there is a joint that squeaks, we will have it oiled. If there
is a hole that leaks, we will have it plugged. We will have it
adapted to modern situations. But when you come to inter-
ject a constituency of eighty thousand women, I submit that
you are turning our Constitution upside down, wrong side to
and inside out, and giving us what will be in effect a new Con-
stitution.
Vote No!
Mr. Yowng of Gharlestown. — ^Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, when I came to this Convention, so far as woman's
suffrage was concerned, I came in a receptive mood. I had
come to recognize that this question was one at which we
could no longer laugh. I had come to recognize that somebody
was clamoring for something to which we had got to pay atten-
tion.
At a meeting at which there was a gathering of both men
and women, but a few weeks ago, a straw vote was taken
among a very conservative body of women, and the vote was
two to one in favor of woman's suffrage, not in the sense of
having woman's suffrage thrust upon them, but to be given
the right to vote, the same as men do. Before I came here there
were various arguments, pro and con, which made a great deal
of impression upon me as I read them in the newspapers anl
magazines. That is why I came here in a receptive mood, and
I think, as members of this Convention, if upon all questions
we came here in a receptive mood, we might get along and
422 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
do better work. I came in a receptive mood, but if I had come
here in a receptive mood and had not been a member of the
Special Committee which gave open hearings to both sides, and
had come here this morning still in a receptive mood, and had
heard the speech which I heard a few minutes ago from one
of the most distinguished legal lights in New Hampshire, I
should have been converted in favor of woman's suffrage.
He speaks, — and that is one of the worst arguments in favor
of the antis, — he speaks of this great burden being thrust
upon them. Is it a burden to us men to go to the polls and
cast our vote? Do we spend days and nights in agony, won-
dering how we shall decide these important questions? I don't
know of any one of my sex who does. Why should we expect
it is going to be so much more of a burden for the women than
it is for the men? Thrust upon them! We simply give them,
if we do give them this right, we simply give them an equal
right with ourselves.
He speaks, too, of the women of Oregon, who have gone so
far in this matter, and, now that the burden is thrust upon
them, are beginning to regret the steps which they have
taken. The question of woman's suffrage in the state of Ore-
gon has not been fully adopted. He speaks of Congressman
Taylor from the state of Oregon. Congressman Taylor is a
very distinguished representative in Congress from the state of
Colorado. Gentlemen, if this distinguished legal light in the
state of New Hampshire were to try a case before your Courts:,
and witnesses came before him with no more knowledge than
the views which he presents to you today, I wonder how much
of a jury he could convince upon such arguments?
I heard, as a member of this Special Committee, with these
seats nearly full of, I should think, the best type of women in
the state of New Hampshire, and perhaps a few outside, — I
heard this matter debated very eloquently, and I have read
from the literature which has come to us broadcast that the
exponents of woman's suffrage are a band of spinsters, who
are smashing and breaking windows. There was nothing of
that sort. The women exponents of this question were all in-
troduced as "Mrs.," with only two exceptions, and the one spin-
ster introduced was introduced from the antis, 'and I venture to
say, from the appearance and the place which she occupied
among the speakers, that she was the king-pin of those who
gave their addresses that night, and, judging from the type and
style of the woman, if she were given the right to vote, I bet
she would vote.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 423
Returning to my home next day, one of the chief speakers,
apparently a strong-minded and strong-willed woman, in con-
versation with me, told me that if she had the right to vote she
would vote. Among all that class of women who were so prone
to argue they didn't want this matter thrust upon them were
women who had husbands, they admitted, with this one ex-
ception, who were able to look after the voting affairs for
themselves. To have this matter, this burden, thrust upon
them! How much longer do you suppose it would take .1
woman to go to the polls and cast her ballot than it would
to go into a department store and match a piece of silk?
Now, "again, Congressman Taylor from Colorado: After hear-
ing speeches from both sides of the women I was myself im-
pressed by hearing a man from a woman's suffrage state.
When I came here, the strongest argument against woman's
suffrage was that there is only a small percentage who wish
to vote, and the distinguished legal light from Concord said
this morning that the majority of women do not want to vote.
Why not cast a straw vote and ask them? Congressman Tay-
lor told us before this was adopted in Colorado not over
twenty-five percent of the women there wanted to vote, but,
as a mark of chivalry and as a mark of justice, they gave them
the right, and Mrs. Wood of Portsmouth, to show the Commit-
tee and the audience that night what a man and woman were
like from a woman's suffrage state, introduced Congressman
Taylor and his wife, and, if my judgment is good for anything,
they were as distinguished and domestic and lady-like and gen-
tlemanly-like couple as could come from our own Granite state.
I couldn't see any difference in them. He said they had com**,
to think of woman's suffrage as a matter of course, and, until
within one year, he had taken no particular interest in the
matter for or against, but had come to accept it.
It has been said that the women will vote the same as their
husbands do. Perhaps ninety percent will, but there will be an-
other element who will think for themselves, and they may
hold the balance of power, and when it comes to the election
of proper officials, if there is someone on either ticket that is
not considered a fair and just and capable man, the women
will scratch that ticket and will vote the right way.
References have been made here to the medical profession.
Gentlemen, if a doctor was to be called into your family today
and he prescribed burned goats' horns, as they did in ancient
times, what would you think of that? Is that mo-dern medical
science? If women were allowed to do the same as they did
424 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
in Revolutionary times, just handle the musket theit husbands
gave them, which was the best they could do for them then, the
best we can do for them now is to give them the ballot.
The distinguished gentleman from Concord says that the
woman's home is her throne, and that she keeps her proper
sphere there, and says to let her go so far and no farther.
Gentlemen, I submit to you, isn't that the position of a woman
who told her daughter in the nursery rhyme, when she asked
if she couldn't go in bathing?
" 'Oh, mother, m^ay I go out to swim?'
'Yes, my dearest daughter,
But hang your clothes on a hickory limb.
And don't go near the water.' "
Mr. Barney of Canaan. — This discussion has cost the state of
New Hampshire $8 a minute. I am not going to cost the state
over $24 in what I say. When my Brother Whitcher from
Haverhill got up, I expected a strong argument in favor of
woman's suffrage, but all he did was to name twenty gentle-
men who are in favor of it. I noticed the name of D. C.
Remich. I think that is the first time that the gentleman from
Haverhill ever endorsed Mr. Remich as a man in whom he put
much confidence.
I have one or two things I want to say to you here. You
heard those who were here last Thursday night. You heard a
lot of women, and able women they were, too, who came in
here and asked of you not to force this issue upon them. Gen-
tlemen, some of you say the women are not obliged to vote
unless they want to. That is not so. You give women the right
of suffrage, you give them the right to vote, and when you get
a warm contest, either in the primary or in the election, and
your neighbor Jones is going to take his wife and daughter to
the polls; you are going to take your wife and daughter, if
you have to drag them there by the hair of the head. We
know what the caucuses and elections are, the smoke and the
talk, and all that sort of thing. Now, when you inject a lot of
women into it, is the tendency going to be upward, are you
going to pull the men up to the standard of the women, or
are you going to pull some of the women down? You all know
Dr. Lyman Abbott. In an article he said: "Twenty years ago
I wrote an article in favor of woman's suffrage. I sent it to
a magazine and it was rejected, and I have been thankful ever
since that it was." Four or five years ago. President Roose-
velt, in speaking of woman's suffrage, said, "P can see that the
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 42^
condition of women in the states that have adopted woman's
suffrage is no better than it is in the states that have not
adoped it." That was his opinion then, but President Roose-
velt is a man who sometimes changes his mind.
An eminent authority on this subject has laid down three
propositions in regard to the votes of women. "Who are going
to influence the votes of women?" He says first: "In the large
cities the vicious women are going to be influenced by the
police." He says, "The evangelical societies that want to carry
through any particular measure are going to influence the
votes of women." And he says thirdly and lastly, "The hus-
bands are going to influence the votes of women." Now, Gen-
tlemen, a great many of you have said, "Oh, I don't believe In
woman's suffrage, but I believe in submitting it to the people."
Gentlemen, why don't you vote as you pray? Why don't yoa
be honest? If you believe in a thing, why don't you get up and
act it, and not sneak behind the bush and get out of these
things by submitting them to the people? I don't believe that
it is wise at the present time to have the women given the
right to the ballot. I 'don't believe the majority want it.
When the question was submitted in Massachusetts a few years
ago only flve percent of the women in that state voted on the
question. Gentlemen, we have got along for a great many
years under this old Constitution. I don't know that th'3
women have come to the legislature of this state and asked for
anything they have not got. If they are well enough off now,
let us let well enough alone.
Mr. Stevens of Lmid/aff. — Mr. President, I am in favor of strik-
ing the word "male" from the Constitution of the state of New
Hampshire, and I shall vote to strike it out at the polls if it
is put up to the people. I have voted in the legislature in favor
of giving women municipal suffrage. I am in favor of it for
two reasons, practical reasons, and reasons of principle. The
industrial conditions of today, the great changes that have
taken place since the Constitutions were founded, justify this
arnendment to-day. Today the government interferes with,
regulates and controls innumerable things that it did not one
hundred years ago. We regulate" the hours and the conditions
of labor. Today in this state there are hundreds and thousands
of women wage-earners and factory hands. We regulate the
public health, and women are interested in and competent to
deal with such questions. We regulate today the education oE
children, and every man knows that, as a general thing, women,
mothers, take more interest in the education of their children
426 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
than fathers do. We regulate the sale and the purity of food
products, and we know that women are competent and able to
deal with that subject. So I believe granting suffrage to women
will bring about better conditions, especially in the things that
they are interested in and know about. I am in favor of strik-
ing out that word for another reason, a reason that must ap-
peal to every man who has any democratic feeling. I am in
favor of it because the word "male" in our Constitution is in
violation of the fundamental principles of our government, as
set forth in the Bill of Eights. If the gentlemen who told us
the right to vote is a privilege really believe it, why don't they
submit an amendment to the first three articles there? "All
men are born equally free and independent." Is there a man
so narrow that he thinks the word "men" refers to sex? Bead
the next sentence, "Therefore all government of right originates
from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the
general good." And are not women part of the people of the
state of New Hampshire? Are not our mothers and sisters as
much a part of the people of the state of New Hampshire as
we? "All men have certain natural-, essential, and inherent
rights, 'among which are the enjoying and defending life, lib-
erty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and, in a
word, of seeking and obtaining happiness." Does the word
"men" refer to sex merely? The whole principle and theory of
our Bill of Eights is that every member of the community, every
mature person, is entitled to his say in the government, which
regulates him in the pursuit of happiness and the protection
of his life and liberty. I have absolutely no sympathy what-
ever with those who tell us the right to vote is a privilege.
The argument that a great many women do not want it has no
weight. The fact that some people do not want to exercise
their fundamental rights is no reason why you should deny it
to people who do want to exercise it. No man need vote unless
he wants to, no woman need vote unless she wants to, but it
is a right that every person should have under the principles of
our government. If the gentleman from Concord was surprised
at the weakness of the argument in favor of it, I am more
surprised at some of the arguments that were put up against
it, and by able men, too. Does the gentleman from Concord
want this Convention to understand that Utah is in favor of
polygamy because women vote there? Doesn't he know that
polygamy has existed in the world on account of the passion
and selfishness of men? Does anybody believe that the West-
ern states went for free silver because the women voted?
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 427
The whole history of suffrage has been one of a gradual ex-
tension and no extension once given has ever been withdrawn.
It ought and will finally be given to every citizen, regardless of
sex.
Mr. Martin of Concord. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of this
Convention, ten years ago I voted for the amendment in favor
of woman's suffrage, and until recently I have been in favor of
submitting this proposition to the people of this state. But
there is only one class of men who do not change their opin-
ions, and I trust I do not belong to that class. I have changed
my opinion. I have changed my opinion because during the
last two months there has been great agitation in this state
on this question, and I have come to the firm conclusion that
a great majority of the women of this state do not require,
or ask, for the privilege of voting. Now, I will state my po-
sition clearly. If I was convinced that a majority of the women
of New Hampshire demanded of the men of New Hampshire a
right to vote, I should be the first man to champion their
cause, but when I believe that only a small fractional part of
the women of New Hampshire demand this vote, then I am
against it, and against it until the women ask for Tt them-
selves. Now, that is my position. There is a good deal of
sentiment in this subject, and this sentiment controls a great
many women and men. There is no sentiment in the way I
look at it. It is whether the state of New Hampshire will be
benefited by giving women a right to vote and whether the
women of New Hampshire will be benefited by it. If they
would, then I am in favor of it, and until that appears I am
opposed to it. Now, Gentlemen, New Hampshire has been the
first state, and the foremost state, to give women their exact
rights before the law; they stand equally today before the
law with every man in the state. Their property is protected
like the property of men. Their rights are protected, they have
an equal control and guardianship over their children, which
is different from many states. If there is anything the women
need to protect them more than the protection of a good hus-
band, then I am in favor of the women.
Now, Gentlemen, there has been a good deal said about Colo-
rado, and I am going to read you a very short article, which
was written by Mrs. Francis W. Goddard, president of the So-
ciety of Colonial Dames of Colorado in December, 1910. I as-
sume that Mrs. Goddard is a respectable woman, an able
woman, or else she would not be at the head of the Colonial
Dames of that state. She says this:
428 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
"I have voted since 1893. I have been a delegate to. the city
and state Conventions, and a member of the Republican State-
Committee from my county. I have been a deputy sheriff and
a watcher at the polls. For twenty-three years I have been in
the midst of the woman's suffrage movement in Colorado. For
years I believed in woman's suffrage, and have worked day in
and day out for it. I now see my mistake and would abolish
it tomorrow if I could.
"No- law has been put on the statute book of Colorado for the
benefit of women and children that has been put there by the
women. The child labor law went through independently of
the woman's vote. The hours of working women have not been
shortened; the wages of school teachers have not been raised;
the type of men that got into office has not improved a bit.
"Frankly, the experiment is a failure. It has done Colorado
no good. It has done woman no good. The best thing for both
would be if tomorrow the ballot for women could be abolished.
"(Signed) MRS. FRANCIS W. GODDARD."
Now, so much for Colorado. Colorado has been paraded in
our face as being in favor of woman's suffrage at the present
time.
Now, I do not want to be misunderstood. If it was demon-
strated here clearly that the women of New Hampshire asked
for the privilege of voting by a substantial majority, then T
am the man to vote for them, but until that is demonstrated, I
am in favor of letting the women have their own way, as they
have had it for generations, — being the good wives of good men,
bringing up their children as they should be brought up, being ,
good housekeepers, being at home when they ought to be at
home, and being away when they can be away under proper
circumstances, and if they ask for any more rights, when they
can tell us what they are, I will vote for them and grant them.
Now, Gentlemen, don't be carried away by a sentiment, but use
your own common sense whether the women of New Hampshire
want to vote or not. That is the question here. It is not
whether a half dozen agitators up and down the state of New
Hampshire can control your vote, but when opposition has ap-
peared, as it has in the last two months, men must take notice
that a great majority of the better class of women in New
Hampshire are against this proposition.
Mr. Wason of Nashua. —Gentlemen of the Convention, I am
sorry that I am limited to the short time in closing the debate
on this question, but I know you are glad, so I join with you,
and Will try to be brief, and speak as fast as I can. Before I
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 429
.commence to talk, I want to make an allusion to one of the
speakers who has spoken, and the spectacle he presented in
this Convention, to my mind, is one of the strongest pictures
that can be drawn why women should have equal suffrage.
Then we should not have such a picture of him, he would not
be surrounded with such environments as he, the gentTeman
from Concord, has described, who cannot eat, sleep or be happy.
Now, without going into sentiment of the matter, without
talking about what the women want, and discussing the ques-
tion of the honesty of men in favor or against the proposition,
whichever side woman takes, I am going to say to my friends
on the other side that I am as honest, I hope, as you are; in
the views that I entertain I am as consistent as you are. For
ten years I have entertained those views and have not faltered
on any occasion. Every time that I have raised my voice, or
ihad a chance to vote, I have voted to give my sister and my
mother an equal right with me under the Constitution of New
Hampshire. Back when the tyranny of England was oppres-
sive, the people crossed the water and founded this government.
One of the things that they complained of was the king of
England was taxing them without representation. Today, in
-the state of New Hampshire, the good women of the state are
taxed as you and I are, and they are not represented in our
legislative halls. Be consistent and heed the communication
of the fathers, and give to the women today the same rights
that our fathers fought for a century and a half ago. When
you talk about submitting it to the women, I will ask my dis-
tinguished friend from Concord, when the prop(t>sition to give
women the right to vote was granted, was that submitted to
them? One of the most important matters that we have is
education, — our educational institutions, the education of our
young men and women, — and yet, Gentlemen, you all know that
in the country towns, the good women of the state can go
there and vote to raise money and spend it for the education
of the boys and the girls, but by our Constitution and our laws,
if the March meeting comes the next day, ihey are not compe-
tent, they cannot vote as to how much salary shall be paid
the policeman to guard the streets when the sun goes down.
They can vote on the more important matter in our govern-
ment, namely, educational, but for guarding the personal and
property rights of you and me they are not competent. Is it
right? Is it fair? Your answer will be, "No." And if the people
of New Hampshire should vote, "Yes," they will be upon an
• equal footing with you and me on each and every matter. More
430 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
than that, the tendency of all our legislation has been to en-
large their rights. When the gentleman from Concord has
spoken about propertj^ matters, recognition in matters of hold-
ing property, and all that, why should we not extend them the
right of the ballot? Now, Gentlemen, there is only one word
I have time to say. It has been asked here, Who are in favor
of woman's suffrage? There were 13,000 in New Hampshire
who favored it ten years ago; they favor it now. In the last
State Grange a resolution endorsing this proposition was
passed unanimously, reciting that the National Grange of this
country had four times advocated it, and they now ask you and
me today to vote for this proposition granting equal suffrage to
the women of New Hampshire.
On the motion of Mr. AYhitcher to substitute the report of
the minority for that of the majority, Mr. Whitcher of Haver-
hill demanded the yeas and nays.
The demand was seconded by Mr. Wason of Nashua, Mr.
French of Moultonborough, Mr. Morrill of Centre Harbor, Mr.
Barton of Newport, Mr. Spalding of Stoddard, Mr. Rossiter of
Claremont, Mr. Craig of Marlow, Mr. Eastman of Exeter, Mr.
Hall of Dover, Mr. Clark of Haverhill, and the yeas and nays
were ordered.
YEAS. ^
EooKiNGHAM CouNTY. Batchclder of Deerfield, Benson,
Leddy, Anderson, Fuller of Exeter, Sanborn, Healey, Prid-
ham, Leighton, Batchelder of Portsmouth, Lovering, Gowen.
Strafford County. Clark of Barrington, Main, Sherry,
Whitteraore, Hall of Dover, Willson of Farmington, Roberts,
Richards, Preston, Meader, Grant of Rollinsford, Durgin.
Belknap County. McDuffee of Alton, Bean of Belmont,
Parsons, Drake of Laconia, Estes.
Carroll County. Andrews of Bartlett, Hoyt of Madison,
Lamprey, Abbott, Hobbs of Wolfeboro.
Merrimack County. Smith of Allenstown, Stone of An-
dover, Farrand, Marden of Concord, Hollis of Ward 3, Con-
cord, Lyford, Corning, Morrill of Concord, Bancroft, Galla-
gher, Henneberry, Dean, Gardner, Woodbury of Fran Win,
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 431
Mitchell of Hooksett, Boutwell, Wellman of N'ew London,
Drake of Pittsfield, Shaw of Salisbury, Sawyer.
Hillsborough County. Fessenden, Patch, Hadley, See-
ton, Tait, Pattee of Manchester, Lindqiiist, Cavanaugh, Shon-
tell, Broderick, Eagan, Glynn, Howe of Manchester, Magan,
McDonough, Stevens of Manchester, Eodelsperger, Schiller,
Tinkham, Van Vliet, Geoffrion, Hebert, Turcotte, Eaton,
Keyes, McLane, Wadleigh of Milford, Andrews of Nashua,
French of Nashua, Parker of Nashua, Wason, Moran of
Nashua, Shea, Clancy, Ducharme, Marden of New Boston,
Davis of New Ipswich, Hobbs of Pelham, Jones of Peterbor-
ough, Smith of Peterborough, Smith of Sharon, Colburn,
Nelson.
Oheshihe Countt. Slade, Blake, Hubbard, Winn, Tem-
ple, Duncan, Norwood, Faulkner, Craig, Twitchell, Newell,
Nims of Westmoreland, Ball, Fisher.
Sullivan County. Neal of Ac worth. Young of Charles-
town, Brooks, Hurd of Claremont, Upham, Comings, Parker
of Dempster, Tracy, Philbrick, Bailey of Sunapee, Newton.
Grafton County. DeGross, Carlton, Barney of Grafton,
Clark of Haverhill, Whitcher, Curry, Stevens of Landaff,
Waterman, Brummer, Oakes, Shute of Lyman, Ford, Clement,
Green of Waterville, Green of Woodstock.
Coos County. Smith of Berlin, Noyes, Wolf, Wight, Ben-
nett, Cleaveland, Morris, Hancock, Potter, Simpson, Pattee of
Stratford, Garland.
NAYS.
Rockingham County. Griffin, Knights, McDuffee of
Candia, Collins of Danville, Shepard, Webster, Ingalls, East-
man of Exeter, Scammon, Holmes, Emerson, Lane, Rowe, Col-
lins of Kingston, Morse of Newmarket, Willey, Hayford, Dow,
Towle, Bat<3helder of Nottingham, Hill of Plaistow, Entwistle,
Hett, Boynton, Sise, Mitchell of Portsmouth, Moran of Ports-
mouth, Guptill, Brown of Raymond,' Drake of Rye, Gordon,
Hall of Salem, Foote, Jewell of South Hampton, Cochran.
Strafford County. Hurd of Dover, Neal of Dover, Foss,
Knox, Snell, Sanders of Madbury, Hanson, Berry of New Dur-
432 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
}iam, Marcotte, Hoyt of Rochester, Wallace, Haines, Cote,
Flanagan, Letourneau, Leclerc of Somersworth.
Bele:nap County. Moore of Barnstead, Morrill of Centre
Harbor, Morrill of Gilford, Prescott, Richardson, Busiel,
Young of Laconia, Veazey of Laconia, Thyng, Fellows, Til-
ton.
Carroll Coun^tt. Povall, Wiggin, Chandler, Fifield,
Shirley, Robertson, Wormwood, Huckins, Morey, Trickey,
.French of Moultonborough, Weeks of Ossipee, Wentworth,
.Pollard, Berry of Wakefield.
Merrimack County. Buxton, Kittredge, Clough of Can-
terbury, Shaw of Chichester, Tibbetts, Mitchell of Concord,
Ximball, Martin, Flint, Hatch, Quimby of Concord, Hill of
Concord, Burnham, Tripp, Bean of Franklin, Clifford, Jones
^f Franklin, Wilkins, Sargent, Donigan, Young of Northfield,
George W. Fowler of Pembroke, Henry T. Fowler of Pem-
broke, Clark of Pittsfield, Wadleigh of Sutton, Carroll, Good-
Jhue.
Hillsborough County. Harvell, Soper, Pierce of Ben-
nington, Dutton, Hardy, Brown of Greenville, Ware, Flan-
.ders, Haslet, Hayden, Brown of Hudson, Tarbell, Richer,
Brown of Manchester, Warren, Jones of Manchester, Libbey,
Pillsbury of Manchester, Haselton of Manchester, Connor of
Ward 5, Manchester, Ryan, Chatel, Morse of Manchester,
Woodbury of Manchester, Moquin, Biron, Demers, Martel,
Chevrette, Donnelly, Leclerc of Manchester, Parker of Merri-
mack, Connor of Mont Vernon, Greeley, Gilmore, Lampron,
Woodbury of Nashua, Phaneuf, Tolles, Dionne, Morse of
Weare, Bales.
Cheshire County. Pierce of Dublin, Mower of Jaffrey,
Pressler, Wellman of Keene, Clark of Keene, Madden, Fuller
of Marlborough, Ruffle, Fletcher, Nims of Roxbury, Spalding
of Stoddard, Goodnow, Whitcomb of Swanzey, Stone of Troy,
Spaulding of Walpole.
SuLLiYAN County. Rossiter, Davis of Croydon, Booth,
Howard, Winch, Barton, Johnson of Newport, Robinson, Hix-
:8on.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 433
Grafton County. Mathews, Parker of Benton, Whipple,
Moulton, Barney of Canaan, Merrill, Young of Easton, Avery,
Wells, Spooner, Jewell of Groton, Storrs, Updyke, Lawrence,
Carter, Hatton, True, Bailey of Littleton, Eastman of Little-
ton, Veazie of Littleton, Grant of Lyme, Gilchrist, Carr,
Keniston, Herbert, Hazeltine of Thornton, Shute of Went-
worth.
Coos CouNTT. Smyth, Goss, Sullivan, Sheehe, Johnson
of Colebrook, Evans, Clough of Jefferson, Drew, Watson,
Pike, Knapp, Bowker.
Pairs.
Mr. Fairbanks of Manchester was paired with Mr. Folsom
of Dover; Mr. Little of Hill was paired with Mr. Wright of
Sanbornton; Mr. Young of Manchester in favor of the meas-
ure, was paired with Mr. Lambert of Manchester against the
measure; Mr. Wilson of Manchester was paired with Mr.
Stewart of Berlin; Mr. Hamblett of N'ashua was paired with
Mr. Runnells of Nashua.
One hundred and forty-nine gentlemen having voted in the
affirmative and 209 in the negative, the motion to substitute
did not prevail.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation of
the Committee, That it is inexpedient to amend the Consti-
tution as proposed in the resolution, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed, and the
recommendation of the Committee was adopted.
Mr. Lyford of Concord, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, having had under consideration the resolution
of the Committee of the Whole, Resolved, That it is the sense
of the 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 reason-
able exemptions and further to impose a tax upon the incomes
from intangible property, submit the following amendment
to Article 5 and recommend its adoption: —
434 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Ke&olution Xo. 58.
Relating to Taxation.
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: "but the said General Court shall have
full power and authority to specially assess, rate and tax
growing wood and timber and money at interest including
money in savings banks, and to impose and levy taxes on
incomes from stock of foreign corporations and money at
interest except on incomes from money deposited in savings
banks in this state received by the depositors and it may
graduate such taxes according to the amount of the incomes
and may grant reasonable exemptions; provided, that if such
taxes be levied on incomes from stock and money at interest,
no other taxes shall be levied thereon against the owner or
holder thereof," — so that the article as amended shall read 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 make, ordain, and establish all manner of whole-
some and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, direc-
tions, and instructions, either with penalties or without, so
as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this Constitu-
tion, 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 naming and settling all civil
officers within this state, such officers excepted the election
and appointment of whom are hereafter in this form of gov-
ernment 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 affirma-
tions as shall be respectively administered unto them for the
execution of thoir several offices and places, so as the same
Thuksday, June 20, 1912. 435
be not repugnant or contrary to this Constitution; and, also,
to impose fines, mulcts, imprisonments, and other punish-
ments; and to impose and levy proportional and reasonable
assessments, rates, and taxes upon all the inhabitants of, and
residents within, the said state, and upon all estates within
the same, but the said General Court shall have full power
and authority to specially assess, rate and tax growing wood
and timber and money at interest including money in savings
banks, and to impose and levy taxes on incomes from stock
of foreign corporations and money at interest except on in-
comes from money deposited in savings banks in this state
received by the depositors, and it may graduate such taxes
according to the amount of the incomes and may grant rea-
sonable exemptions; provided, that if such taxes be levied on
incomes from stock and money at interest no other taxes
shall be levied thereon against the owner or holder thereof,
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. Prmided, that the General Court shall not authorize
any town to loan or give its money or credit, directly or in-
directly, 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.
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation of
the Committee that the Eesolution be agreed to by the
Convention, —
With that question pending, Mr. Lyford of Concord moved
that the resolution be laid on the table to be printed and
that it be made a Special Order for 2:05 o'clock this after-
noon.
Mr. Lyford of Ooncord. — Mr. President, I desire at this time
simply to make a brief statement. The Committee has endeav-
436 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
ored to follow the instructions of the Convention. They have
re-read those instructions time and again. They have also en-
deavored to make clear the meaning- of those instructions in
this amendment.
Two changes, in fact three changes, were made in the draft
as it appeared in the Manchester Union. The draft, as it ap-
peared in the Union, provided authority to specially assess, rate
and tax growing wood and timber lands. We struck out the
word, "lands," so as to strictly comply with our instructions.
We also inserted "foreign" before the word "corporations," the
idea of the Committee being to favor domestic corporations.
Now, in regard to the savings bank tax, which the gentleman
from Concord, my colleague, Mr. Mitchell, desired to have in-
serted. We used the words, "Except on incomes from money
deposited in savings banks in this state received by the de-
positors."
These words are intended to prevent an income tax against
the individual depositor on the income or dividends he may re-
ceive from his deposit in the savings bank, and are not intended
to prevent the taxation of the banks on the basis of their in-
come rather than on the property basis, as at present, but leave
it to the legislature to tax banks in either way. This last state.-
ment I desired to be accurately taken, and, therefore, 1 have
read it. That is the only explanation I desire to make at this
time. It is my judgment, Mr. President, that we might better
make this a Special Order for this afternoon.
On a vina voce vote the motion of Mr. Lyford prevailed.
On motion of Mr. Clifford of Franklin, the Convention
adjourned at 12:45 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Convention met at 2 o'clock, according to adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the Chair.)
Mr. Lyford of Concord moved to reconsider the vote
whereby Resolution No. 58, Relating to Taxation, was made
a Special Order for 2.05 o'clock this afternoon.
On a viva voce vote the motion prevailed.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 437
Question being on the motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord,
that Eesolution No. 58, Eelating to Taxation, be made a
Special Order for 2.05 o'clock this afternoon, —
On a viva voce vote the motion did not prevail.
On motion of Mr. Lyfoxd of Concord, the resolution was
recommitted to the Committee on Legislative Department.
On motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord, the Committee on
Legislative Department were given leave to sit during the
afternoon session of the Cfonvention.
Mr. Bowker of Whitefield, for the Committee on Bill of
Eights and Executive Department, to whom was referred
Eesolution No. 23, Eelating to Pensions, having considered
the same, report the same with the following resolution : —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu-
tion as proposed in the said resolution.
The report was accepted.
Question being on the recommendation of the Commit-
tee, —
Mr. Folmm of Dover. — ^Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, the people of the state of New Hampshire voted, at
their last election, to hold a Constitutional Convention, and the
legislature appropriated the necessary amount of money. They
voted to hold a Constitutional Convention because they thought
there might be inaccuracies and imperfections in our present
Constitution.
Resolution No. 23 is for the purpose of striking out a small
sentence: Resolved, That Article 36 of the Bill of Rights be
amended by striking out the words, "and never for more than
one year at a time," so that the Article will read as follows:
"AnT. 36. Economy being a most essential virtue in all states,
especially in a young one, no pension should be granted but
in consideration of actual services; and such pensions ought to
be granted with great caution by the legislature."
The words which are asked to be stricken out were added
thereto. This Constitution, as you have heard so many times,
438 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
has carried us through one hundred and twenty-five years or
thereabouts. The question of pensions to certain deserving
public servants was recognized at that time, and this limita-
tion was put upon them, that no pension should be granted to
such faithful public servants except by a vote each year. Now,
the legislature has, from time to time, under this section of
the Constitution, given the people of the state of New Hamp-
shire the privilege of pensioning their public servants who have
been faithful. There are many times that a public servant
should be pensioned. There are firemen who are injured in the
discharge of their duty. There are policemen who are injured
in the discharge of their duty. There are policemen and fire-
men, and there may be others, who have served their towns
and cities long and faithfully, and should be granted pensions.
For instance, take the police ofiicers of any of the large cities
of our state. A man enters the service as a young man, serves
twenty-five years, or whatever the limitation may be, and at
the end of that time is entirely unfitted for further physical,
active service as a policeman on the force of our large cities,
and, if turned out, is actually physically unfitted, by reason of
old age, to labor further in any other capacity.
Now, then. Gentlemen, the only * question here before this
Convention is this: Shall such public servants be required to
have a pension granted to them each year, or should we, under
this Constitution, allow the legislature and the cities and towns
to grant a pension for a term longer than one year? If this
amendment is adopted, contrary to the report of your Com-
mittee, you can grant a pension for one year, and I believe
oftentimes it is wise to do so; but I believe. Gentlemen, that
there should be a provision in our Constitution that, if our
people desire to grant a pension for an extended term of years,
they may have the privilege of doing so. I believe we should
not limit the financial budget, the appropriations of our cities
and our towns, by a one-year limit of this kind. They should
have the privilege, if they so desire, to extend it. I cannot see
that any harm is done to any one. There may be circumstances
under which a one-year pension should be granted, but I be-
lieve there are also circumstances under which a longer term
pension might well be granted, with injury to no one; and that
is the reason why I have taken the floor at this time to oppose
the report of the Committee. I believe this amendment can
fairly and justly be adopted into our Constitution, without in-
jury to any one.
Mr. Hall of Dover. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, I would say
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 439
a single word. The Committee on Bill of Eights and Execu-
tive Department gave a hearing of some considerable length to
the promoters of this amendment, and considered the matter
very carefully. The principal demand for pensions, "of course,
has been in our cities for pensions for disabled firemen and
policemen, who were claimed to have been' injured and disabled,
and in most cases have been injured and disabled, in the line
of their duty, and these pensions have been granted to a con-
siderable extent in the cities of the state, but always under
the constitutional limitation for one year at a time. The ob-
ject here is to get rid of that limitation of one year, which
our fathers, as we think wisely, placed in the Constitution.
The legislature has done what it could to facilitate the getting
of pensions and granting of pensions under this constitutional
provision. They have passed several acts enabling city govern-
ments and towns to vote pensions, but, of course, always under
the restriction that they are to be voted for one year alone.
Now, we looked upon this application to take the one year's
limitation out of the Consitution as an entering wedge to pos-
sible great claims and importunities, and leading to political
agitations which would be undesirable, and of which we know
not the end.
Our view of the matter was that it might open the door to
great expense and perhaps abuse, and that, inasmuch as all
governments are jealous of civil pensions, and ought to be, it
was not advisable to amend our present Constitution in that
respect, if under it reasonably adequate relief could be ob-
tained by those who deserve help and support of this character;
and so we have reported that it is inexpedient to take that
limitation out of the Constitution.
If, however, it is thought wise to make the law more ac-
commodating and favorable to a system of civil pensions, the
Committee would make no strenuous opposition to the proposed
amendment.
Mr. Young of Mancliester. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I have just a word or two that I would like to say
in opposition to the Committee's report. In Manchester we
have been, I think, perfectly willing to grant pensions to sev-
eral of our deserving policemen and firemen, and would do so
for a term of years if we were allowed. It seems unjust and
unreasonable to compel a man who is entitled to a pension to
go before the authorities having that in charge every year, and
beg them to extend his pension one year longer. If he is de-
serving of a pension at all, he is deserving of it as long as he
requires it, without having to go to this trouble every year.
440 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
I can recall one case of a fireman who was injured in the
discharge of his duty. He entered the burning building, and
as he stepped to the door a blast of hot air threw him across
the street. He has never done a moment's hard labor since
then, and never will. Now, we would like the opportunity of
placing him beyond the possibility of w^ant in his old age if we
could, without having to take this matter up every year and
go before new members of the Board of Aldermen and new
members of the Common Council, members who, perhaps, might
have a little personal feeling in the matter, and urge them
to take this action. There seems to be no sensible reason, in
my mind, for having this time limit in the Constitution, and
I sincerely hope that the report of the Committee will be voted
down, so that deserving people in all parts of our state can get
their just rights.
Mr. Young of Laconia. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, it has been suggested here this morning that it
is costing about eight dollars a minute to run this Convention.
If that is true, taking into consideration an absence of a day
since it began, I figure I have listened to about twenty-three
thousand dollars worth. There has not seemed to be any
necessity for me to enter into the debate because there have
always been those who could talk much better than myself,
and who could explain the situation much more thoroughly
than I could.
I feel a slight degree of interest, to say the least, in the
proposition which is before this Convention for consideration,
and that I may very properly speak in behalf of one class of
public servants who perform public duties for almost no re-
muneration whatever in the smaller towns, because I myself
have lived in one of the smaller towns, and during the time
I lived there, for seven years, I was a. member of the volunteer
fire department, and for his service each member in that de-
partment received $12 a year. It was not understood we were
paid for our services. It was understood we were just what
we were called, a volunteer department, but, nevertheless,
it was as much the duty of each member of that department in
that small town to answer to the call of fire as it is the duty
of the man in the larger places, like Manchester, to respond
when he is called and paid a fair day's pay for his work.
Now, it sometimes happens, — it has not happened so very
many times perhaps, — but it sometimes happens that a man
tinder those circumstances is injured. It may be he has a
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 441
family. Ordinarily the men who are in such departments as I
have mentioned are not men of means. They are more com-
monly the workingmen, as we say, and occasion may arise
where the payment of a small pension would be of inestimable
benefit to the man and to his family, and I believe that the
people of this state should take into consideration the benefits
of the services of the firemen in the smaller towns, for I
imagine that there are a great many towns in the state of New
Hampshire where a fire department is maintained as a volun-
teer fire department, that is, a department where the mem-
bers receive little or no compensation for the work which they
actually do, but, nevertheless, the members of which do do
efficient work when they are called upon to attend a fire.
Now, the same argument would apply in behalf of policemen
in the smaller towns. I am interested, perhaps, more for the
firemen because I am a little closer to that end of it, and I
imagine that probably the policemen, where there is a regular
police force, are better paid than the volunteer fire department
members, but I believe it can do no harm to fix the Constitution
so it will be possible for towns and cities, should occasion arise,
to treat the members of the departments which do its public
service, — ^^and I believe do it efficiently, — as public servants,»and
to extend to them that courtesy to which I believe they are
entitled if misfortune overtakes them. And I sincerely hope,
Gentlemen, speaking in behalf of the smaller towns, and also
speaking in behalf of the firemen of my own city, — we call it
a volunteer fire department up there because the men only get
$50 a year; it doesn't average a dollar a fire, and if a man has
decent clothes, he will spoil more clothes in the course of a
year than he can buy with his whole salary, — ^but if it should
happen that a man should fall from a broken ladder or be
injured by an air blast, which our friend here has suggested,
or by any of those calamities which are ever present in that
kind of work, I believe the Constitution of the state ought to
be such, and the laws of the state ought to be such, that we can
keep him from want without his becoming a public charge. I
sincerely hope the report of this Committee will not be ac-
cepted, but that some measure will go in here that will make It
possible to bring about this change.
Mr. Burnham of Dunbarton. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of
the Convention, I am one of Uncle Sam's pensioners, and I
can see no earthly reason why a man who has faithfully served
as a policeman or a fireman, and deserves a pension, should be
required every year to have that pension renewed, any more
than members of the G. A. E.
442 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Bean of Franklin.— ^Lr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, just a word in regard to this proposed amend-
ment to the Constitution. I will say that a year ago last win-
ter, at the last General Court, a bill was introduced and passed
both houses, giving a fireman a pension of from $100 to $500
per year if he is permanently disabled in the discharge of his
duty, or has served his town or city faithfully for twenty-five
years; but this has to be voted on at every town meeting or
city election, and I do not see. Gentlemen, why this should be
voted on. If a man has worked faithfully for twenty-five years,
and has served his department, and taken all chances of his
life in saving people's lives, and even a policeman the same,
I do not see why he should have to apply every year before he
gets his $100. He has got to get somebody to fight this thing
for him, has got to go before the selectmen and get them to
put it into the town warrant every year, and I will say, Mr.
President and Gentlemen of the Convention, that I hope this
resolution will pass.
Mr. Crawford of Manchester. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of
the Convention, I intend to occupy only a very few moments
of your time in discussing this question. The gentleman of
the 'Grand Army referred to pensions granted by the United
States for services rendered upon the field of battle, and I think
you would all consider it very unjust if the government re-
quired us every year to renew our application for a pension.
I have seen on scores of battlefields the sacrificing heroism of
those who are today drawing pensions from the general gov-
ernment. I have also seen our firemen contending against the
flames on buildings wherein were confined women and children,
whose lives were in danger, and, if it had not been for the
courage of those firemen, who took their lives in their hands
and entered those buildings to rescue the men and women and
children who were there surrounded by the flames, they wouHl
have perished. From my observation and experience, I con-
sider that it takes more courage for a flreman to enter a
building to rescue people than it did the soldiers upon the field
of battle in killing people, and I can see no reason why, if
soldiers are not required to prove their claims every year, a
fireman or a policeman who has served his city and has become
disabled in the service should be required to make an appli-
cation once a year.
I have seen policemen in my own city who have been injured
in the performance of their duty, by bites or assaults of crim-
inals whom they were attempting to arrest, and were laid up
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 443
for a few days, and their pay was cut out during the time they
were away from the service, although away owing to injuries
received in the performance of their duty.
Now, it seems to me that it is not fair, as long as we are
dealing with such a couraegous set of men as are our firemen
and our policemen, that we should require them to apply every
year when they are so disabled that they never can hope to re-
cover during their life, be it long or short. I hope this report,
Gentlemen, will not be adopted, and that we may submit that
amendment that will authorize our cities and towns to take
care, not as paupers, not in the poorhouse, not in the alms-
houses, but to provide for taking care of those heroic men who
have given up their health and offered their lives in your service
and in protecting your property and saving the lives of your
wives and children.
The President. — The question is. Shall the recommendation of
the Committee be adopted?
Mr. Young of Laconia. — Mr. President, am I correct in under-
standing that those who are in favor of striking this out of
the Constitution should vote "no" on this report?
The President. — The Committee report that it is inexpedient
to adppt the proposed amendment. A vote in favor of the pro-
posed amendment would be a negative vote on this vote.
On a viva voce vote the negative appeared to prevail.
Mr. Pressler of Keene called for a division.
A division being had, the Chair declared the vote mani-
festly in the negative, and the recommendation of the Com-
mittee was not adopted.
Mr. Folsom of Dover moved that the Convention agree to
the amendment proposed in the resolution.
On a viva voce vote the motion prevailed.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Time
and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments
Agreed to by the Convention.
Mr. Hall of Dover, for the Committee on Bill of Rights
and Executive Department, to whom was referred Resolu-
tion N'o. 8, Relating to the Election of Certain Officers, hav-
444 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
ing considered the same, report the same with the following
resolution: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed in the said resolution.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester, for the Committee on Bill
of Eights and Executive Department, to whom was referred
Resolution No, 44, Relating to Councillor Districts, having
considered the same, report the same with the following
resolution: —
Resolved, That the amendment proposed in the resolution
be agreed to.
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.
Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester, for the Committee on Bill
of Rights and Executive Department, to whom was referred
Resolution No. 28, Providing for Election by Plurality Vote
of the Governor and Other Officials, having considered the
same, report the same with the following resolution: —
Resolved, That the said proposed amendment to the Con-
stitution be agreed to by the Convention.
The report was accepted.
Question being on the recommendation of the Commit-
tee, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative appeared to prevail.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill called for a division.
Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester. — ^Mr. President and Gentlemen,
as the report comes from the Committee of which I am a mem-
ber, and my name is signed to it, I wish to say a few words.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 445
There are four separate resolutions introduced here, and this
report is on one of them. The report on the other three is also
on the desk.
The Committee has reported unanimously in favor of a plu-
rality electing certain of&cials who are now required to be
elected by majority vote. These are, Governor, councillors for
five districts, and twenty-four senators.
We have reported favorably a resolution which is general
in its character, and we have reported adversely on the other
three because they are covered by this resolution. Now, it is
a very plain question which is put squarely up to this Conven-
tion, a question which, in my opinion, requires very little dis-
cussion or argument. At the present time the spectacle is pre-
sented to us once in a while, and may be presented to us at
any time, of these three different classes of officers being voted
for by the people, a failure to give a majority vote to any one
man, but pretty nearly a certainty that someone will receive
more than anybody else, and the election is thrown into our
legislature, with the chance of a partisan advantage being
taken there, one way or another. Now, the Committee took
the ground that this should be changed. They felt, instead of
requiring a majority vote, and perhaps having that situation
arise, that the restriction against the plurality election and the
requirement of the majority election having been eliminated
from, I think, every other office but these three, it should be
eliminated from these three classes, and I trust the action of
the Committee will be backed up and ratified by this Conven-
tion.
Division being had, 257 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
and 10 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the recom-
mendation of the Committee was adopted.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Time and
Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed
to by the Convention.
Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester, for the Committee on Bill
of Eights and Executive Department, to whom were referred
Eesolution No. 34, Eelating to the Election of Officials by
Plurality Vote, Eesolution No. 36, Eelating to the Election
of Officials by Plurality Vote, Eesolution No. 54, Eelating
to Election of Governor by Plurality Vote, and Eesolution
446 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
No. 55, Relating to Election of Senators, having considered
the same, report the same with the following resolution: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to agree to the same, the
subject-matter of said resolutions being covered by Resolu-
tion No. 28.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
On motion of Mr. Young of Manchester, —
Resolved, That a Committee of five be appointed to con-
sider the expediency of publishing a report of the proceed-
ings of the Convention verbatim, or in abbreviated form, and,
if deemed expedient, to recommend a plan for the publica-
tion and distribution of such reports.
'Mi. Wadleigh of Milford moved that the Convention re-
solve itself into Committee of the Whole, for the purpose
of considering all resolutions relating to the future mode of
amending the Constitution, the same being, —
Resolution No. 3, Relating to Future Mode of Amending
the Constitution.
Resolution No. 11, Relating to Future Mode of Amending
the Constitution.
Resolution No. 16, Relating to Future Mode of Amending
the Constitution.
Question being on the motion of Mr. "Wadleigh of Mil-
ford, —
T?ie President.— The Chair would suggest that the motion is
in order, but, that the matter of taxation having been made
a Special Order for this afternoon, if the Committee on Leg-
islative Department should get ready to report something, the
printed bills being now here, we should go into Committee of
the Whole to discuss the matter of proposed amendments on
future mode of amending the Constitution with the under-
standing that if the Committee comes back we shall come back
into Convention in order to take up the taxation matter.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 447
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
In" Committee, of the Whole'.
(Mr. Madden of Keene in the Chair.)
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — Mr. Chairman, I desire to make at
this time a motion, or at least at the conclusion of a few re-
marks, that we report to the Convention that Kesolution No.
11, introduced by the gentleman from Manchester, Mr, Cav-
anaugh, be reported favorably to the Convention, and that
Eesolution No. 16, introduced by myself, and Eesolution No. 3,
by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Flint, be reported un-
favorably, so the remarks I wish to make are entirely on the
resolution proposed by the gentleman from Manchester, Mr.
Cavanaugh.
Now, this resolution provides that two successive legislatures,
by majority vote, and then by ratification by two thirds of
the voters of the state voting on the same, may amend the Con-
stitution in the future, and it also provides for a Convention
such as we now have. Now, let me say that this is no fad of
mine, and I want to call your attention to two or three things
to prove this. There have been different opinions expressed
here during this Convention as to why this Convention has
been called, and some have said it would not have been called
if it had not been for the license question. Let me call to
your attention one reason why this Convention was called. If
you will turn to the Eepublican platform of the last campaign
you will find it says: "There should be a Constitutional Con-
vention called to deal with taxation," which we have disposed
of; "representation," which we have discussed; "and future
mode of amending the Constitution." This third matter we
have not considered in this Convention. Talking with Profes-
sor Colby of Dartmouth, who is good authority upon constitu-
tional law, who has given more study to it than anyone else,
in whom we all have confidence,— I was told within a few days
that he considered the most important question, except pos-
sibly taxation, was the question of the future mode of amend-
ing the Constitution. When coming to Concord yesterday, at
the station, I saw a former attorney-general of Massachusetts,
a man who stands high as a public-minded man, and who is
not a revolutionist. He said, "What are you considering at
the Convention?" Then he remarked, "There is just one thing
above all that you ought to consider, that is, the future mode
448 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
of amending your Constitution; you ought to make it approval
by two successive sessions of the legislature by majority vote,
and ratification by the people." I said, "I am afraid our con-
servative friends are against it." He said, "That is funny; 1
am conservative," and went on to say, "Now, if they would
leave it to the legislature to submit amendments to the Con-
stitution, as in these resolutions, people would consider the
questions one at a time, as the questions came along. There
would be more deliberation, each would be considered more on
its merit, and the Constitution would be gradually amended."
Some one says, "Why do we need the change?" If you will
turn to page 855 in the Journal of the last Convention, you
will find a table showing that every single state of the forty-
six in the Union, at that time, — and I am not sure how New
Mexico did leave her future mode of amendment, — I think every
state except ours provides that the legislature shall have thfi
power to submit amendments to the Constitution. Many of
these states formerly had just the system we have, but all
have found from experience, and from the experience of other
states, that it is wiser, more conservative and better to give
this power to the legislature. Now, some say that it is not
a good thing, that Conventions are wiser than the legislatures.
Why, of course, this Convention is; this is a very wise Conven-
tion. I may disagree or agree with the results of this Conven-
tion, but I am proud to be a member of it. It is a body of
good, strong, able men that mean well, and I think we should
keep up with the procession of our sister states in this mat-
ter. I think we should give two successive legislatures the
opportunity to propose amendments. If you will look over the
history of the Conventions, you will see in this they were not
as wise as we might have hoped. The Convention of 1792 sub-
mitted seventy-odd questions, and they were submitted in such
shape that when some were ratified and some not, they had
to reassemble and go over the work again. On reassembling,
they submitted three questions, and one of them passed, and
the second one was one similar to the resolution we are now
discussing, and that only lacked a few hundred votes of being
ratified, and that was more than sixty years ago. I venture to
say it would not be strange if every one of the resolutions we
submit are defeated, yet the public good and the public wel-
fare may demand there be some change in the Constitution
soon, and the only way any amendment can be submitted for
some years is by a Constitutional Convention like this, costing
something like $25,000, and then we shall have a lot of ques-
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 449
tions, and possibly most of them will be voted down again,
because, when you submit a lot of questions, it is not easy to
carry those that ought to be carried. We are very foolish if
we do not gain something and learn something by the experi-
ence of our sister states. I say this is a reasonable and con-
servative amendment, and would improve our Constitution, mak-
ing it possible, as time goes on and new public questions arise,
to gradually fit our Constitution to the times. This resolution
submitted by the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Cavanaugh,
ought to be adopted hj us. Now, some one says that legis-
latures will be continually tinkering with our Constitution,
that many will try to introduce amendments every time that
the legislature meets. But let us see. They must go to the
Committees of the legislature, in both House and Senate. The
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution will naturally
be a conservative and strong Committee; undoubtedly they will
consider carefully the questions. Any resolution must pass the
House and then go to the Senate, — and can you think of any-
thing very radical passing two successive Senates of New
Hampshire? It must then go on to the next session two years
later, and then pass the House and the Senate again, and then
go to the people and be ratified by a two-thirds vote. So, Mr.
Chairman and Gentlemen, I hope you will give this matter
xjareful consideration. There are others here who want to ex-
press their sentiments on the matter, and I hope you will give
this question the consideration that the public good demands.
Mr. Cavanaugh of MancJiester. — As the gentleman from Milford
has so gracefully yielded consideration of his resolution in
favor of mine, and I presume the same thing applies to the
gentleman from Concord, I wish to say only a word or two on
the subject, for the reason that we are approaching a period in
our deliberations when the members do not care to listen to
lengthy arguments. I think this matter is very plain. One
of the provisions of our Constitution is that every seven years
the sense of the voters of this state shall be taken upon the
question of whether or not a Convention shall be called. I
don't remember just now how many have been called.
Now, the resolution which I have introduced was introduced
at the request of quite a number of people from different sec-
tions of this state, and I believe it is one which is desired by
the people of our state. It provides that any proposed amend-
ment must run the gauntlet of two successive sessions of the
legislature and must receive in these two sessions a majority
vote before it is submitted to the people, and, being submitted
450 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
to the people, it must get the same percentage of votes to ratify
as is now required for any amendment that may be submitted
by us. Now, it seems to me that there is nothing radical in this
proposed resolution; it is quite conservative when we consider
the situation that we are in. We have been here three weeks
and we are planning to get through next Saturday. Now,
speaking for myself, and I presume I might have been as well
informed as the average member, I came here with the gen-
eral idea that there would be only two or three subjects offered
for our consideration. Of course, I was unable to know just
what resolutions would be presented. We come here, we spend
a very short three weeks, we have a large number of resolu-
tions upon very important subjects submitted to us, many of
whom are serving our first term in a Constitutional Convention,
and we are called upon in that short time to act intelligently
and wisely, and for the best interests of our constituents. Now,
I claim, as a fornafer member of legislatures of this state, that
the make-up of this body is largely the same as the make-up
of the House of Representatives and Senate. Therefore, I think
that, generally speaking, we will have the benefit of the con-
sideration of the matters submitted to the Convention by about
that class of men. Suppose some amendment is introduced in
the legislature and secures the necessary- majority vote; it will
be necessary to have the same matter come up at the next
session of the legislature. It will be a matter which will be
before the people at the next election. The senators and rep-
resentatives elected to the next legislature will have a chance
to hear those matters discussed; they will come to that next
session of the legislature with a knowledge of the good and the
bad features of the proposed amendment, and in that way have
an advantage over the present method. Now, that, to me. Gen-
tlemen, is one of the most important provisions of this resolu-
tion, to have an interval of two years between two successive
sessions of our legislature elapse, giving the people of the state,
and giving the men who will become members of the legis-
lature, ample time to know what amendments have been sub-
mitted, and so they may be able to come to the legislature pre-
pared to act upon them more intelligently than the men who
are called once in ten or twelve years, and asked to do the
same kind of work in the short period of three weeks. That
is about all I have to say, especially at this time, unless some-
thing is suggested that T think may require some answer.
Mr. Eositman of Exefer.—Th\s matter of the way to amend the
Constitution has been brought up several times before. It was
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 451
under consideration at the last Constitutional Convention, ten
years ago. The matter was then thoroughly threshed out be-
fore the Convention. Professor Colby, whose name has been
used here, was in attendance before the Committee, and the
matter was fully heard, and, as a result of that hearing, a
resolution was presented to amend the Constitution in the way
suggested at this time; but it was not adopted. Now, I am
surprised at the attitude of some gentlemen in the Convention.
One gentleman said that we would have to be more careful
because, if we were not, there would be a Convention that
would tear this old Constitution all to pieces, and that remark
seemed to meet with a good deal of applause. Now, I am very
much in favor of the old Constitution, which has served us well
for one hundred and twenty years. It has been amended a
few times and in only a very few particulars, which, to my
mind, shows the value of that instrument. We have heard a
good deal about what they do in California, and what they do
in Oregon, and what they do in various other states, — Colorado
and the state of Maine, — and we are assured we are way be-
hind the times because we don't adopt the same method they
have adopted in those states to amend the Constitution, They
say we are not keeping up in the procession. I am a New
Hampshire man, and, as a man once said, "I w^as always born
in New Hampshire." I think a good deal of New Hampshire in-
stitutions and of the New Hampshire Constitution, and I should
be very sorry to adopt any plan or method which would oper-
ate in any way to injure that instrument. Now, it is suggested
that amendments to the Constitution be made by the legis-
lature, and it is claimed the legislature can give more atten-
tion to the amendments to the Constitution than a Convention
called especially for that purpose, and it is intimated that the
legislature would probably be composed of men who would
perhaps, be better adapted to consider the questions which
would come up before them. I was criticised for a remark I
made in the Convention ten years ago, to the effect that, in my
judgment, the Convention then present was made up of an
abler set of men, as a whole, than the legislatures we had had
for several years preceding that time. Now, then, I did not
mean to speak in disparitj^ of the legislatures that had pre-
ceded the Constitutional Convention. I think it is generally
understood in New Hampshire, however, that, in selecting dele-
gates to come to a Constitutional Convention, good men are
picked out. We all agree to that fact. We won't have to go
out of the Convention to prove it. We will admit we are good
452 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
men. If that is so, why should we undertake to turn over to
another body of men the matters that are now to be consid-
ered by a Convention? Why, the legislature is a partisan body,
and, every time the legislature meet, the party in power would
think the Constitution ought to be fixed in some wa3\ It is
always natural to promote the interests of your party by leg-
islation, and, if the Constitution stood in the way, the legislature
would amend the Constitution; they would not hesitate to
make partisan amendments. Suppose you have the legislature
do this, suppose that is so, you would get an amendment
through in four years on the plan that is now suggested. Under
the present Constitution it is within the power of the people
to call a Convention once in seven years, or as often as the
people see fit. Now, I want to ask you if you believe we want
i)0 meet and tinker with the Constitution oftener than once in
seven years? The Constitution is not a bundle of statute laws.
It is the fundamental organic law upon which all the laws of
the state are based. We cannot afford to have that fundamental
organic law changed practically as often as the statute laws of
the state. We do not want any such remedy as that to amend
this instrument. I am opposed to any suggestion of that kind.
I opposed it ten years ago. I am opposed to it now. I think
the facilities for amending the Constitution of New Hampshire
are good enough, and they are ample enough. If I was going
to make any suggestion, I would make it even harder to amend
the Cfonstitution than it is today.
Mr. Jones of Manchester moved that the Committee do
now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
In Convention.
(The President in the Chair.)
Mr. Madden of Keene, for the Committee of the Whole,
to whom were referred all resolutions relating to the future
mode of amending the Constitution, report progress and ask
leave to sit again.
The report was accepted and leave granted.
Thuksday, June 20, 1912. 453
COM^nTTEE EeFOET.
Mr. Lyford of Concord, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, to whom was referred Resolution No. 58, Re-
lating to Taxation, having considered the same, report the
same, with the recommendation that the Convention agree
to the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation of
the Committee, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — The Committee asked to have this
amendment recommitted, in order that the position of the Com-
mittee on one simple question might be thoroughly understood
in this Convention. The Committee is unanimous in its repoit,
except in that clause in which provision is made giving the leg-
islature authority and power to Impose and levy taxes on in-
comes from stock of foreign corporations. A majority of the
Committee believed in reporting it with the term, "foreign cor-
porations." A minority of the Committee desired, and will of-
fer on the floor of this House, an amendment striking out the
word, "foreign," so that the amendment will read and cover
the stock of both domestic and foreign corporations. If the
gentleman from Landaff is in the House, he will offer that
amendment at the present time.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff moved to amend by striking out
the word, "foreign," wherever it appears.
Question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Stevens
of Landaff to Resolution No. 58, Relating to Taxation, —
Mr. Stevens of Lcmdaff. — Just a word in explanation of this
amendment. I offer it for two reasons. In the first place, I
believe those two words should be stricken out because the
instructions of this Convention to the Committee were to bring
in an amendment that would allow the taxation of the incomes
from intangibles. It was not limited to the income from stocks
of foreign corporations, and I believe that our report should
follow the instructions of this Convention. And, in the second
place, I am personally in favor of giving the legislature power
to tax the income from all stocks and intangibles, irrespective
of whether they are foreign or local corporations.
454 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Carter of Lebanon. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I object to this amendment that the gentleman
from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, has offered, for three reasons. It
seems to me there is some doubt about what intangibles are.
If we adopt this amendment of Mr. Stevens, then the legislature
can tax the corporations of this state. Now, one reason why
they should not be taxed, — why there should not be any income
tax from the corporations of this state, — is because the cor-
porations already pay a tax, unless they are exempted for a
short time, and if we impose this income tax upon them, — they
pay the regular tax, as on other property; they can conceal
nothing; they have their plant, and they pay their regular
tax, — and they also pay a government tax, and if this tax Is
imposed they will pay a triple tax. I can distinguish this dif-
ference between the bonds of a company and the stock. If
a man buys a bond of a corporation, he should satisfy himself
that the property will sell for enough to pay the bond, but he
takes no risk. Whereas, if he takes the stock, he takes the risk
of the business. And there is another reason why I should ob-
ject to this, and that has been talked up in the Committee.
Those who are engaged in manufacturing business, if as a part-
nership, pay no income tax, whereas, if their business is run
as a corporation, then they would have to pay this tax, and
that certainly would not be a fair proposition; and I am sure
you. Gentlemen, would agree with me in this matter.
I haven't anything to say about foreign corporations at this
time. I do believe we make a mistake in imposing this income
tax upon the local corporations of New Hampshire. If we can
do anything to encourage manufacturing in our state, we should
do it, and we should offer every inducement to manufacturers
out of the state to come here to engage in manufacturing, and
if they know that they have to pay a regular tax, the govern-
ment tax, and state income tax, do you think they will locate
in New Hampshire?
Mr. Wason of Nashita. — Mr. President, by striking out the
word, "foreign," it simply places the stocks of our own cor-
porations, — that is, the home corporations referring to New
Hampshire, — on the same basis that the stock of corpora-
tions in Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont or Pennsylvania is.
It seems to me, so far as the constitutional proposition Is
concerned, that it is fair, equitable and right. In other
words, the stock of any corporation, whether the corporation
is located in Concord, N. H., or in Lowell, Mass., or in Phila-
delphia, Pa., should stand upon the same basis for taxation.
Of course, the legislature in its wisdom can classify, under this
Thuksday, June 20, 1912. 455
provision, the stocks of the home and foreign corporations.
It seems to me we should not tie or limit the powers of the
legislature bj^ restricting it to foreign corporations. I think a
corporation is a corporation and they should all stand alike,
so that the legislature can deal with them all alike, that is,
the stocks that may be held by our citizens, or by corporations
in this state. I do recognize that there is force to the sugges-
tions made by the gentleman from Lebanon, Mr. Carter, if ap-
plied to legislation. In other words, most of the suggestions he
has made here today would appeal to me if I was voting on a
statute relating to taxation of these stocks, in the legislature.
I am not sure but I should agree with him fully on that propo-
sition, because I, like my friend from Exeter, was born in New
Hampshire. I don't suppose I shall ever get out of it; I believe
in taking care of our own. I think, if any favor in taxation
of stocks is to be made, it should be made in favor of our
home industries, but that does not interest us here at this time.
The question is whether we shall give the legislature the power
to deal with home corporations, or foreign corporations, rela-
tive to the imposition of an income tax upon all stocks alike,
and I hope the amendment offered by Mr. Stevens will prevail.
Mr. Whittemore of Dover. — Mr. President, I did not intend to
discuss this proposition, but I do feel that, as the subject is ona
that concerns the citizens of New Hampshire, it should be made
plain to the Convention what the effect of this amendment,
offered by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, if adopted,
would be.
I do not believe that there is any man in this Convention who
favors a double tax on local enterprises, and, if this amend-
ment should be adopted, then our legislature will have au-
thority to put a double tax on ever^^ business enterprise located
within this state that is incorporated under our New Hamp-
shire laws. The object of the wording, as it is left in the reso-
lution introduced by the Committee, is to exempt stock owned
by citizens of New Hampshire, in a New Hampshire enterprise,
so as to prevent a double tax on our local industries, as the
present law taxes all such property at its full value. Why
should we give the legislature authority to tax citizens of New
Hampshire again, by reason of their ownership in the stock
of such corporation?
To make the question, and my meaning, plain to you, 1 will
give you an illustration. In the city of Dover we have citi-
zens engaged in the maufacture of shoes, and, for the conveni-
ence of carrying on their business, they have incorporated the
456 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
same, under our New Hampshire laws. There are several
reasons for this, one reason being- that it is more convenient to
keep the business running in case of the death of any stock-
holder, as the interest is represented by the stock, which can
be transferred without interfering- with the management of
the same.
We also have, in the city of Dover, a large industry in the
manufacturing of belting, etc. The owners of <this factory have
not incorporated and are conducting the business as a part-
nership. Now, you will readily see that if the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, is adopted,
the owners of the manufacturing plant that is incorporated
will be compelled to pay a tax upon the income of the same,
in addition to the regular tax that is now paid upon the prop-
erty of the concern, while the owners of the other factory,
managed under the form of a partnership, will have to pay no
tax upon the income derived from operating their plant.
Now, I fail to see why we should enact an amendment that
would allow the legislature to doubly tax any New Hampshire
enterprise. Such a step would mean that any of you could not
incorporate your business without subjecting yourselves ta
this double taxation. If we are to adopt an income tax, a tax
that includes every class of business, every class of income, re-
gardless of its source, then my objection would not obtain, but
it seems to me that here is an attempt to attack the income
derived from one source alone, and that source the income from
a New Hampshire corporation.
We reach the holder of stock in foreign corporations under
the resolution as reported by the Committee, and it is the
only tax that we place upon the owners of such stock, as the
property of the foreign corporation is outside of New Hamp-
shire, and cannot be reached by our taxation laws. The state
of New Hampshire gets no tax from this class of stock, at the
present time. Let us not attempt to give the legislature au-
thority to burden the citizens of New Hampshire by a double
taxation on her local enterprises.
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — I^ould like to make an inquiry.
Mr. LyforcD of Concord. — Perhaps I will answer your inquiry
if you will allow me to make this simple statement, so that
every member may understand the significance of this motion.
The word, "foreign," there limits the tax on incomes to foreign
corporations, so that the legislature is not granted power to tax
incomes of domestic corporations. You strike out the word,
"foreign," and you give the power to the legislature to tax the
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 45 T
incomes of either domestic or foreign corporations. Does thai
make it clear?
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — I would like to ask just one ques-
tion. What does "foreign" corporations mean? If I am doings
business in New Hampshire, and should go to Maine and or-
ganize in Maine, is that a foreign corporation?
Mr. Lyford of Conwrd. — I understand it is.
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — I hope the amendment will not pre-
vail. I think we ought to encourage people to invest money in
New^ Hampshire, in home corporations.
Mr. Bo^nton of Portsinvouth. — One feature about this that they
have not examined very closely: Now, in relation to taxing in-
comes, the taxation on local corporations, the corporations
themselves pay the taxes, but if the savings bank owned the
stock of that corporation, they now pay a tax on that stock the
second time. The individuals are placed on the same basis as
savings banks by cutting out the word, "foreign."
On a viva voce vote the negative appeared to prevail.
Mr. Broderick of Manchester called for a division.
Division being had, 73 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
and 159 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the amend-
ment of Mr. Stevens was not adopted.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation of
the Committee that the proposed amendment to the Con-
stitution be agreed to by the Convention, —
Mr. Hobbs of PeUiam. — I rise to make an inquiry. I have had
a little experience in taxation, and the people of my section
have had trouble with it. We live in a border town. Quite an
amount of the money of the town is in the savings banks in
Massachusetts. Some thirty years ago there were inventory
blanks issued and money at interest was taxed, and our people
paid the tax one year. Then it came before the Courts, and it
was decided it was double taxation; and I would like to inquire
whether this is intended to stop the depositing in Massachu-
setts, or whether it is a club in the hands of the savings banks
to drive that money into New Hampshire from Massachusetts.
Of course, we understand why it is there. The people there
can get four percent for their deposits. The banks in Nashua
458 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
pay three percent. There was a while they didn't pay any-
thing, didn't even pay the full amount of the principal, and
a good many of the depositors that formerly deposited -n
Nashua go to Lowell. They have not lost anything there, and
they do not have to wait fifteen years to get the principal
of their money, as they did in Nashua. The banks in Nashua
now, under the management they have, are a good deal better.
We would like it so we could keep our money where it would
draw four percent. We are willing to pay on the income. If
this is a club we want to know it.
Mr. Martin of Concord. — Mr. Chairman, there were twenty
members on the Committee to whom were referred the different
bills on taxation. This resolution which has been reported is
the combined judgment, the best judgment of that Committee.
There has been no club introduced into it. No one represent-
ing a savings bank in New Hampshire has been here before the
Committee, or suggested that they wanted the money which
men deposit in Massachusetts banks. The purpose of the Com-
mittee was, and is, that we submit a resolution to the people
of New Hampshire, which we are in hopes they will adopt.
The savings banks of New Hampshire at the present time pay
three fourths of one percent tax on the greater portion of their
deposits. There are some exemptions, and the exemptions
probably would reduce the savings banks tax to one half of
one percent. Now, the purpose of this amendment is that
everybody who has money at interest shall stand the same in
New Hampshire as the men whose money is in the savings bank;
that if a man owns Pennsylvania Railroad stock, or New York
Central Railroad stock, or the Pullman Company stock, he shall
contribute his share to the taxes of New Hampshire, at least
one half of one percent, or equal to the savings bank tax. For
illustration, suppose I own $50,000 of real estate that is taxed;
my neighbor owns $50,000 in the Pullman Company stock, and
he is not taxed; or, in other words, I am paying' for my neigh-
bor's streets, his lights, his sidewalks, and his property is ex-
empt from taxation. We want to make taxes as equal as pos-
sible. Now, whether an investment in Massachusetts savings
banks by some one on the border of this state is as good as
some investment in this state, we have not attempted to settle.
You cannot make a provision of the Constitution which will
cover all the details of legislation. We can submit a general
provision, which will allow the people of New Hampshire, and
their property, to be taxed as nearly equally as possible, and
that is all we want. Now, I will repeat, there were no savings
Thursday, JuiNE 20, 1912. 459
banks represented before us. It was never suggested that we
attempt to drive the public to invest their money in New Hamp-
shire savings banks. The people are at liberty to put their
money where they please; but we do ask that every man shall
bear a fair proportion of the taxes of this state, and pay for
his part of the benefits which he receives from the govern-
ment of the state, whether his property is in railroad stock,
bonds or any other evidences of debt. This resolution had the
support of Judge Mitchell, that is, the assistance of Judge
Mitchell, and other gentlemen who were interested came in
before us, and the resolution is the combined judgment of the
Committee. Of course, you can amend it, if you see fit, but we
want to go before the people with some amendment which will
commend itself to the people, and have a chance of ratification.
Mr. Sullivan of Berlin. — I would like to inquire of some mem-
ber of the Convention whether this amendment is broad enough
to include all of the income of corporations. I have the im-
pression it does not, but includes for the purpose of taxation
only the income received from stock in foreign corporations.
Now, it seems to me that there are other corporations that
should be included. I refer to the income received by stock-
holders in national banks. It seems to me that the owners of
this class of property have an easy method of avoiding tax-
ation. I suppose that a national bank is a domestic corpora-
tion. Now, the stock in national banks, under the laws of this
state, is treated as so much cash on hand. Consequently its
value for the purposes of taxation can be offset by any out-
standing indebtedness which the owners of it may owe on the
first day of April, so that if a man is owing any debts on
the first day of April, and a large number of this claTss of prop-
erty-owners apparently always do, they can set off the Amount
of their indebtedness against the value of their bank stock, and
they always have enough of the latter on hand to more than
balance the former, and in that way, under the color of law,
avoid payment of taxes on property that is often paying them
as high as eight, ten and sometimes twelve percent.
I would like to have the amendment broad enough to include
the income derived from this class of property.
Mr. Lijford of Concord. — Isn't that a legislative function, some-
thing that the legislature itself can correct? Doesn't the gen-
tleman understand that he could go to the legislature today
and tax national bank stock differently from what it is taxed?
Mr. SulUvwi of Berlin. — I understand it is taxed today.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Cannot the legislature tax it differ-
ently?
460 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Sullivan of Berlin. — I think tfie only way to reach' it is by
income tax.
Mr. Martin of Concord. — I want to make a suggestion, that na-
tional banks are not domestic corporations, and the income
received from the stock of national banks could be taxed under
this amendment, and I don't see that we require any change on
that score.
Mr. Sullivan of Berlin. — That is all right if it is.
Mr. Johnson of Colebwok. — I want to make just one suggestion
here. I see nothing in this amendment that would allow any
taxation on income of the domestic corporation whose property
is substantially all located outside of the state. If the property
is all located outside of the state, the state would receive no
income, and could impose no tax on that property, and neither
could it impose any tax on the income of the stock that is held
in this state. That is the objection I make to it.
Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — In answer to the gentleman from
Colebrook, I would say, that the physical property of such cor-
poration located within the state would be taxable under the
general law, the same as always has been the case, if I under-
stand this question.
Mr. Johnson of Colebrook. — I do not dispute that at all, but I
am speaking in regard to its physical property that is located
outside of the state. If it is a domestic corporation incor-
porated under the laws of the state of New Hampshire, and ita
actual physical property exists outside of the state, or lies
largely outside of the state, the state could impose no tax, ancT
could receive no revenue from it, or could impose no tax or
revenue on the income of its stock.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — I see no way to meet that situation
except to adopt the amendment which I offered, which was
voted down. My idea was that this matter be opened up and
left to the legislature, and the legislature could protect and
encourage home industries which had put their property in
here, and look after them afterwards. By striking out th3
word, "foreign," they could get at such corporations that take
out a charter here and have their property somewhere else,
but that amendment has been voted down. I see no may *to
cover that particular case which the gentleman from Colebrook
has mentioned, except to strike out the word, "foreign."
Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — There is just a word to say with re-
gard to this, — the question of the gentleman from Colebrook.
There would be a little less double taxation. That is all.
The taxation of incomes on stocks is, of course, double tax-
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 461
ation. Now, if it can be conceived that anybody would come in
ihere and incorporate, having their property in Massachusetts
or somewhere else, that property certainly is taxable there, and
the persons here owning the stock of that corporation wouid
simply escape double taxation by so much. That is all. This
amendment probably does not reach a stockholder of a do-
mestic corporation whose property is all somewhere else, but
that property somewhere else is being taxed, and the New
Hampshire holder escapes double taxation by just so much.
That is all there is to it.
Mr. Carter of Lebwrion. — I would like to ask the gentleman
from Colebrook if every corporation in the state of New Hamp-
shire, unless specially exempted, which has inducement to
locate in some particular place, is not taxed, whether the stock
is owned by New Hampshire men or men in Massachusetts?
Doesn't the property pay tax in every case?
Mr. Johnson of Colebrook. — To answer this question, we yvill sup-
pose there is a corporation organized under the laws of the state
of New Hampshire, and nine tenths of its physical property is
located outside of the state. That property is all represented
by stockholders, by individuals in this state. If no tax could
be imposed on the income of that stock, I see no other way by
which that nine tenths of the property of that corporation couid
be taxed in this state in any form, and it would contribute no
part of the revenue to this state. That is the objection I make
to that.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — The members of the Legislative Com-
mittee have worked long and hard to furnish to this Conven-
tion some amendment relating to taxation which would be sat-
isfactory. They have endeavored, since proposing such an
amendment, to make plain to the members of this Convention
what it means. I have talked with a dozen members of this
'Convention, and bright, intelligent men as they are, they al-
most with one accord say they cannot understand what all the
provisions of this amendment mean. Gentlemen have arisen
on the floor, asking questions about these things. I ask the
gentlemen, the members of this Convention, if they think it is
very likely that the people of the state of New Hampshirfe,
when a proposition like this is proposed to them, will adopt
any such thing as this? The gentleman from Pelham seemed
to think there might be a "joker" hidden in this, I wonder if
the people of New Hampshire, when it is submitted to them,
won't wonder if there is a "joker" in it and defeat it. It
rseems to me this proposition has not the slightest chance of
462 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
being adopted by the people of New Hampshire, if sUbmittcl
to them.
Mr. Folsom of Dover. — This question of taxation is, without
doubt, the most important which can come before this body,
and the most important question now before the people of the
state of New Hampshire. Let us go back to the principles upon
which the burden of taxation is founded. The Declaration of
Independence declares that all men are created free and equal,
and our Federal Constitution is based on that theory. In our
own Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article 1. — "All men are born
equally free and independent." These are in simple language,
but they mean mftch, as they are the very foundation of our
republican form of government. But with these guaranteed
equal rights and equal privileges to all citizens are imposed
equal restrictions and equal burdens, and this much discussed
word "proportional" in that part of our Constitution relating
to taxation is our guaranty of equality in bearing the burdens
of our popular government. A few days ago we had the so-
called Stevens amendment before this Committee, and I listened
with much pleasure and with great profit to the learned gentle-
man from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, whose opinion I most highly
esteem, as he stood here before you, Gentlemen, and expounded*
the word "proportional." This word has been construed by our
honored Courts to mean "uniform" or "equal," and we should
revere this word for the rights which it guarantees to us. We
have already voted not to strike out this word from the
language of our Constitution, but this proposed amendment
does in effect allow a system of taxation that is not propor-
tional, that is not uniform, that is not equal; it will permit
class legislation and unjust and unfair laws to be passed under
which we must live, and perhaps suffer. This proposed amend-
ment, clothed in legal verbiage, is not likely to be understood
by a majority of the legal voters of this state, and hence thoy
are not able to pass intelligently upon the question. Gentle-
men, the present tax laws of the state of New Hampshire are
model ones. Personally, I am in favor of, and I believe that
the state of New Hampshire will have ultimately a real income
tax. We have here a government of, by and for the people.
Under that government, whoever is able to acquire the greater
income should pay larger taxes in accordance therewith. Is
there anything unfair or unreasonable about that? This Is
not accomplished in the proposed amendment, for this provides
merely for an income tax on intangibles. Should intangibles
be taxed at a less rate than tangibles? Should tangible property
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 463
be taxed on its intrinsic value and intangible property taxed
only on the amount of its income? This is not an income tax.
Then, again, why should the income from one class of property
be taxed and the income from other classes of property not?
Is that proportional? Is there any reason why, under the law,
a J)ond, whatever its interest payment may be, should be taxed
$3.00 a thousand, and your house, your stock in trade, yoar
farm, your cows, your horses and all your other property be
taxed from $20 to $30 a thousand? Is that fair and just? That
is just what this proposition means. It means the partial
classification of property for taxation; it is the entering wedge
in favor of a lower tax for the rich and a higher tax for the
poor. "To him that hath shall be given and from him that hath
not shall be taken away." For these reasons I am entirely
opposed to the resolution proposed by this Committee, and I
believe we are better off to leave the tax question in exactly
the position it is in today.
Mr. Smith of Pefcrhoroiigli, — I wish to refer to one point that
has not been touched by any member of this Convention. It
will come from those towns and cities which receive a tax on
intangibles, which receive a tax on money at interest, which re-
ceive a tax on bonds, which receive a tax on all the intangibles,
as I understand this question to resolve itself into. That is,
the state will appoint a commissioner or tax collectors to col-
lect incomes from this property. The tax will go directly into
the state treasury; it will not go to any town; it will not go to
any citj^ but will go directly into the state treasury, and I
think we may fear greater opposition from that source than
any other. I believe that the money that goes into the state
ti*easury more than is needed is simply a bid for a commission
and for the extension of other things to draw the money out.
Where it goes into the treasury, the state treasury, more than
is needed, there will be a tendency to draw it out. If it goes
out to the towns and cities, they can expend it for themselves.
They will have control over it. Individuals own the property
that is taxed; the property should belong, or the tax upon it
should belong, to the towns or cities where those persons
resido.
Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — If the Convention will pardon me a
few moments, I will try to explain this amendment. Before
I do, I want to reply to an implication made here that there
is some joker in it. Honestly and truly, if there is, I am not
bright enough to find it, nor has this Committee, and Mr.
Stevens has acted in the Committee. If there were any joker
464 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
in it he would have found it out. He disagreed with, us on for-
eign stock, and that was the only joker — if that was a joker.
The gentleman from Dover has said this is a paper of legal
verbiage. It is merely a repetition of the Constitution as it is'
now, with the exception of the thirteen lines of the amend-
ment. You need not be scared by the size of this, because it
is what has existed for years.
Now for the amendment — '^but the General Court shall have
full power and authority to specially assess, rate and tax
growing wood and timber." That seems to be as plain as any-
thing can be. "Growdng wood and timber," instead of being
-taxed now as it must, and thus cause its cutting, as a great
many people say, may be assessed by the legislature in any way
it sees fit. The forest men can come before the legislature and
propose any laws which they think will preserve our forests,
and those laws can be enacted. If the legislature does not
want to do that, it can let the law remain as it is. The next
ieature of the resolutioin is "money at interest, including
money in savings banks." Money at interest means credits,
"that are now taxed at full value. The piece of paper evi-
dencing the credit is worth nothing intrinsically, but we at-
tempt to tax that piece of paper at the value stated on the
face of it. Of course, that is double taxation, and people ar«^
getting rid of those pieces of paper. Here is the opportunity
for the legislature to take a little tax from these pieces of
paper. The legislature, if it wants to, can leave them taxable
as they are now, or it can specially classify them, and take a
small tax, in the nature of an income tax, which people will
be willing to pay. It means notes, money in savings banks,
TDonds and mortgages. Money in the Massachusetts bank
■would be a credit to the New Hampshire depositor, and a little
income tax should be taken from him, as appears later in the
resolution. Then the words after "money at interest," "in-
cluding money in savings banks," — that is merely to make the
present method of taxing the savings banks constitutional.
The legislature can make the tax fifty or seventy-five cents, or
anything the members want to, but it makes the present method
of taxing savings banks constitutional. That is all there is to
that. Now, the next clause is in the nature of an alternative;
if the stocks and bonds themselves are taxed, an income tax
cannot be imposed.
Now, stocks of foreign corporations, stocks of domestic cor-
porations, are not taxable. You cannot tax them directly or
the income from them. It is thought by a great many that
Thuksday, June 20, 1912. 465
people who have a large amount of money invested in the Penn-
sylvania Kailroad, for illustration, ought to contribute some-
thing towards the expenses of this state. It is merely opening
the door a crack. The door is now closed so far as taxation
of both foreign and local corporations is concerned. This reso-
lution opens it so j^ou can impose an income tax, as the legis-
lature sees fit, on the income from all these foreign stocks.
This word, "foreign," was put in here after long discussion
in the Committee, and, after consideration, it was thougnt
better to leave it so New Hampshire corporations may be
fostered — people may invest their money in New Hamp-
shire corporations and build up these industries. It is making
our Constitution exactly what the Massachusetts law is. Mas-
sachusetts taxes foreign corporations, but does not tax home
corporations. "And to impose and levy taxes on incomes from
stock of foreign corporations and money at interest, except
on incomes from money deposited in savings banks in this state
received by the depositors." Those words were put in to make
it clear that the person who has a deposit in a New Hampshire
savings bank, the bank having paid the tax on that deposit,
will not be called upon to pay a tax on his income derived
from the deposit. There was some question about the mean-
ing without their being in there. There was also some ques-
tion whether you could tax savings banks on the basis of their
income. Those words were used after the clause was written
and rewritten several times, just for the purpose of making it
clear that the income received by the depositor in the savings
banks shall not be taxed, but do leave the door wide open, if
the legislature sees fit, to tax the savings banks on the basis
of their income. Then it goes on, "and it may graduate such
taxes according to the amount of the incomes, and may grant
reasonable exemptions." That is a simple statement of what is
known as graded income taxation. It is almost the language of
the Wisconsin Constitution. If a person has a small income,
if the legislature wants to exempt it from taxation it can, and
it can increase the taxation, according to the individual's in-
come. If he has $100,000, he can pay a little more tax than
the man who has $1,000. This is put in so the legislature will
have a free hand in this matter.
"Provided, that if such taxes be levied on incomes from stock
and money at interest, no other taxes shall be levied thereon
against the owner or holder thereof; that is to say, if the
pieces o* paper themselves are taxed, there shall be no income
tax imposed. That is what it means, no more, no less. We
466 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
had written it in the first place the way the President read it
this morning, but that was a clerical error. "No other tax shall
be levied on such property," This phraseology raised the ques-
tion whether the underlying property could be taxed if the
income was taxed. It was a pertinent question, and, having
considered that, we thought by putting in the words, "no other
taxes shall be levied thereon," that is, on the stock and money
at interest, the doubt would be removed. We have tried in
every way to guard against the imposition of a double tax by
the income tax and taxation of the pieces of paper.
Now, the income tax, of course, is a double taxation, the
property having paid. I have gone through that and it is
not necessary to explain it. We expect to take a small portion
by means of this tax from property outside the state, because
it is thought people ought to contribute something towards the
expenses of the state, if they live here and have the ability.
Mr. Johnson of CoUhrook. — I fully agree with Mr. Fellows of
Tilton that everything should be done to foster the state cor-
porations and the state institutions that can be taken care of
by the legislature. What will be the effect if the Pullman Com-
pany or the Pennsylvania Railroad should come into the state
of New Hampshire and take out articles of incorporation?
Mr. fellows of Tilton. — I will frankly saj^ that at this minute I
cannot answer the question. I do not think there is the slight-
est danger that they will come in here and do that. The gen-
tleman from Dover, Mr. Whittemore, suggests we can get at
them from corporation fees. That is true. It is utterly impossi-
ble, within two or three weeks we are here, and in the Commit-
tees, where we have met, to consider all these fine points. You
may ask me a hundred questions that I cannot answer here ou
the floor. All I can say is, this Committee has honestly tried to
get up a measure which will permit the classification of grow-
ing wood and timber, and intangibles, and to get an income tax
from intangibles, and to open the door a little so that you can
get some return frorn foreign stocks. Now, the various ques-
tions that the gentleman from Colebrook has raised here are
pertinent questions, but they go into details so much I cannot
answer them. I do not believe the Pullman Company or the
Pennsylvania Railroad are going to incorporate in New Hamp-
shire, and I doubt if there are many corporations who do in-
corporate here and have most of their property outside of the
state. All I can say about that is, that a person owning the
stock of such corporation would escape a slight amount of
double taxation, which is imposed by the income tax.
Thuksday, June 20, 1912. 467
Mr. Stevens of Landaif. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, I wish
to state my position on this amendment offered by the Commit-
tee. I feel much sympathy with the gentleman from Ports-
mouth, and you all know pretty well what my position is on
the question of taxation. These amendments are not my
amendments, and these amendments are not in the form that I
believe is the proper way to amend the Constitution of the
state of New Hampshire, but I want to point out what these
amendments do allow.
They allow, first, the legislature to classify timberland. Now,
while I am in favor of removing, in general, the restrictions
that now rest upon the legislature, I am in favor of giving
the legislature the power to classify timberlands as it sees fit.
I know, as well as a great many of you gentlemen know, that
timberlands in the past have been greatly undertaxed, but I do
not think that is any reason why they should be overtaxed,
or taxed in such a way as to really injure, in the long run,
the state of New Hampshire, and lower the amount of tax we
shall get, taking a long period of time; so, therefore, I am in
favor of giving the legislature power to classify timberlands,
which this amendment does.
It also gives the legislature power to classify what are called
intangibles, — bonds and money at interest, — and tax them at a
less rate than other property. Now, in reply to the gentleman
from Peterborough, I believe that class of property, and the
men in the community who have owned that kind of property,
have escaped for a good many years the fair share of the burden
of taxation which they ought to pay, and that is the reason
why I am in favor of giving the legislature power to treat that
kind of property differently than it does other property, be-
cause I believe, the moment you get a proper method of taxing
them, they will give you more revenue than to treat them as
ordinary property, and tax them at the full rate. That has
been the law for years, and under that law, out of more than
one hundred millions of that kind of property, less than five
millions have been returned for taxation, in spite of pretty
strict inventory laws on our statute books. Now, I think we
better give up a method of trying to tax that kind of prop-
erty which gets at a good deal less than five percent of it.
I believe we could actually get more tax to the state of New
Hampshire if we treated that property in a different way than
we do cows and horses. A man who has bonds will not dis-
close them, or he will sell them if taxed at such a high rate.
This amendment also allows the legislature to assess a tax
468 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
upon the incomes from money at interest, bonds, and the stock
of foreig-n corporations, and, personally, I don't care a snap
about that amendment. And I will make a prophecy: You never
will have a state income tax on the stock of foreign corpora-
tions that will ever give you revenue enough so you can find
it in your state receipts. The only way you can impose an in-
come tax on corporations, the only way it has ever been done
in the wide world and done successfully, is where the corpora-
tion is in control of the state or nation and you can make it
disclose its stockholders. Do you think we can make the
Pennsylvania, tell us who are its stockholders in New Hamp-
shire? . I do not think that pov^er, if given to the legislature,
will do anybody any harm or do anybody any good, so, per-
sonally, I do not care much what form it is in. If we could tax
stock of domestic corporations, there is no escape from it, be-
cause we could require every domestic corporation to file a list
of stockholders, and you would get every cent. It looks good
to have it on your statute books that we can tax the incomes
of foreign corporations, but I would like to see it done. It
never has been done, and it has been tried and tried a great
many times, and I think it is practically harmless.
I fwant to call the attention of the Convention to another
matter of which the Legislative Committee has said I may
speak. We had a vote this afternoon in which the majority
of the Committee, — it was a divided vote, — a majority of the
Committee adopted this amendment. The Committee may, on
its own initiative, report an amendment. The Committee on
Legislative Department report the following amendment, with
the resolution that it be adopted by the Convention:
(Reads Resolution No. 59.)
Now, that proposed amendment will be pwnted and probably
made a special order for tomorrow. As this Committee was
instructed to bring in a report covering just three distinct mat-
ters, I did not feel like asking the Committee to add that a.s
an amendment to the measures which you had instructed us to
bring in, but I think they belong together, and I think they
really ought to go together. That is an amendment I consider
of great practical importance to the state of New Hampshire, —
of great practical importance, and I care more about it than
I do the others, and I would like to suggest that, if adopted, it
would settle some possible loopholes in the amendment which
the Committee has already put in here today.
You know the railroads are now taxed at the average rate of
taxation upon the actual value of their property, and, in gei-
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 469
ting at the average rate of taxation, for a great many years
the Board of Equalization figured in the savings bank tax, that-
being a tax upon a good deal of property at a low rate of three
fourths of one percent, and you can see made the average rate
of taxation quite a good deal lower than if it had not been
figured in. It made a difference in the railroad tax of the Bos-
ton & Maine Kailroad of some seventy or eighty thousand dol-
lars a year. A suit was brought against the Board of Equaliza-
tion by a private citizen, asking the Court to compel that board
not to take into consideration the savings bank tax, and to
tax the railroads upon the average rate of taxation of ordinary
property, such as we hold, most of us, and pay taxes on. The
Court decided that they were obliged to take the savings bank
tax into consideration.
Now, the legislature of 1909 passed a special law saying that
the Board of Equalization or Tax Commission should not take
into consideration the tax on savings banks. At that time,
when that law was proposed, very eminent and able constitu-
tional lawj-ers suggested that we could not do it, the Consti-
tution would not allow it, but counsel for the Boston & Maine
Eailroad notified the legislature, notified the Ways and Means
Committee, that they would consent to that law, they would
not raise that question. In other words, we had to get the con-
sent of the corporations to be taxed that we could tax them in
that way. They kept that agreement; they have not raised
that question, but another corporation which did not make the
agreement has raised the question, and it is in the Court today,
and, if it is decided bj^ the Court that the law is unconstitu-
tional, all the corporations will receive the benefit of it, — the
public service corporations, — and it will mean a loss in revenuo
to the state of New Hampshire of over one hundred thousand
dollars a year, and it may, if the position of counsel for the
railroad and other very eminent constitutional lawyers, who
know a great deal about the intricacies and difficulties of this
constitutional question, if the position they have taken is cor-
rect, it will vitiate the whole assessment. That is the actual
situation which confronts the state of New Hampshire today
on the taxation of public service corporations, and we propose
in these amendments to specially tax a good deal of their prop-
erty which has been taxed at full rates. We propose to put iu
timberlands at special rates; stocks and bonds at special rates.
Now, I have no doubt that some able constitutional lawyer
who is employed by the public service corporations may at
least raise the question that all this property which is specially
470 JouuNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
taxed must be included in getting the average .rate of tax-
ation, and the rate at which all public service corporations are
taxed, if that is held true, will drop, and you cannot help ii;,
not with the Constitution as it is now, the legislature cannot
help it. You would have to wait until you got another constitu-
tional amendment. Therefore, I say, if these amendments are
adopted that were put in here today, I believe it very essential
that this further amendment recommended by a majority of
the Committee, that the legislature further have full power to
tax public service corporations upon the basis of their gross
income, in lieu of any tax upon their o.ther property, be
adopted. If these amendments were all submitted to the people
and adopted, I believe we should have some improvement over
our present method, although we would have, as the gentleman
from Portsmouth says, cumbered up our Constitution with a
good many specific details which may raise technical legal ques-
tions, but we have got them now, and the only way to avoid
them, that I know of, would have been to adopt a radical,
revolutionary, wild-eyed, socialistic, anarchistic amendment,
which follows New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland,
Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Mr. Hadley of Goffsfjown. — Would Mr. Stevens allow me to ask
him one question? He goes back to the State Board of Equal-
ization. I would like to know where that authority came from
for the people to tax a man with a farm five thousand dol-
lars, and a neighbor having five thousand dollars in the savings
bank, to tax that three fourths of one percent.
Mr. Stevens of Lcmdaff. — I will explain all that is known on
the subject. It will not take long. The Court decided that the
taxation upon the savings bank was not constitutional, it was
not in conformity with the Constitution or decisions of the
Court about the Constitution, but it was an anomaly, — if you
know what that is, — and therefore it is allowed to stand.
Mr. Mmris of Larwaster. — I want to call the attention of the
Convention to the question under consideration. It is the form
of the resolution now before us that is under discussion, and
that is all. The Convention directed the Committee to bring
in a resolution covering the taxation of wood and timberland,
and money at interest. We were also directed to provide for an
income tax. You have already voted on the main issues. The
Convention has already expressed its opinion. Now the ques-
tion is one of form only. The form of the resolution has been
threshed out and carefully considered by your Committee and
by a sub-Committee. We have done our duty the best we can.
Thuksday, June 20, 1912. 471
The question is, whether the form of the resolution, as drafted
by the Committee, is such that the Convention is willing to
adopt it. I understand that the gentleman from Landaff, Mr.
Stevens, agrees to the entire resolution as drafted, with the ex-
ception of the amendments which he has proposed with refer-
ence to foreign corporations, which you have voted down.
It is true that we, as a Committee, agreed with the gentle-
man from Landaff to report a resolution such as he has de-
scribed and which he has discussed. It was not to be in the
form of an amendment to the present resolution, and the Com-
mittee did not suppose that it was to be discussed at length
at this time. We supposed it was to stand on its own merits,
and that it would be in order for discussion at a later time, or
at such time as it might be made a special order for consiHera-
tion; perhaps some time tomorrow.
I do not understand that Mr. Stevens, by his present discus-
sion of the resolution which he proposes to introduce, or which
the Committee has agreed to introduce later, but which is not
now before us, desires to be understood as saying anything de-
rogatory to the form of the resolution which the Committee has
reported in accordance with its instructions from the Conven-
tion. I wish to ask the gentleman from Landaff if this U
correct.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — That is substantially correct. I did
not vote for this amendment as it is, yet I consider it better
than nothing.
Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — I desired to make the explanation to
the Convention so that we might not be put in a false light.
Mr. Drake of Pittsfield. — All that is needed to solve this whole
problem is for men to be honest and declare all their property
for taxation. Then every man, rich or poor, will pay a tax
that is just and will not be a burden upon any one.
Mr. Dean of Danbury. — I would like to ask Mr. Morris a ques-
tion, for the information of myself and many others. The Con-
vention asked the Committee on Legislative Department to re-
port a resolution covering wild and forest lands, and the wild
lands is stricken out. What was the objection to the Mitchell
amendment?
Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — For the information of the gentle-
man, I wil say that this very question was discussed carefully in
the Committee room. In the original Mitchell amendment the
words, "wild and forest lands," were used, as suggested by the
gentleman from Danbury, But if you will examine the motion
of the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Jones, which motion
472 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
was adopted by the Convention, you will find that, the words^
"growing- wood and timber," were substituted. The motion of
Mr. Jones embodied the instructions of the Convention to the
Committee, and, considering- ourselves bound by our instruc-
tions, your Committee adopted the language which appears in
the resolution in its present form. The words, "growing wood
and timber," were substituted for the words, "wild and forest
lands."
The President. — If there is no objection, the Chair will under-
take to state what he understands to be the situation. In the
Committee of the Whole, by a unanimous vote, after the Stevens
amendment had been defeated, the Committee reported this
resolution:
^'■Resolved, That it is the sense of the Committee [and that
was the Convention] 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 reason-
able exemptions, and further to impose a tax upon the incomes
from intangible property."
The Convention in Committee unanimously adopted that reso-
lution. It came back to the Convention, it was submitted ta
the Committee on Legislative Department with unanimous in-
structions to return to this Convention a proposed amendment
to the Constitution, which would embody these three things.
The Committee, consisting of twenty men, has now unanimously
recommended the bill which is before us, which expressly, as
the Chair understands it, permits the legislature to classify in-
tangibles, to classify woodlands, and impose a tax upon the
income from intangibles, — exactly what the Convention has once
unanimously asked that Committee to do.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative appeared to prevail.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey called for a division.
Division being had, 211 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
and 16 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the recom-
mendation of the Committee was adopted, and the resolution
was referred to the Committee on Time and Mode of Sub-
mitting to the People the Amendments agreed 'to by the Con-
vention.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. -47a
Mr. Stevens of Landaff, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, report the following resolution with the recom-
mendation that the proposed amendment to the Constitution
be agreed to by the Convention: —
Resolution Xo. 59,
Relating to Taxation of Public Service Corporations.
Amend Article 6, Part Second, of the Constitution by
adding at the end thereof the following: "and the General
Court, in imposing Ji^'tax upon public service corporations,
shall have full power and authority to impose a tax upon the
incomes of such corporations in lieu of a direct tax upon
their property/^ So that, as amended, said section 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 franchises and property
when passing by will or inheritance; and there shall be a
valuation of the estates within the state taken anew once
in every five years, at least, and as much oftener as the Gen-
eral Court shall order; and the General Court in imposing
a tax upon public service corporations, shall have full power
and authority to impose a tax upon the incomes of sueli
corporations in lieu of a direct tax upon their property."
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation of
the Committee, —
AYith that question pending, Mr. Stevens of Landaf? moved
that the resolution be laid on the table to be printed, andi'
that the same be made a Special Order for 10.35 o'clock, Fri-
day, June 21.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Stevens of Landaff,—
474 Journal of Constitutional (Convention.
Mr. Stevens of Land^aff. — Mr. President, I make this motion at
the request of several members of the Committee who voted
against it and were somewhat doubtful on the proposition, and
wanted a little time to think it over and to have it printed. It
is in deference to the Committee, who wanted a little time.
As far as I am concerned, personally, I would like very much
to put it to a vote here and now.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — The gentleman from Landalf has per-
haps not stated it as fully as I know he intended to, that there
were some members who dissented from this report who were
not present when the others fully agreed to it the other day.
Am I not correct? There were three or four members who
were not present when we discussed this matter and substan-
tially agreed to it.
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth moved to amend by making
the time 5 o'clock this afternoon.
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Boynton of
Portsmouth, —
Mr. Wason of Nashua. — Mr. President, I would like to say just
a word upon this. This proposed amendment has been reported
by the Legislative Committee as a new matter for you to con-
sider, and it was understood by the Committee this afternoon
when the report was to come in that the matter should not go
through in a rush. I would like to hurry, and I know Mr.
Stevens and all the rest would, and get along just as fast as we
can, but it is only fair that this be printed so we can all read
it, and other people who may be interested in it may have a
chance to read it. In other words, if we put it through right
now, it may be all right and everybody may be satisfied, or there
may be some person who would like to be heard. We all be-
lieve in fair play, we all believe in giving everybody a reasonable
chance to be heard, and if there is not anybody, or if objections
do not seem valid, we can put it through tomorrow forenoon in
a very few minutes, and then it will look a little better than
it would to be reported by the Legislative Committee at quarter
of five and passed at half past five, without the members them-
selves having a chance to read it through carefully, or the pub-
lic in general having any notice of what it contains, and I hope
the gentleman from Portsmouth, in the interest of fair play in
our closing days, will withdraw his suggestion and let the
amendment be printed.
Ml-. Boynton of Portsmouth withdrew his amendment.
Thursday, June 20, 1912. 475
Question being on the motion of Mr. Stevens of Landaff, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Mr. Upham of Claremont, for the Committee on Bill of
Rights and Executive Department, to whom was referred
Resolution No. 53, Relating to the Council, having consid-
ered the same, report the same with the following resolu-
tion:
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu-
tion as proposed in the said resolution.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. Upliam of Claremont, for the Committee on Bill of
Rights and Executive Department, to whom was referred
Resolution No. 57, Relating to the Council, having consid-
ered the same, report the same with, the following resolu-
tion: — I
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu-
tion as proposed in the said resolution.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. Lambert of Manchester offered the following resolu-
tion: —
Resolved, That this Convention adjourn at 12 o'clock noon,
Saturday, June 22, and that all resolutions not acted upon
by that time be indefinitely postponed, and that the Secre-
tary be instructed to make up the Journal) of the Convention.
The Secretary is further instructed to prepare the pay-roll of
the Convention and present the same to the Committee on
Finance.
Question being on the adoption of the resolution, —
Mr. Dean of Danbury moved to amend by making the time
of adjournment Friday, at 5.30 o'clock.
Mr. Dean of Danbury withdrew his amendment.
Question being on the adoption of the resolution of Mr.
X/ambert of Manchester, —
476 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
' Mr. Goss of Berlin moved to amend by making the time
of adjournment 11 o'clock, Saturday.
Question being on the amendment, —
On a viva voce vote the amendment was adopted.
Question being on the resolution of Mr. Lambert of Man-
chester, as amended, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
' Eeport of Oommtttee OiK Mileage.
Mr. Hayden of Hollis, for the Committee on Mileage, pre-
sented the following report: —
The Committee on Mileage, being in doubt as to the in-
terpretation of the law in regard to mileage of the mem-
bers of this Convention, have, by their chairman, consulted
the Attorney-General in relation thereto and find that the
law does not provide for mileage other than that furnished
on the steam railroads by the Secretary of State.
DANIEL W. HAYDEN,
Chairrmm Committee on Mileage,
The report was accepted.
Leave of Absence.
Mr. Wright of Sanbornton was granted leave of absence
for Friday on account of important business.
Mr. Young of Charlestown was granted leave of absence
for Friday forenoon on account of important business.
On motion of Mr. French of Moultonborough, the Con-
vention adjourned at 4.59 o'clock.
FRIDAY, June 21, 1912.
The Convention met at 10.30 o'clock, according to adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the Chair.)
Friday, June 21, 1912. 477
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Rev. Charles C. Gar-
land.
The reading of the Journal having begun, —
On motion of Mr. Clifford of Franklin, the further read-
ing of the Journal was dispensed with.
Leave of Absence.
Mr. Mathews of Alexandria was granted leave of absence
for this afternoon on account of death in the family.
'Committee on Journal.
In accordance with a resolution previously adopted, the
President announced the appointment of the following gen-
tlemen as a Committee on Journal of Proceedings of this
Convention: Mr. Young of Manchester, Mr. French of
J^ashua, Mr. Young of ISTorthfield, Mr. G-affney of Nashua,
Mr. Veazie of littleton.
Mr. McLane of Milford, for the Committee on Finance,
asked permission for the Committee to sit during the morn-
ing session of the Convention.
No objection being raised, permission was granted.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee on
Legislative Department, to whom was referred Resolution
No. 33, Relating to Taxation, having considered the same,
report the same with the following resolution: —
• Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed in the resolution, the subject-matter having been
acted upon in another resolution.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. Cain of Keene, for the Committee on Legislative De-
partment, to whom was referred Resolution No. 56^ Relating
478 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
to the Charter of Cities, having considered the same, report
the same, with the following resolution: —
Besolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee on
Legislative Department, to whom was referred Resolution
No. 37, Eelating to an Income Tax, having considered the
same, report the same with the following resolution: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed in said resolution, the subject-matter having
been reported favorably in a new draft.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee on
Legislative Department, to whom was referred Resolution
No. 39, Eelating to the Taxation of Wild Lands, having con-
sidered the same, report the same with the following reso-
lution: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed, the subject-matter having already been reported
and acted upon in a new draft.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee on
Legislative Department, to whom was referred Resolution
No. 48, Relating to Roll-Call in the Legislature, having con-
sidered the same, report the same with the following reso-
lution: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed.
Friday, June 21, 1912. 479
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee
on Legislative Department, to whom was referred Resolu-
tion No. 50, Eclating to Taxes, having considered the same,
report the same with the following resolution: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed, the subject-matter of said resolution having
been already acted upon by the Convention.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee on
Legislative Department, to whom was referred Resolution
N"o. 51, Relating to Taxation of Incomes, having considered
the same, report the same with the following resolution: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu-
tion as proposed, the subject-matter of said resolution having
been reported in a new draft.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. Hall of Dover, for the Committee on Bill of Rights
and Executive Department, to whom was referred Resolution
No. 31, Relating to Approval of Bills, having considered the
same, report the same, in a new draft, with the recommenda-
tion that the resolution, in its new draft, be agreed to by the
Convention.
Resolution No. 31.
Relating to Approval of Bill.
(In new draft.)
Amend Article 44, Part Second, of the Constitution by
adding at the end thereof the following: —
The Governor may approve or disapprove any separate ap-
propriation contained in any bill or resolution. Such por-
480 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
tions as he may approve shall thereupon become a law and
such portions as he may disapprove shall thereupon be re-
turned separately in the manner provided in the preceding
section and separately reconsidered and if repassed as
therein provided shall become a law.
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.
Mr. Lyford of Concord moved that Eesolution Xo. 58, Re-
lating to Taxation, be recalled from the Committee on Time
^nd Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments
Agreed to by the Convention.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Lyford, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Mr. President, I will say that our at-
tention has been called to a slight omission in the amendment
as prepared, and it is something- that all of the Committee
would be glad to incorporate. It relates, I will say frankly,
to the question whether we haven't left a loophole for express
companies. That is all.
Mr. PilUhury of Londonderry. — I hope this motion will prevail.
It was found upon discussion by some members of the Commit-
tee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amend-
ments Agreed to by the Convention that it was very probable
that it would exempt the express company, — which is a volun-
tary corporation, and the words, "voluntary corporations,*'
should be inserted, as I don't believe that any amendment to
this Constitution would pass with the people that would ex-
empt the express companies (which pays 12 percent) from
paying, or people owning stock in the express company, to
exempt them from taxation. If it can be recalled and the
words, "voluntary corporations," be inserted, they will take
care of it.
Mr. Uphum of Claremont.— Isn't it "voluntary associations?"
Mr. Pillsbury of Londlonderry.— That will fix that— yes, volun-
tary associations.
On a viva voce vote the motion prevailed.
Fkiday, June 21, 1912. 481
Mr. Wason of K"ashua moved that the vote whereby the
Convention agreed to Eesolution No. 58, Eelating to Tax-
ation, be reconsidered.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Question being, —
Shall the recommendation of the Committee, that the pro-
posed amendment be agreed to by the Convention, be
adopted?
With that motion pending, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord moved that the resolution be re-
ferred to the Committee on Legislative Department for
further consideration.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Mr. Lyford of Concord asked permission that the Commit-
tee on Legislative Department be granted an extension of
time in which to report upon resolutions now in its hands.
No objection being raised, —
Further time was granted.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff called for the Special Order for
10.35 o^clock this morning, the same being Eesolution No.
59, Eelating to the Taxation of Public Service Corporations.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation of
the Committee that the proposed amendment to the Consti-
tution be agreed to by the Convention, —
Mr. WhitcMr of Haverhill. — When the resolution proposing the
amendment to th6 Constitution, providing* for the income tax
upon stocks of corporations, was before the Convention yester-
day, the attention of the Convention was called by the gentle-
man from Peterborough, Mr. Smith, to the fact that the pro-
ceeds of this tax would go entirely into the state treasury, and,
482 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
while the language of the amendment,— the proposed amend-
ment now before us, — does not specifically state, as did the
language of the amendment adopted yesterday, that the pro-
ceeds should go into the state treasury, to be used for state
affairs, it seems to me that by implication it would have the
same effect. Now, it is a fact, as we all know, that the money
raised by taxation of public service corporations -at the pres-
ent time, while collected by the State Treasurer, goes, for the
most part, to the towns of the state, to be used for the bene-
fit of the towns. Now, it seems to me that if the tax hereafter
is to become the property of the state, the towns of the state
are to be deprived of a very large source of their present in-
come, and additional burdens will be placed upon the towns
for town expenses, school expenses, highway expenses, — some-
thing that I think we should carefully consider. I do not be-
lieve. Sir, that we wish to cover into the state treasury, for
state uses alone, all the monies that are raised by taxes upon
public service corporations. Of course, this matter is left, as I
suppose, in the hands of the legislatures of the future, but by
implication, at least, it seems to me that by this amendment
these taxes raised on public service corporations are covered
entirely in the state treasury, and the towns of the state derive
no benefit from them. I hope, Sir, this will be carefully con-
sidered, and if this objection can properly be raised -against
this amendment, I am most emphatically against it.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — The gentleman from Haverhill is labor-
ing under a complete mistake. This law has absolutely no ef-
fect whatever upon the division of the railroad taxes, or the
taxes on any other public service corporation. The division of
the railroad taxes today is entirely a matter of statute law,
regulated by the legislature. The legislature can today keep
all that tax, if it sees fit, for the state treasury, or divide it
up among the towns, or counties, as it sees fit, and jt can do s»o
under this amendment. It did not occur to me as a possible
objection that any man would think that this amendment
meant, by implication or construction, that the towns would
lose money which they now have. It leaves the division of
the corporation taxes exactly where it is today.
Mr. Fuller of Exeter.— 1 confess that I am unable to under-
stand, and there are several others in this Convention who do
not know, what the meaning or effect of this proposed amend-
ment will be. It is manifest that the gentleman from Haver-
hill, who has just spoken, whose ignorance has just been en-
lightened, was as bad to start with as I, onlj- he displayed his
ignorance sooner than I have.
Friday, JuxXe 21, 1912. 483
What the gentleman from Landaff meant to accomplish, if
he drafted it, or what any other m^an intended to accomplish,
is not the question here. The question is, What will be the
result? If they have expressed it so plainly that all the mem-
bers of this Convention can vote intelligently upon it, it is
possible that some portion, some considerable portion of the
electors of this state will also have fairly definite ideas of what
it means and be able to vote intelligently upon it. If they
do not understand it, or cannot vote in favor of it, they will
undoubtedly vote against it, which is the wise way, or they
will fail to vote and the thing will not get the requisite num-
ber of votes to pass.
There are words in here that are of doubtful meaning. What
is a public service corporation? Well, we have got some Court
decisions. We know what public service corporations are, per-
haps. We have a provision in our Constitution, which we
haven't yet moved to eliminate, that provides that private prop-
erty shall not be taken for private use at all, and shall not be
taken for public use without compensation, and when some
mian comes along and wants to put telephone poles, or a mill
dam, or anything else, on your land, the question arises
whether he is taking it for public use. If instead of a man it
is a corporation, a, public orporation, or quasi-public corpora-
tion, it is what this term public service corporation means. It
has been solemnly decided by our Court, although decided the
other way bj^ several of the states in the Union, that a grist-
mill is a public service. Therefore a grist-mill corporation
would be a public service corporation. It has also been decided
that a corporation which seeks to develop heat, light and power
and that sort of thing is a public service corporation — that, by
paying for your land, it may take it against your will.
The varieties of corporations which might come under this
head of public service corporations are absolutely infinite.
As the means of the country develop and the ingenuity of its
members will develop, public service corporations will come to
be considered to contain everything substantially from a sau-
sage factory to a trolley line. There is one species of corpora-
tion that is unquestionably a public service corporation. That
is a trolley line. Xow% what is the effect of this thing going
to be?
Eight alongside of the question. What is a public service cor-
poration, we come to the question. What is income? And what
part of the income does this authorize to be taxed as income?
Is everything a man gets his income? That is, gross income is
all a man gets from his receipts from his property investments.
There is a distinction drawn between net and gross incomes.
484 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
What is gross income, is a question that Courts and various
bodies throughout the country are laboring over at this very
time. This amendment does not say whether the tax shall b«^
on gross or net income. If it is on gross income, you will find
this, that the tax levied proportionall3% — and this amendment
does not strike out the word, "proportional," — a proportionjl
tax on gross incomes of one kind will work the grossest in-
justice. The trolley line from Exeter to Portsmouth no longer
exists; but, in its case, to levy taxes on the gross income wouM
have been a great injustice. There was nothing in the way of
profit; net income was a minus. The result is that now, if J
want to go to Portsmouth, I must go by some other line. Yoa
could have eliminated that corporation much quicker by taxing
its gross income. There are other trolley lines in this stat€
that are prosperous; perhaps a few. If you tax them on their
gross income, what do you do? Simply wipe out the whole
road, the prosperous and those that are not prosperous; or yoii
wipe out a portion of them that are not prosperous, and do
away wdth all hope of their ever becoming prosperous. If it
is the net income, the gentleman from Landaff will have some-
thing to do to hunt up the net income, because the net income
is what is left -after paying the expenses of getting it, and
the expenses of getting it, I understand, include salaries, and
include various things. Salaries are the most flexible things.
I never had any experience myself, but have heard of it,—
you simply open the door to the biggest job that the gen-
tleman from Landaff ever had. You will have to raise his sal-
ary, if the people approve this amendment, and the legislature
passes an income tax upon gross or net income. You will do a
g-reat injustice if it is on gross income, and you will prob-
ably do injustice if it is on net income. You will in no way
lessen the job of collecting the taxes.
There are other things which I do not understand, but, as
I say, there is no need of my displaying my ignorance more
-at this time.
I hope that this thing will be put in such shape that I and
every one, after listening to the others, can vote intelligently
on it.
Mr. Barton of Neioport. — It seems to me we are trying to in-
volve something which is very simple. This matter was taken
lip in the Committee; Judge Mitchell framed this resolution.
It was regarded as something which both the people and the
corporations wanted, as it offered a fair way of getting out of
a trouble, — some situation. You will notice that there are ao
additional powers given to the legislature. The resolution pro-
Friday, June 21, 1912 485
vides onl^' for the insertion of the following words: "and the
General Court in imposing- a tax," etc. — if the legislature so
desires it may provide for the assessment of a. tax upon the
income of a corporation "in lieu of a direct assessment upon their
property." It is all in the hands of the legislature, and there
is no trouble about it, any more than there is in any income
tax. I cannot see any great bugbear in it. It seems to me the
objections thrown out in regard to this very simple measure
are unwarranted. I cannot see any "cat in the meal." I may
be easy on these things. We provide an additional way to col-
lect taxes, not enlarging the power of the legislature in respect
to what it can do.
Mr. Fuller of Exeter. — Will you answer a question?
Mr. Barton of Newport. — I will if I can.
Mr. Fuller of Exeter, — What is the result you hope to accom-
plish if you have this amendment?
Mr. Barton of Newport. — We hope to give the legislature power,
if they see fit, to collect income taxes from public service cor-
porations instead of taxing them direct.
Mr. Fuller of Exeter.— In what way?
Mr. Barton of Newport. — That will be left to the legislature.
We cannot legislate here. They may see fit to assess on gross
incomes or on net incomes. That is always open to legislative
debate, where opportunity is given to appear and urge ob-
jections.
Mr. Martin of Concord.— I want to state, for the Committee
which returned this resolution, that it was reported at the re-
quest of the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, and the
Committee did not commit itself in any way in favor of the
resolution.
Now, I think that this resolution should not pass, and I will
try to explain it as plainly as I can. In making an amendment
to the Constitution, we must all agree that there should be
some good reason for the amendment; that there is some defect,
in the Constitution or laws at the present time. Now, like all
the resolutions introduced by our friend from Landaff, he never
gives a reason why they should be adopted, but simply gets
up here and introduces them, without stating to us what is the
need of the change. Now, in the first place, I do not under-
stand there is any difficulty whatever with the present system
of taxing corporations in the state of New Hampshire. Cer-
tainly-, with our Tax Commission, we are getting all the taxes
out of the different corporations on which they assess the
taxes that we are entitled to. They have increased taxes on the
express company, on railroads, and perhaps on every other
486 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
public service corporation in the state, and I think we are get-
ting all we ought to have from them at the present time. There
is no difficulty in assessing the tax under the present law, and
there is no necessity for the change. Now, I will explain to
you where this resolution is bad. You take, for example, the
Manchester Traction, Light & Power Company. At the present
time they own property in the city of Concord, in the town
of Bow, in Pembroke, in Hooksett, and in Manchester and Goffs-
town, and these cities and towns receive a tax upon its prop-
erty. The town of Hooksett assesses a tax against the Man-
chester Traction, Light & Power Company on a valuation of
$205,000 for the property in that town. In the town of Hook-
sett the company gets an income from the town for lights.
The Manchester Traction, Light & Power Company gets an in-
come from the town of Pembroke; they get a great income out
of the city of Manchester. Where the dam is located, which is
in Concord and Bow, they get no income whatever, but you
can readily see that a great part of their property is at the
location of their dam. The city of Concord gets a large tax
from the Manchester Traction, Light & Power Company; the
town of Bow gets a larger tax, and it belongs to them.
Now, take another example: We have the Concord Light &
Power Company in the city of Concord. Its property is ail
located in the city of Concord. Its income comes from the city
of Concord. We get a large tax from that property in the
city of Concord. Should this resolution pass 'and be adopted,
and the legislature authorize the assessment of taxes against
these public service corporations on the theory of their income,
every dollar of that tax would go into the treasury of the state
of New Hampshire, and not one dollar into the cities and towns.
I can go through the state and I can cite other cases. The
Franklin Light & Power Company is located in the city of
Franklin and in the town of Sanbornton. Each gets a tax upon
its local property, as it should.
There is no call, there is no necessity for any amendment of
this kind, none whatever. These corporations will be taxed
every dollar they can stand, and every dollar they can afford
to pay under our present system, and that is enough. Now,
I will not support any measure which takes one dollar from
the city and town taxes and puts it into the state treasury.
The state treasury today has sufficient funds, if economioallv
administered, and spent, to support the state government, and
no state tax should be levied at all. I am not in favor of fat-
ting up the state treasury 'at the expense of the cities and
towns. This resolution should be killed unanimously.
Friday, June 21, 1912. 487
Now, I want to call your attention to a certain fact. Per-
haps you may think I am a little raw. Sometimes I am. Bear
in mind that the gentlemen from Landaff and Jaffrey,— thejje
two gentlemen,— have not introduced and supported a single
measure which has passed this body this session, and this is
one of their measures, which isn't needed. There is no reason
why the state can tax public service corporations any better
by taxing their incomes than by taxing their property locally
in the towns where it belongs.
Now, don't jeopardize the tax of the towns for the mere
whim of the young politicians.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff.—^ir. President, I never have asked this
Convention to vote against or for any measure for personal
reasons, and when the time comes, Sir, when I have no better
argument to offer against a measure than a slur upon the man
who introduced it, I will keep my mouth shut.
This particular amendment was drawn by the eminent gen-
tleman from Concord, Judge Mitchell. I will try to explain
why this measure is necessary. I have spoken before on this
subject several times. It seems I have never been able to make
myself clear to some gentlemen. I will state exactly what the
facts are today about the taxing of public service corporations.
The only method under which the state can now tax the public
service corporation is to get its property value, its actual cash
value, and tax that at the average rate of taxation throughout
the state.
Now, what is the practical result of such a method? In the
first place, there are not ten men or twenty men in this body,
whether they are railroad men, express men, or telephone men,
who can go over the property of a public service corporation
and tell what it is worth. What is the property of the Ameri-
can Express Company worth, — its actual property? It does
practically all its business on the property of the railroad. Its
chief asset of value is an exclusive contract with the railroad
that it will do its express business. Now, is there any man who
can measure the value of that property as he can assess the
value of a piece of real estate, or a horse, or a cow? The rail-
road is exactly in the same situation. No man knows what it
is worth. You can walk the ties from Coos to Nashua for
months and you cannot tell what it is worth.
Now, year after 3^ear the railroads have appealed from the
assessment of the State Board of Equalization and the Tax
Commission. There are, I believe, three appeals of the Grand
Trunk pending now. There were at the last session of the leg-
islature two appeals of the Boston & Maine Railroad. In these
488 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
appeal cases the state and the railroad have to go into this
question, not merely what the value of the railroad is, its actual
cash value, — that is a difficult problem, — they have to go into
the question of the assessment and value of every other bit of
property in the state of New^ Hampshire, in order to get the
true average rate. These two cases were settled by the legis-
lature. In the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee
the Attorney-General said, while he thought the state had a
good case, the expenses of the litigation would be so tre-
mendous, it would be good judgment to grant them $50,000
discount. The counsel for the railroad told us that up to that
time the railroad had expended $75,000 in the preparation and
trial of that one case.
Now, if that case had been finally decided, it would have
established no principle, no precedent whatever; it would have
merely decided whether that particular levy for that particular
year was too high or too low, and the same question might be
raised the next year, and the year after, and every year for
years to come. We have had a series of expensive litigations
with public service corporations that have been of no benefit to
the state. The fear of this litigation has always acted as a
pressure, a force, upon the board assessing railroads to keep
the valuation low. That is an unfortunate situation for any
Board of Assessors to be in.
Now, do not forget one thing — you have not only to pay the
state's expenses for all this litigation, but in the long run you
have to pay all the expenses that the public service corporations
are put to. This is a part of their operating expenses, and the
principle which has been established is that the railroad and
public service corporations shall be allowed to charge enough
to pay all their operating expenses, and have a good, fair
revenue left over. So you and I, when we ride on the railroad,
and pay freight, are paying part of the expenses of the rail-
road in the tax litigation. Do you want that thing to con-
tinue as it has continued for years? Now, the only method of
taxing the public service corporations that is practicable, that
is fair, that is easy and sensible, is to tax them on the basis
of their gross income, and it is done in a great many other
states in this Union. It is done in Vermont. You have a fair
basis of taxation and you get rid of this continual litigation.
The most important thing in taxing public service corpora-
tions is to get a fair tax and keep it, and get- it easy, and know
what you are going to get, because in the long run the taxes
are distributed on the public.
In regard to taking money away from the state treasury, I
Friday, June 21, 1912. 489-'
dispute the statement of the gentleman from Concord. He is
absolutely misinformed, and if you are not satisfied with my
statement of what the law is on the subject, I should like tO'
hear from other more eminent and abler lawyers than I am.
I want to state exactly what I understand the position of the
Legislative Committee to be. This amendment was introduced
here as a result of a motion of mine that the Committee recom-
mend it. It was not introduced here at my request. I did
not need the permission of the Committee to get this amend-
ment before the Convention. I could have offered it as an
amendment to the resolution which we adopted yesterday with-
out the consent of the Legislative Committee, and they know
it. The motion was put that this resolution be reported and
reported favorably, and the majority of the Committee voted for
it, and I so understood it.
Now, another thing: I believe this is necessary on account
of the situation in regard to the savings banks. As I stated
yesterday, the Grand Trunk Railway has already raised that
question. If decided against the state, it would mean a large
reduction in the taxes which we assess on the public service
corporations, and a reduction which we would be powerless to
prevent. Now, if we want to avoid that danger and avoid the
further danger that these taxes which are covered in the amend-
ment we adopted yesterday might be figured in making that
rate lower, the only safe way is to adopt this amendment,
Resolution No. 59.
Mr. Oahes of Lisbon. — I should like to ask the gentleman from
Landaff one question. Does the gentleman understand that
the word, "proportional," applies to this assessment? If so,
how?
The President.— Can the gentleman from Landaff answer that
question?
Mr. Stevens of Landnff.— Mr. President, I would rather ask the
Supreme Court that question. I think it would apply to thl»
extent, that all public service corporations that are taxed upon
the basis of their gross or net incomes must be taxed equally.
You could not put some corporations on a two percent basis,
and another corporation on a five percent basis.
Mr. Dean of Danbury.—l wish to make an inquiry, and it
strikes me there is possibly one objection to this resolution as it
at present stands. I believe the features are right. The gen-
tleman from Newport said it was carefully drawn by Judge
Mitchell. Now, the amendment speaks of public service cor-
porations, and we have sent back the resolution for the amend-
ment on the ground that it excludes express companies. This
490 Journal of Constitutjonal Convention.
seems to be open to the same objection. We want to consider
it. It seems that this should go in.
Mr. Pillsbury of LondondaTy. — I don't believe I can be accused
of having been unfair, in the statements I have made, to the
gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, or in the votes I have
east.
It seems to me that this is a very unjust measure, that it
may work out great injustice, and I want to call to your at-
may work out great injustice, and 1 want to call to your atten-
tion for just one moment a situation that migh have arisen,
pass. It is on the gross incomes. Now, you know. Gentlemen,
that the gross income of a railroad, or any other public service
corporation, may be great and still unprofitable. You know
on a small road it may be sm-all and still be very profitable,
and it seems to me you are going to get into a situation where
there will be no justice. Take in the days that are past, when
the old Concord & Montreal sold for five dollars a share,
and the Concord road was earning big dividends, and you would
tax that longer road, earning perhaps more money in the gross,
you would tax that on its gross income, — and you would tax
the other profitable road on its gross income just the same; and
you would do, it seems to me, a great injustice. I cannot see
how, unless the assessors, or the taxing power, take into con-
sideration the earning power, the net earning power, or what
it is worth to the men who own the stock, and what it is wortE
to the people who built it, you are going to get a fair and just
system of taxation. I believe this would be unjust, as unjust
as another illustration: Supposing you own two buildings in
the town where you live that cost you $100,000 apiece. One
pays you a dividend of ten thousand a year from its location
and from the fact that it will rent. The other hardly pays the
taxes — and are yen going to tax them both upon their gross
income? It costs so much to run one, — you have your elevator
system, you have your janitors, you are running it at a
gteat expense. The other you are able to run without jani-
tors, without elevators; you are able to run it without a large
heating apparatus, and you are getting the same income from
both, and tax them on the gross income. Now, it is unjust to
your railroad; it is unjust in both situations, and it seems
to me we had better stand by the old theory.
I think this is a public question. It is not a question that
has been fully discussed, and so fully discussed that it should
be submitted to the voters at this time.
Mr. Sullivan of Berlin. — I will speak only a minute. I am
somewhat surprised at the attempt that is being made to ob-
scure the real issue by attempting to go into the business of
Fkiday, June 21, 1912. 491
public service corporations, which it seems to me is clearly
foreign to any issue raised by this amendment. This amend-
ment authorizes the legislature to fix the rate of taxation, also
the property that is to be subject to that rate. It leaves the
matter entirely in the hands of the legislature. In other words,
it gives the legislature the right to tax incomes; that is, it
authorizes the legislature to tax incomes instead of follow-
ing the old method now in use. This whole subject is left
with the legislature when the tax is collected. I cannot see
why it should not be disbursed as it is now. If the amend-
ment is passed, I cannot see where the state treasury is going
to be benefited. I cannot see where the towns and cities are
going to be injured. I hope the resolution will pass.
Mr. Crawford of Manchester. — I am not going to engage in any
discussion of this question because we have listened to it ever
since the meeting of the Convention, and I must admit, after
all these arguments, I don't know anything about It. I don't
think there is anybody that knows any more about it than I,
and evidently those who have presented this measure don't
seem to give us much enlightenment.
Mr. Crawford of Manchester moved that the vote on the
resolution be taken at 12 o'clock.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Question being on the recommendation of the Commit-
tee, —
Mr. Stone of Anclover. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I think in every vote that has been taken in this
Convention, w^ith one exception, I have voted against the gen-
tleman from Landaff, but upon this proposition I am certainly
with him, and I want to speak in line with the suggestion of
Mr. Sullivan. There isn't the slightest suggestion of gross in-
come in this resolution, and all the arguments of the oppo-
sition to this amendment are arguments fitted solely to be
addressed to the legislature when a bill is before them to be
enacted to carry out the provisions of this amendment to the
Constitution. They may never carry it out. It only gives them
permission to tax public service corporations. I want to get a
step further. I don't want to ask for an amendment, but
I would cut out the words, "public service," and leave
the word, "corporations,*' only, because I have no sympathy
with the attacks that have been made on certain corporations.
492 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
And I think, on a broad and general ground, the people of
New Hampshire should have a right to protect themselves on
any matters of legislation, and see that corporations pay their
fair tax, and I don't refer necessarily to the railroad, or the
express companies. They are not the only ones in our local
affairs. Big corporations of this state have for years asked
for exemption from taxation, and they have obtained it, and
they have not been taxed, as our Tax Commission shows, any-
where near their fair value. Bear in mind that there is noth-
ing in this resolution that suggests whether it should be gross
or net income; it simplj^ leaves the whole subject to the legis-
lature to decide whether they can find a way by which the cor-
porations can pay their fair burden of the taxes of New Hamp-
shire.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I do not rise to discuss the merits of this measure.
As my name has been associated with the drafting of this reso-
lution, as it stands, it is due the gentleman from Landaff, the
gentlemen of the Committee and the members of this Conven-
tion, who have so generously listened to me when I desired
to submit some suggestions upon pending questions, that my re-
lation to the resolution should be stated. The Convention will
recall that during the discussion of the tax resolutions I sug-
gested that I was in favor of a general income tax provision.
And I stated my reasons for it.
The Committee, in its deliberations, the Convention confirming
their action, did not accede to that proposition to the full
extent proposed in Resolution No. 37; and, as the conclu-
sion was reached in the Committee, the gentleman from Lan-
daff made the suggestion with respect to this proposition. He
and the Committee generously asked me how, if the
proposition was to be adopted, it could be framed so as to
become practicable, through appropriate legislation, and how
it could be framed so as to answer the necessary constitutional
requirements involved; and, hurriedly, I drafted this;
and I think the resolution as it comes in here has every
word as I penned it myself. Of course, my understanding as
to the object sought was this: To give the legislature per-
mission to substitute the indirect method of taxing the in-
come on public service corporations rather than the direct,
which has become, as has been related, pretty troublesome in
the effort to arrive at some definite and satisfactory result. I
did not understand that the object was to abolish the appli-
cation of the proportional rule, or tbat any different results
were justified under this proposed provision of the Constitution
FfiiDAY, June 21, 1912. 493
than would be reached and justified through the direct method.
In other words, as stated in the resolution, the indirect method
of taxation of incomes was to be substituted for the direct tax-
ation of the properties, on account of its practical convenience
and practicability. That was all. I did not then under-
stand, nor did anyone then understand, so far as I know,
that it was open to the objection that the tax imposed was not
to be apportioned and distributed as it is at the present time,
and 'as it should be. Of course, the object in the form adopted
was to be brief; but in my experience I have found that brevity,
so very desirable, often leads to obscurity instead of clearness.
And I now find a good many very intelligent, honest and well
disposed gentlemen in doubt with reference to what this really
means. Therefore I feel that, having been employed as the
architect, it is my duty to perfect the plan so we can see ex-
actly what it means. I did not understand that any different
result was to be reached in this method than through the other
method, either in the distribution of the taxes or in the result
of the 'assessment. I am confident that it should reach the
same result attained through the direct.
In order to come within the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Federal Constitution, — that Constitution
which is the supreme law of the land, — we must see to it that
our Constitution, and law thereunder, conforms to the require-
ments of that amendment. It has been held by the Supreme
Court that this amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution, while originally understood to contemplate
only the protection of the colored man, now includes and pro-
tects the rights of the white man as well, and includes and
protects the rights of the artificial being, the corporation, with
respect to matters of taxation, as well as the rights of the
natural person, colored or white. Under this amendment, every
person, natural or artificial, is entitled to the equal protection
of the law; and this, it has been held, means, with respect to
taxation, that the corporation, as well as the natural person,
shall be taxed upon a basis of proportion and equality. There-
fore, a provision in our Constitution, in order to stand the test
of the principles of the Federal Constitution, must accord to
«ach individual due process of law and the equal protection
of the law.
To avoid all possible question, and to make clear what was
intended, as I supposed, I suggest an 'amendment to the propo-
sition as it now stands.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord offered the following amendment
494 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
to Kesolution No. 59, Relating to the Taxation of Public
Service Corporations: —
Amend by adding thereto the following words: — "But the
tax assessed upon such incomes shall not be greater or less
than it would be if assessed upon the property of the cor-
poration, and the apportionment and distribution to the sev-
eral towns and cities of their share of the taxes shall be the
same as it would be if assessed upon the property of the cor-
poration/'
Question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell
of Concord, —
Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — Now to me that seems plain; the
other did. To you it may not seem as plain. I have found in
my practice in attempting to administer the law that equally
intelligent men differ about what phrases and words mean.
Mr. Drake of Pittsfield. — May I ask one question of Judge
Mitchell?
The President. — Does the gentleman from Concord yield to the
gentleman from Pittsfield?
Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — I do.
Mr. Drake of Pittsfield. — I would ask if this amendment, or
resolution, is adopted, will it take away the power of the legis-
lature to assess the tax in the way it is now, if they see fit,
or can they use their discretion in assessing it the old way, or
on the income?
Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — My answer to that proposition, Mr.
President, is that both methods would exist. This simply pro-
vides an additional method, while it would not extinguish the
present method.
Mr. Drake of Pittsfield. — Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — At the present time the railroad tax,
for instance, is apportioned and distributed to the several towns
in this way: One fourth of it goes to the towms through which
the railroads are constructed, depending upon the amount of
money invested in the construction of the roads in those towns.
That disposes of twenty-five percent of it. The balance of it
goes to the towns in which the stockholders reside, and they
take it in proportion to the whole stock of the corporation.
After exhausting that amount, then come the stockholders
who reside in Maine or Massachusetts or Vermont, or else-
where. The tax on that, proportionally, goes to the state treas-
ury, and that is all. Now, in this amendment it indicates the
Friday, June 21, 1912. 495
purpose of this body that the legislature shall pursue the same
course with respect to that, and, if I have made myself under-
stood, Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, that
is all I care to say,
Mr. Johnson of Colebrook. — The purpose and object of the pend-
ing bill or amendment, as I understand it, is to simplify the
method of taxing- this kind of property, and to avoid the neces-
sity of attempting to obtain an appraisal of the same at its
actual cash value, experience having shown this to be imprac-
ticable, if not impossible. But this proposed amendment to the
resolution declares that the assessment shall not in any case be
greater or less than it would be if the tax were imposed as a
direct tax on the property. Whether the tax imposed, in any
given case, is greater or less than a direct tax could be ascer-
tained only by having a full and complete appraisal of the prop-
erty at its cash value. Such an appraisal, we are told, is diffi-
cult, if not impossible, to obtain. Consequently this proposefl
amendment opens up this whole matter for controversy and
litigation, and thereby defeats the primary purpose of the
principal amendment. Therefore I believe we should vote ir
down.
Mr. Boynton of Portsmouth. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, 1
am opposed to this amendment. The amendment originally
drawn was to eliminate the trouble 'and controversy arising
from the appraisal of railroad and other corporate property to
obtain its true value in cash.
Now, the amendment is in the way of legislation, and is
simply a method that was criticised by the Legislative Com-
mittee in relation to the income tax that you have considered
before, and should not be attached to this measure. You may
safely leave the distribution of this tax to the representatives
of the towns and cities. They will act fairly for their own
community, every single time.
Mr. Clifford of Franklin moved to reconsider the vote
whereby the Convention agreed to take a vote at 12 o'clock.
On a viva voce vote the negative prevailed.
Question being on the amendment of Mr. Mitchell of Con-
cord, —
Mr. Broderick of Manchester. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of
the Convention, I have refrained from attempting to discuss
this question of taxation, after we got out of the domain of
496 JouFwNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
fundamental principles, because I am absolutely convinced that
its discussion requires a degree of expertness that vfery few per-
sons have. I should have been very much pleased to have left
this whole matter of the method of taxation to a Committee
composed of the g-entleman from Tilton, Mr. Fellows, the gentle-
man from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, the gentleman from Concord,
Mr. Allen Hollis, and the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell,
because I am convinced that they principally represent the
greatest degree of knowledge and skill that there is in this Con-
vention upon the question. But perhaps that is not a feasible
proposition, Gentlemen, and hence I feel obliged to discuss the
amendment now before us, presented by the gentleman from
Concord, Mr. Mitchell.
It is based upon the suggestion that the amendment proposed
by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, would be in viola-
tion of our Federal Constitution. That very proposition oc-
curred to me last night, and I took occasion to investigate it.
and with great diffidence, because of the source from which
the opposite opinion comes. I am compelled to say that my
investigation led me to the conclusion that there is not any-
thing in the Federal Constitution which prevents the system
of taxation proposed by the gentleman from Landaff, Mr.
Stevens. If the amendment suggested by Mr. Mitchell is add-
ed on to the Stevens amendment, we have placed ourselves back
into the position from which the amendment of Mr. Stevens
tends to extricate the state of New Hampshire. Our difficulty
now is that the physical valuation of railroads is an absolute
impossibility. Men who have written upon that subject, men
who have investigated it everywhere, and have given it investi-
gation that is not possible for an assemblage of this kind, in
describing the difficulties, call it "superhuman," "impossible,"
"counting the stars," and the like. It is an actual fact that it
is not a possibility to arrive at anything like a definite estimate
even of the value of the properties of public service corpora-
tions, and that is the very difficulty,— that is the difficulty that
creates the difficulties under which the state of New Hamp-
shire is laboring. It is not possible, no matter how much
conscientiousness and scrupulousness is brought to the task
to accurately value the property of public service corporation??.
Any ten men you will appoint will arrive at ten diverse con-
clusions as far apart as it is possible to imagine. If we settle
this question right, we shall not adopt the resolution proposed
by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of tliv»
Convention, before adopting this proposed amendment, let us
Friday, June 21, 1912. 497
see where we stand with relation to it. The opponents "oi the
original resolution say that if it is adopted it puts it wfthin
the power of the legislature to take away from towns their
proportion of the taxes now derived from the taxation of this
class of property. They also say that the taxes on the property
of public service corporations will not be proportionate if as-
sessed in accordance with the original resolution.
The gentleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, has proposed an
amendment to the original resolution which is calculated to
obviate these objections. Gentlemen on the other side in favor
of the original resolution say that if the Mitchell amendment
is adopted we will then revert right back to the original situ-
ation, and the property of public service corporations will be
taxed practically on the same basis as it is now taxed. This
may be true. But, if we adopt the resolution as first proposed,
the question arises whether or not the word, "proportional,"
as now found in the Constitution, applies to it.
The gentleman from Landaff, Mr. Stevens, is unable to an-
swer this question. I certainly cannot answer it. If it does
apply, well and good. If it does not apply, then we do not want
the public service corporations of this state taxed out of pro-
portion to other property in the state, and certf^jnly the resolu-
tion ought not to be adopted. In any event, the friends and foes
of the original resolution do not agree upon the interpretation
of it. They cannot agree as to whether the word, "propor-
tional," applies.
The consequence of adopting the resolution without m
amendment will be that a case will have to be drawn and passed
to the Supreme Court to ascertain the meaning of our work.
Perhaps the Convention wants to pass some such amendment
to the Constitution, but we would certainly like to know what
we are doing. It is up to the Convention to say whether it
wants to take a step in the dark and adopt an amendment to
the Constitution when its advocates and opponents cannot agree
upon its interpretation.
I am not now saying whether I am in favor or against some
such resolution rightly drawn, but I am simply putting the
question to you to say whether or not you want to propose an
amendment to the Constitution such that it will be necessary
at once to take steps to ascertain its interpretation from the Su-
preme Court of the state.
Mr. Allen Hollis of Concord. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of
the Convention, if this ^amendment now proposed by the gen-
tleman from Concord, Mr. Mitchell, is adopted, I hope every-
"body will vote against the measure as so amended, because it
498 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
amounts to doing something in the first part of thp amend-
ment, and undoing it in the last part. I am not willing to put
myself in that absurd position. I hope the amendment pro-
posed by Mr. Mitchell will be rejected, because it defeats the
whole object of the proposed constitutional amendment.
On a viva voce vote the amendment of Mr. Mitchell was
rejected.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation
of the Committee that the Convention agree to the proposed
amendment, —
Mr. Stevens of Landaff. — It has been brought to the attention
of the Convention, and to my attention a little while ago, that
some of the express companies are voluntary associations, and
in some jurisdictions and some Courts they have escaped certain
laws because they are not corporations.
The President. — Discussion is out of order at this time.
Mr. Stevens of Landaff moved to amend the resolution by
inserting after ih^ words, "public service corporations," in
the third line of the resolution, the words, "and upon volun-
tary associations doing a public service business," and in-
serting after the words, "such corporations," in the fifth line
of the resolution, the wo,rds, "and voluntary associations,"
so that the said section 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 franchises and property
when passing by will or inheritance ; and there shall be a valu-
ation of the estates within the state taken anew once in
every five years, at least, and as much oftener as the General
Court shall order; and the General Court in imposing a tax
upon public service corporations and upon voluntary asso-
ciations doing a public service business, shall have full power
and authority to impose a tax upon the incomes of such cor-
porations and voluntary associations in lieu of a direct tax
upon their property.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Stevens of Landaff
to amend, —
Fkiday June 21. 1912. 499
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation of
the Committee, as amended, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative appeared to prevail.
Mr. Clifford of Franklin called for a division.
Division being had, the President declared the vote mani-
festly in the affirmative and the resolution as amended was
agreed to by the Convention.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Time and
Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed
to by the Convention.
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford moved that the Convention re-
solve itself into Committee of the Whole for the ptirpose of
considering all resolutions relating to the future mode of
amending the Constitution, the same being, —
Eesolution No. 3, Eelating to Future Mode of Amending
the Constitution.
Eesolution No. 11, Eelating to Future Mode of Amending
the Constitution.
Eesolution No. 16, Eelating to Future Mode of Amending
the Constitution.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
In Committee of the Whole.
(Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke in the Chair.)
Question being on the motion of Mr. Wadleigh of Milford,
•that the Committee recommend that Eesolution No. 11, Ee-
lating to Future Mode of Amending the Constitution, be
agreed to by the Convention, —
Mr. Newell of Surry.— Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Com-
mittee, I was mneh interested in what was said by the g-entle-
man from Exeter, Mr. Eastman. He referred to the fact that
600 Journal of Constitutional Convejs'tion.
this matter had been brought up by previous Convientions. I
was a member of the Convention of 1889, and this same amend-
ment was proposed to that Convention by a gentleman from
Concord by the name of Hadley. It was considered in >a. Com-
mittee of the Whole (but it reported inexpedient to amend as
proposed), and was discussed by such eminent men as the late
Judge Isaac W. Smith of Manchester, and the late Judge William
S. Ladd of Lancaster. I w-as much interested in the discus-
sion that took place at that time.
Before making so radical a change in the method of amend-
ing our Constitution, we should consider how this method has
operated in other states which have ^adopted it, according to
this amendment proposed by the gentleman from Manchester.
Mr. Cavanaugh. Has it not been the tendency in the different
states that have adopted this method to lumber up their Con-
stitutions with statutory provisions. It is said that in the state
of Pennsylvania, which has a similar method of amending its
Constitution, that it is hard to tell which is constitutional and
which is* statutory law. Now, Gentlemen, is it not true that
a body elected as this body is elected is more able to deal with
such an important question as amending the organic law of
our state than a legislature which has numerous other questions
to deal with? It is true that the towns choosing members to
such a body as this usually elect their best men, and that a
Constitutional Convention contains more men of experience
and ability than the average legislature. And another fact j^
true, that outside influences are not so potential in a Consti-
tutional Convention as in a legislature, and at this time I fe«^l
like repeating, or quoting, what was said by the eminent Judge
William S. Ladd of Lancaster in 1889, "that the Constitution of
New Hampshire ought never to be in the hands of a body with
a lobby at its doors."
Mr. Jones of Manchester. — Mr. Chairman, I have refrained dur-
ing this session from expressing any opinion before the Com-
mittee upon any subject which has been before it, but in the
Convention of 1902 I was a member of the Committee which
had this subject in charge, antd I find in the record, when this
same proposition was before the Convention of 1902, the fol-
lowing remarks, which I want to read:
"I know of no lamp to guide my feet but the lamp of experi-
ence. I h-ave been taught to believe, and do believe, that th*^
Constitution of this state is the foundation upon which rest
all of our institutions and all of our rights. I believe that that
foundation should be as firm and as secure as possible, that it
Friday, June 21, 1912. 501
should be protected against frequent changes, and, what is
equally as important, that it should be protected against con-
tinuous assaults.
"I believe if we should recommend, and the people should
adopt, the methods proposed by these resolutions, or any of
them, that the sessions of our legislature would be taken up
largely with attempts to change the Constitution in various
respects, and I further believe that in the stress and storm of
political excitement the representatives of the people might
come here and make radical and dangerous changes in the Con-
stitution, merely for partisan advantage, and send them to the
people, and the people might adopt them and they might be-
come part of our Constitution, and thus bring ^about great
evils.
"You all knovv that there are many men in this state who
believe that the Constitution ought to be changed, and they
would be constantly coming into the legislature and asking to
have it amended. Almost every man that comes here to this
Convention has one or more propositions for changes which he
believes would improve the Constitution; and the same thing
would take place in the legislature. Nearly every representa-
tive would have a proposition to present, and the time of the
legislature would be absorbed in discussing propositions which
the good sense of the people, in most instances, would reject.
I believe that our Constitution shbuld be firm, that it should
not be assailable by every wind that blows; but if we give this
power of amendment to the legislature, it will not be as firm
as it is today. Respect for the Constitution would, I fear, grow
smaller if these proposed amendments should pass.
"Our legislature today has 'all the power that any legislature
should have to pass laws, and the final article of the Bill of
Rights reads as follows: 'A frequent recurrence to the funda-
mental principles of the Constitution and a constant adherence
to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all
the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve th»?
blessings of liberty and good government. The people ought,
therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in
the choice of their officers and representatives; and they har^;
a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates an exact
and constant observance of them in the formation and execu-
tion of the laws necessary for the good administration of gov-
ernment.*
"There is your Constitution today. The principles of 'justice,
moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social
virtues' are now the constitutional bases of legislative action.
602 JocriiNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
Outside of those principles, what is there that calls for this
change? And what is there in them that calls for legislation
which the legislature has not now the power to enact?
"I trust, Mr. President and Gentlemen, that you will not vote
to make this change."
Those were the remarks made in 1902 by the gentleman from
Manchester, Mr. Jones. I simply want to repeat to you the
s-ame argument which I made to that Convention ten years ago.
Let the Constitution remain as firm and as unassailable as pos-
sible. Do not give over the time of the legislature to the con-
sideration of proposed amendments to the Constitution, ana
then go to the expense of printing them and bringing them
up again in another legislature, 'and then voting upon them.
The only argument that has been made here against our
present system is, it costs money to have a Convention, but.
Gentlemen, we do not have Conventions very often. There
was none from 1789 to 1850, and there have only ^been four
since, and, when you take the expense of twenty-five or thirty
thousand dollars for a Convention, and spread that over ten to
fifteen years, your expense will be a good deal less than the
expense of having your legislature taking up amendments in
one or two sessions, and paying for printing them for three
months in papers in all the counties of the states. In the
interests of the Constitution, in the interests of this state, T
ask you to cling to the old Constitution, change it as little as
possible, and then we shall go home satisfied with what we
have done.
Mr. Updyke of Hanover. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Convention, before coming to this Convention I spent consid-
erable time and thought in the consideration of the principal
measures that were likely to come before this Convention; bur,
after coming here and observing that many, or most, of the
questions were to be decided upon political expe<diency merely,
as I have no political aspirations, and no political experience
such as is deemed essential for a m^an in New Hampshire,
namely, service in the General Court, I thought it proper for
me to listen to others whose political experience gave them
special qualification to speak. Therefore, with reference to the
previous questions under discussion, I have taken no part in the
debates.
I have listened to the same arguments given on the floor of
this Convention tbat were made in the Convention ten years
ago, and, except for the tax question, I should have been quite
as well informed upon the merits of the questions under dis-
cussion had I remained at Hanover and read the Journal of
Friday, June 21, 1912. 503
ten years ago. I will admit that on the tax question we hav.i
had illuminating" and valuable debates, but the other discus-
sions have failed to get at the merits of the questions. With
reference to the question now under discussion, it has seemed
to me that it could not be a question of party politics, and
that it was inconceivable that it was one with regard to which
the word had been passed along in advance of the Convention
that it should be killed. This question ought to be considered
fairly, and the fact that it was considered ten years ago, or
twenty years ago, is no argument why it should not receive fuil
consideration at this time.
I have the honor of representing a constituency which ha>>
stood for and has contributed much to the traditions and in-
stitutions of this state, a constituency which includes men whom
you all honor. This constituency is practically a unit upon the
question of the desirability^ of an easier mode of amendment,
and entertains the belief that it is the most pressing question
before this Convention. I believe it is the sentiment of think-
ing men in the state today, that, if this body of men rejects
this question, which is particularly pertinent to a Constitutional
Convention, and fails to consider carefully and weigh the evi-
dence with respect to the change in the mode of amendment,
we shall receive greater criticism for that omission than any-
thing else we shall do or shall have failed to do. This question
has been raised not only by the constituency which I have the
honor to represent, but it has received attention by men of
experience outside of the state. I know that it has little
weight, in the present state of mind of the leaders of this Con-
vention, what others may think, but it may be of interest to
know that at the meeting of the American Political Science
Association, held at Buffalo last winter, when the subject of
state Constitutions was discussed, the method of amendment
of the Constitution of Xew Hampshire was strongly criticized.
It has been pointed out to you that this is not a radical meas-
ure, but that forty-seven states, that is, all the states except
New Hampshire, provide for a more elastic and easier mode
than the single method of a Constitutional Convention.
I would also point out the fact that in Massachusetts the
legislative mode of amendment was adopted in 1821, and no
very radical changes in the Constitution of Massachusetts have
resulted in consequence. The measures adopted have been few.
There have been periods of ten or fifteen years when no change
has been made, and, usually, not more than one or two have
been adopted in a single year. The number of measures sub-
mitted to the people for their consideration have been fewer
501 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
than those ordinarily submitted by a Constitutional Convention.
Upon that point, it seems to me, the method proposed is much
more conservative than the present mo'de, for, while this Con-
stitutional Convention, being very conservative, will refer a
few questions to the people. New Hampshire may have a Con-
vention such as the one recently in session in Ohio, which may
submit forty or fifty questions at one time. Therefore, I taK«
issue with the gentleman from Manchester with regard to his
statement, that there will be more questions submitted to tho
people through legislative enactment than through the Con-
stitutional Convention. The experience of other states has
proved the reverse; but, rather, fewer questions have been
placed before the people at one time under the legislative mode
than under the method of a Constitutional Convention.
This bill is extremely conservative, and is substantially in
line with the other New England states. As I have stated,
forty-seven states provide for amendment other than by a Con-
stitutional Convention, Thirt3'-three states provide for a dual
mode. This proposal is for the dual mode, viz.: The Consti-
tutional Convention when needed for a general revision of the
Constitution, and the legislative method when a single amend-
ment is required. I should like to have you notice how con-
servative this method is; that it is impossible for any radical
or extreme measure to be presented and passed by the people.
In the first place, any amendment must pass the House of Rep-
resentatives of 400 members by majoritj^ vote, an absolute ma-
jority vote. It then must go to the Senate and pass by an
absolute majority of that House. After that it goes before the
people, when electing members of the House two years later.
Then it must pass again by a majority vote of each of the two
houses. And finally, it must be submitted to the people and
be passed by a two-thirds vote. This procedure is in one par-
ticular more difficult than that of anj^ of the other states.
Twelve or thirteen states provide for initiation by two succes-
sive legislatures, but adoption by a majority instead of a two-
thirds vote. More than two thirds of the states require but
one legislature to initiate an amendment.
The question has been raised whether or not the present sys-
tem is not equally and more quickly operative than this would
be. The time required is the same in either case. It takes
three and one half years to call a Convention and submit tho
results to the people. In March, 1909, the legislature passed
an act to submit the question of calling the present Conven-
tion; in 1910 the people voted upon the question; in 1911 the
legislature again passed an act, the people having voted affirma-
Friday, June 21, 1912. 506
tively, providing for the election of delegates to a Constitu-
tional Convention in June, 1912. The results of this Convention
will be submitted to the people in November, 1912, thus making
three and one half years from the initiation of the call of the
Convention to the time of the final submission of the results^
of such Convention. The same length of time vv^ould be re-
quired for the adoption of an amendment by means of tho
legislative mode. Wherein the proposed method is more con-
servative than the Constitutional Convention mode lies in the
fact that when the people grant permission for calling a Con-
stitutional Convention they do not know what measures will
be brought before such Convention, and the measures which are
proposed and passed may be submitted to the vote of the people
within six months thereafter, as will be the case this year;
while with the legislative method the people know definitely
in advance the character of the changes, and they have three
or three and one half years of discussion before the question*
are finally voted upon.
Therefore, it is, actually, more possible through a Constitu-
tional Convention for a radical measure to be brought before
the people and passed in a party spirit. Mr. Jones said in his
speech: "I believe that, in the stress and storm of political
excitement, the representatives of the people may come here
and make radical and dangerous changes." There is much less
likelihood of this happening, under the proposed method, than
there is with a Constitutional Convention.
It seems to me that this measure is in the interest of con-
servatism. I yield to no one in my respect for, and loyalty to,
the Constitution and constitutional provisions, and it is for thl?i
reason that I am interested in the proposed measure, for I
believe that, if no more elastic method than we have at pres-
ent is adopted, there is great danger of an assault upon our
•Constitution through a Constitutional Convention in coming
years. We are much more likely to conserve the Constitution
and institutions provided for in our Constitution through thJs
method than if we attempt to retain the present Convention
method alone.
Mr. Young of Laconia.— Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee, I have been told, although I don't know how true
it is, that for more than a year before Moxie was put upon
the market it was continuously and persistently advertised
regardless of expense. My experience in the last few years has
taught me that there are Moxie vendors in politics. You can-
not take up a newspaper today unless you find there advertise-
ments of medicines which Avill cure all kinds of illness which
506 Journal of OoNsriTunoNAL Conv^ention.
you didn't know you had until 30U read the symptoms. They
are also appearing in the magazines, advertising inventions in
order to create a demand for them, and I submit. Gentlemen,
the experience we have gone through in the last few years, here
and elsewhere, shows that there are people w'ho are evidently
anxious to create a demand for something which they have to
vend. There is one word in the English language which I be-
lieve to be very useful, and that is the little word, "why"; and
I believe we can employ it in no place to a better advantage
than we can employ it here, and ask ourselves why we need
this, what I call, radical change? It has been suggested by
someone here, while this matter has been under consideration,
that a former Attorney-General of Massachusetts thought we
ought to have it. If there is any one thing that would make
me prejudiced against it, it is the fact that they think down
in Massachusetts that we ought to have it. I would like to
know what particular thing Massachusetts ever did for us, un-
less it was when she erected a monument over the battleground
where the men of New Hampshire won a victor}'. She is one
of the group of four states, and only four, which dignify their
organization by the name, "commonwealth." It is the only
state in the Union, so far as I know, which places its own flag
higher than the flag of the United States, and, if it wasn't for
the brains that have been sent into Massachusets from Maine,
New Hampshire, Vermont, and Ireland, they couldn't run it a
minute.
Now, my serious objection to this measure is that it is pon-
derous. First, you have to submit the amendment to one legis-
lature. It goes over two years, and you have to submit it to
another legislature, and if you can get two legislatures in suc-
cession which will agree to any one thing, it will be a marvel
and next to a miracle. Then, assuming they do agree, you sub-
mit it to the people, just as you do now, after you pay the"
newspapers up and down the state for printing it for three
months. In addition, you may have to call a Convention, just
as we do now. Hence it eliminates nothing.
Why, it reminds me of a typewriter which came around in
the early days of those machines, where you almost had to go
but into the other room and put in a pin every time you got
to the end of a line, and I hope this measure wull not prevail,
and that the report will go back to the Convention that this
measure be not agreed to.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, th«?
gentleman from Manchester asks why, and I think there are
good and suflicient reasons why. I yield to no man in this
Friday, June* 21, 1912. 607
Convention in reverence for the Constitution and for funda-
mental law. I do not believe that it should be hastily changed,
and one reason, and the chief reason, that I favor this amend-
ment is the difficulty of changing- the fundamental law under
the plan proposed. There are difficulties in the way now. We
meet here, we send six, eight or ten amendments to the people,
with the knowledge, or with the feeling, beforehand, tacked
as they will be, bunched as they will be on the end of a ballot,
with little attention paid to them, that they will be defeated,
or that they will be adopted almost without consideration. The
Amendment proposed simply provides due and thorough con-
sideration of any amendment to the Constitution.
First, it has to come before a legislature, and the legis-
lature may as well spend some time in considering fundamental
law as waste a lot of time in considering unconsequential fish
and game laws. I do not think it would harm the members of
the legislature to spend some time in consideration of the fun-
damental law of our state. According to this plan, a proposed
amendment must pass both Houses of the legislature. It then
goes to the people for their consideration for two years. It
is printed in the newspapers for three months. There is plenty
of opportunity for discussion during those two years, on the
part of the people. If it is an amendment of great importance,
the next legislature is likely to be chosen somewhat with ref-
erence to the amendment. It has to be passed by both houses
of that next legislature. It then goes back to the people and
must be ratified, as now, by a two-thirds vote of the people.
I believe we can secure no more difficult way of amending our
fundamental law. and amending it carefully, than in this way.
I am not a radical. Sir. I am conservative, and, because I am
conservative, I favor this change. I do not care what the state
of Massachusetts thinks about us. I agree with the gentleman
from Manchester, we are capable of standing on our own feet,
but I do know this, from a residence in that state of some
twenty-five years, a state that has held no Constitutional Con-
ventions since 1850, a state in which I do not think more than
one amendment at a time has ever been submitted to the people,
I do know that in the state of Massachusetts the system pro-
posed by this amendment works well. It would work better
in this state, for the people would have a longer time to con-
sider it than they do in the state of Massachusetts. They are
unfortunately afflicted there with annual sessions of the legis-
lature. We have biennial sessions. You get an amendment to
our Constitution through after four years' consideration, and
I believe there would be almost no possibilty, certainly no prob-
508 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
ability, of ever submitting more than one amendment at a time.
There would be full, free, fair discussion of it, and we should
find ourselves not amending the Constitution on trivial mai-
ters, or any matters except those that had the fullest and freest
and fairest consideration, not only by two legislatures, but o^
the part of the people of the state for two years.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Just a single word: The gentleman
from Haverhill has not answered the question of the gentle-
man from Manchester, "Why?". We have lived under this
method of changing the Constitution since it has existed, and
has there been any complaint, when you come right down to
it, that we have not had Conventions enough and opportunity
enough to amend the Constitution? The gentleman speaks of
the opportunity, of the greater opportunity that there would be
before a legislative body. The gentleman should know, from
his own experience, that in most all legislation in a legisla-
tive body the Committees take care of the whole subject. In
our Constitutional Convention, you all know from experience,
we have acted in Committee of the Whole, where everybody has
had an opportunity to know all of the arguments before the
entire assembly, and we have only one subject before us, and
that is the amending of the state Constitution. Now, the gen-
tleman from Haverhill, and others who have had legislative
experience as long as his, and as long as some of the rest of
us, know that the consideration which such a body as this,
picked from the people, picked representatives, gives to quev
tions of a fundamental character would not be given by th'»
legislature, and that the time of the latter body would be taken
up by the consideration of everybody's ideas who wanted ta
amend the Constitution.
I do not know that I could state, if I took more time, the
position better than it was stated ten years ago by the gentle-
man from Manchester, Mr. Jones, and re-stated by him here.
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford. — Mr. Chairman, it is getting to be
very near dinner-time, and I wish we might have a vote now.
I suppose others would like to discuss the question, but I want
to make a request, that we take a vote now, because I think the
discussion would not change the vote.
On a viva voce vote the motion of Mr. AYadleigh appeared
not to prevail.
Mr. Wadleigh of Milford called for a division.
Division being had, 65 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
FfiiDAY, June 21, 1912. 509
and 189 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the motion
that the resohition be reported with the recommendation
that it be agreed to did not prevail.
Mr. Jones of Manchester moved that the Committee do
now rise and report the resolution, with the recommenda-
tion that it is inexpedient to agree to the amendment pro-
posed in the three resolutions before the Committee.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
In CONYENTrON.
(The President in the Chair.)
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee of
the Whole, to whom were referred Eesolution Xo. 3, Eelating
to Future Mode of x\mending the Constitution, Eesolution
No. 11, Eelating to Future Mode of Amending the Constitu-
tion, and Eesolution No. 16, Eelating to Future Mode of
Amending the Constitution, having considered the same, re-
port the following resolution: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed in the resolutions..
'The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee on
Legislative Department, to whom was referred Eesolution No.
27, Eelating to House of Eepresentatives and Senate and
the Compensation of the Officers and Members Thereof, hav-
ing considered the same, report the same, with the follow-
ing recommendation: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu-
tion as proposed, the subject-matter of said resolution having
heen favorably reported in other resolutions.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. George W. Fowler of Pembroke, for the Committee on
510 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Legislative Department, to whom was referred Resolution No.
5, Relating to Taxation of Wild and Forest Lands and Money
at Interest, 'having considered the same, report the same, with
the following recommendation: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed, the subject-matter of said resolution having
been reported and acted upon in a new draft.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Report of Committee on Finance.
Mr. McLane of Milford, for the Committee on Finance,
present the following report and recommend its adoption:
We recommend that the Secretary be authorized to make
up the pay-roll of the members of this Convention as fol-
lows:
Eighteen days' service @ $3.00 per day for 413
members $22,302.00
That the officers and employees be allowed the respective
sums placed opposite their names:
Harrie M. Young, Temporary Secretary $10.00
Allan Chester Clark, Secretary 154.00
Bernard W. Carey, Assistant Secretary 154.00
Albert P. Davis, Sergeant-at-Arms 72.00
Charles C. Garland, Chaplain 25.00
John F. Bartlett, Doorkeeper 63.00
Oscar D. Beverstock, Doorkeeper 63.00
Charles A. Holden, Doorkeeper 63.00
George Goodhue, Doorkeeper 63.00
Eugene D. Sanborn, Warden of Coat Room .... 63.00
Augustus P. Home, Assistant Warden of Coat
Room 63.00
Lizzie H. Sanborn, Official Stenographer 72.00
Ray E. Burkett, Assistant Stenographer 72.00
Maurice H. Smith, Page 36.00
Fred A. Rushlow, Page 36.00
FiiiDAY, June 21, 1912. 511
John M. Shirley, Page 36.00
That the following bills for incidental expenses be allowed:
Edson C. Eastman, stationery and supplies.... $23.58
Win. M. Haggett, supplies 15.00
Phaneuf & Son, supplies 2.6o
E. L. Glick, engrossing 20.00
W. P. Goodman, supplies 11.55
Ray E. Burkett, rent of typewriter 4.0U
The Xovelty Co., supplies 5.00
Underwood Typewriter Co., rent of typewriter 4.00
The Harding Uniform & Regalia Co., supplies 10.00
D. W. Connor, expenses incurred in maintaining
contested seat 15.00
And the total amount of all the above bills,
as approved by the Finance Committee, is.. $23,457.78
That all other bills in connection with the session of this
Convention be approved by the Governor and Council, who
shall draw his warrant for the same.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. Lyford of Concord moved that w^hen the Convention
adjourn this morning it be to meet at 3 o'clock this after-
noon.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
On motion of Mr. Saltmarsh of Laconia, the Convention
adjourned at 12.55 o'clock.
AFTERN-OON SESSION".
The Convention met at 3 o'clock, according to adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the Chair.)
RePOET of (COMMITTtEE OX J0URN"AL.
Mr. Young of Manchester, for the Special Committee on
Journal of Proceedings, to whom was referred the matter of
512 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
the publication of the proceedings of the Convention, hav-
ing considered the matter, report the following resolutions
and recommend their adoption: —
Resolved, That the official reporters be directed to make a
<3opy of the debates verbatim, and that they be paid in full
for their services in copying said debates the usual compen-
sation of twenty cents for each hundred words, and that
their account be audited by the Grovernor, who shall draw
his warrant for the same.
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Convention be in-
structed to supervise the printing of the Journal of the Con-
vention, eliminating such extraneous remarks as do not ap-
ply directly to the subject under discussion, and all unneces-
sary tabular matter, and to prepare and cause to be printed
therewith a proper and extended index, under suitable head-
ings, for ready reference to names, towns, and subjects; and
that his bill for compensation therefor, when audited and
approved by the Governor and Council, be allowed and paid.
Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to procure as
soon as possible after the close of the Convention, 2,200
printed copies, in pamphlet form, of said journal, to be dis-
tributed as follows, under the direction of the Secretary of
State: One copy to each member and officer of the Conven-
tion, one copy to each town, to be kept in the office of the
town clerk; one copy to each Secretary of other states and
territories, to be placed in their respective state or territorial
libraries; one copy to each public institution of learning in
our state; one copy to each public or circulating library in
our state; five copies to Dartmouth College; five copies to
the New Hampshire College of Agriculture and Mechanic
Arts; five copies to the New Hampshire Historical Society;
ten copies to the New Hampshire state library; 500 copies
to be reserved for the use of members of future Conventions;
and the remainder to be disposed of at the discretion of the
Secretary of State.
Resolved, That in the event of the appropriatic:: made for
this Convention being exhausted before the publication of
Friday, June 21, 1912. 513
the Journal, as above provided, that the incoming legislature
be requested to make such further appropriation as may be
necessary to carry into effect the object of these resolutions,
and that the President of this Convention be instructed to
see that this matter is presented to said legislature.
The report was accepted and the recommendations adopted.
Mr. Lyford of Concord, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, to whom was referred Eesolution No. 58, Eelat-
ing to Taxation, having considered the same, report the same,
with the recommendation that the resolution be amended as
follows, and that the resolution as amended be agreed to
by the Convention:
Insert after the words, "from stock of foreign corpora-
tions,^^ in lines 9 and 47 of the resolution as printed the
words, "and foreign voluntary associations," so that said reso-
lution will read as follows: —
EEaoLUTiON" No. 58.
Eela'ting to Taxation
(As amended.)
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, "but the said General Court shall
have full power and authority to specially assess, rate and tax
growing wood and timber and money at interest, including
money in savings banks, and to impose and levy taxes on
incomes from stock of foreign corporations and foreign vol-
untary associations and money at interest except on incomes
from money deposited in savings banks in this state received
by the depositors and it may graduate such taxes according
to the amount of the incomes and may grant reasonable ex-
emptions; provided that if such taxes be levied on incomes
from stock and money at interest no other taxes shall be
levied thereon against the owner or holder thereof." So
that the article as amended shall read as follows: —
514 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
"Art. 5. And, further, full power and authority are
hereby given and granted to the said General Court, from
time to time to make, ordain, and establish all manner of
wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, ordinance.?,
directions, and instructions, either with penalties or with-
out, so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this Con-
stitution, 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 de-
fense of the government thereof; and to name and settle bi-
ennially, or provide by fixed laws for the naming and settling
all civil officers within this state, such officers excepted the
election and appointment of whom are hereafter in this form
of government otherwise provided for; and to set forth 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 respectively administered unto them
for the execution of their several offices and places, so as the
same be not repugnant or contrary to this Constitution ; and,
also, to impose fines, mulcts, imprisonments, and other pun-
ishments; and to impose and levy proportional and reason-
able assessments, rates, and taxes upon all the inhabitants
of, and residents within, the said state, and upon all estates
within the same, but the said General Court shall have full
power and authority to specially assess, rate and tax grow-
ing wood and timber and money at interest including money
in savings banks, and to impose and levy taxes on incomes
from stock of foreign corporations and foreign valuntary
associations and money at interest except on incomes from
money deposited in savings banks in this state received by
the depositors and it may graduate such taxes according to
the amount of the incomes and may grant reasonable ex-
emptions; provided, that if such taxes be levied on incomes
from fitock and money at interest no other taxes shall be lev-
ied thereon against the owner or holder thereof, to be issued
and disposed of by warrants, under the hand of the Gov-
ernor of this state for the time being, with the advice and
consent of the Council, for the public service, in the neces-
Friday, June 21, 1912. 515
sary defense and support of the government of this state and
the protection and preservation of the subjects thereof, ac-
cording to such acts as are or shall be in force within the
same. Provided, that the General Court shall not authorize
any town to loan or give its money or credit, directly or in-
directly, 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."
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the amendment of the
resolution recommended by the Committee, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Mr. President, just a single word in
explanation: The Legislative Committee supposed they had
covered this point in the original draft, and we are under ob-
ligations to the Committee that took this thing in charge for
calling attention to this matter. We desired to make the thing
doubly sure.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Question being on the recommendation of the Committee
that the resolution as amended be agreed to by the Conven-
tion, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed and the reso-
lution was referred to the Committee on Time and Mode of
Submitting to the People the Amendments Agreed to by the
Convention.
Mr. Lyford of Concord, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, to whom were referred various proposed amend-
ments in relation to the size of the House of Eepresentatives,
with instructions to report an amendment that should pro-
vide for a House of Representatives not exceeding 350 mem-
bers, based upon the town system of representation, having
considered the same, submit the following substitutes for
Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution:
516 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Resolution No. 60.
Relaticg to the House of Eepresentatives.
Resolved, That Articles 9 and 10 of Part Second of the
Constitution be amended to 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 OT place entitled to town privileges, and wards of cities
having ^6 00 inhabitan ts by the last general census of the state,
taken by authority of the United States or of this state, may
€lect one representative; if 2,40^0 such_inhabitants, may elect
two representatives, and so proceeding in that proportion,
making I jOQ such inhabitant s the mean increasing number
for any additional representative; provided, that no town shall
be divided or the boundaries of the wards of any cities so
altered as to increase the number of representatives to which
said town or city may be entitled by the next preceding
•census.
Art. 10. Whenever any town, place or city ward shall,
have less than six hundred such inhabitants, the General
Court shall authorize such town, place or wa.rd to elect and
send to the General Court a representative such proportionate
part of the time as the number of its inhabitants shall bear
to six hundred, but the General Court shall not authorize
any such town, place or ward to elect and send such repre-
sentative except as herein provided; and, provided further,
that the legislature may authorize contiguous towns or con-
tiguous towns and wards having respectively less than six
hundred inhabitants, but whose inhabitants in the aggregate
equal or exceed six hundred, to unite for the purpose of elect-
ing a representative, if each town so decides by major vote
at a meeting called for the purpose, and the votes of towns
thus united shall be cast, counted, returned, and declared as
the votes for senators are cast, counted, returned, and de-
Friday, June 21, 1912. 617
clared, and the Governor shall, fourteen days before the
first Wednesday of each biennial session of the legislature,
issue his summons to such persons as appear to be chosen rep-
resentatives by a plurality of votes to attend and take their
seats on that day.
The report was accepted.
Mln-ority Report.
We, the undersigned, members of the Committee on Legis-
lative Department, to whom were referred all proposed amend-
ments relating to decreasing the size of the House of Eep-
resentatives and increasing the size of the Senate, not being
able to agree with the majority report of said Committee,
beg leave to submit the following as the report of said minor-
ity:
Besolved, That Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution ^f
the state of New Hampshire be so amended that the samr
will read as follows:
Art. 9. There shall be, in the legislature of this state,
a representation of the people, biennially elected, and founded
upon principles of equality, and, in order that such repre-
sentation may be as equal as circumstances will admit, every
town, or place entitled to town privileges, and wards of cities
having six hundred inhabitants by the last general census of
the state, ta¥en by authority of the United States or of this
state, may elect one representative; if three thousand such
inhabitants, may elect two representatives ;~an3^ so proceecC
ing in that proportion, making twenty-four hundred such
inhabitants 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.
Art. 10. Whenever any town, plaee, or city ward shall
have less than six hundred such inhabitants, the General
Court shall authorize such town, place, or ward to elect and
send to the General Court a representative such proportionate
518 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
part of the time in each period of ten years as the number
of its inhabitants shall bear to six hundred; but the General
Court shall not auithorize any such town, place, or ward to
elect and send such representative except as herein pro-
vided; provided, that the legislature may authorize contigu-
ous towns, or contiguous towns and wards, having, respect-
ively, less than six hundred inhabitants, but whose inhab-
itants in the aggregate equal or exceed six hunflred, to unito
for the purpose of electing a representative, if each town
so decides by major vote at a meeting called for the purpose;
and the votes of towns thus united ^hall be cast, counted,
returned, and declared as the votes for senators are cast,
counted, returned and declared; and the Governor shall,
fourteen days before the first Wednesday of each biennial
session of the legislature, issue bis summons to such persons
as appear to be chosen representatives by a plurality of votes,
to attend and take their seats on that day.
Also amend articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the
state of New Hampshire so that the same as amended shall
read:
Art. 24. The Senate shall consist of thirty-six members,
who shall hol^^lEefr ofRce for two years, from tlie fir?t
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-
corporated places, on the basis of population according to the
last census of the United States or of this state.
JESSE M. BARTON,
AETHUE G. WHITTEMOEE,
OEVILLE D. FESSENDEN,
EDWAED H. WASON.
The minority report was accepted.
Mr. Barton of Newport moved that the minority report
be substituted for the report of the majority.
Fkiday, June 21, 1912. 519
Question being on the motion of Mr. Barton of Newport
to substitute, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord moved to strike out all of that
paj-t of the minority report that relates to representation in
the Senate.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Lyford of Con-
cord, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord'. — I make this motion for the purpose
of having a separate vote upon the increase of the Senate and
the reduction of the House. The position of all members of
the Committee present, except four, was that these two propo-
sitions should go to the people separately. We have no pride
in the matter at all. It is for this Convention to decide. The
judgment of a majority of the Committee was that the propo-
sition to reduce the House might fail, and yet the proposition to
increase the Senate might carry. Now, then, if the Convention
desires to increase the Senate, without running the risk of los-
ing both, they will vote for my motion to strike out, so we can
consider each body separately.
Mr. Barton of Neiviwrt. — :Mr, President, Members of the Con-
vention, the minority who signed this report, felt that it was a
good thing to submit these two measures together; that pos-
sibly carrying either one of them depended -upon what action
should be taken on the other; that if the House should not be
cut down, the Senate ought not to be enlarged. It is also true
that the merits of this resolution, which is very largely that
proposed by Mr. Pattee from Manchester, may be affected by
what shall be determined to be the size of the Senate. For los-
ing their representatives, it has been thought that some com-f
pensation should be made to the larger towns and cities by in-
creasing the number of senators, and placing them on the basis
of population. Therefore I do not think these measures should
be considered separately, either here or when they are put
before the voters for ratification, but considered together.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Just a single word, Mr. President, in
reply. The increase of the Senate is very slight, merely twelve.
If there is a sentiment in this Convention in favor of increasing
the Senate, why I believe that the people should have an op-
portunity of voting on that proposition separately. The Com-
mittee has no pride at all about the question.
Mr. Pillshvry of Manchest€i\—I do not think, Mr. President and
520 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Gentlemen, that this thing should go through this Convention
without some representative of the cities speaking on it. Now,
I want to speak in favor of the motion of the gentleman from
Concord, Mr. Lyford. The facts of the case, I think, are just
these: This Convention will favor reducing the size of the
House by providing for one member for each 600 population,
according to both majority and minority reports, and will also
favor the minority report, which makes 2,400 the mean increas-
ing number for the second representative. I think that will go
through this Convention, and I also think that the city of Man-
chester, and the other cities and large towns, will vote so over-
whelmingly against it at the election that it will be defeated.
I do not think there is much doubt about that.
But this other proposition, which is to increase the Senate,
I think is very favorably considered by the city men. I believe
when this comes to the referendum of the people, they will
vote in favor of increasing the Senate. Now, I can see no
earthly reason for uniting the two propositions on the ballot
next November. If you do, I think they will both be defeated,
because the voters in the cities will prefer to sacrifice the de-
sired increase in the Senate in order to maintain what they
are entitled to in the House of Representatives. Of course,
this matter of representation in the House was very carefully
gone over before, and it was agreed by a very large majority
that we should keep the town system, and that this reduction
should be made by cutting off from the cities, and both ma-
jority and minority reports provide for that very thing, that we
shall reduce the House of Representatives by cutting down the
cities and leaving the towns alone. That is all very well. That
will be put up to the people, and I think on election day the
voters in the cities and large towns will take care of that. Buf
we city men are in favor of increasing the Senate. Therefor«»,
I hope the motion of the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford,
will prevail.
Mr. Wason of NasMa. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, the
minority of the Legislative Committee has made the joint re-
port, as you see, and objects to the division of the subject for
reasons that hardly need discussion. The gentleman from
Manchester who has just spoken has frankly indicated to you
the reasons why we took the position that we did. Mr. Presi-
dent, he tells you that he believes the Pattee bill, so called,
will be adopted by this Convention, which is that every town
with a population of 600 inhabitants can have one representa-
tive to the General Court, and that the larger towns and cities,
with a larger population than they, have to have 3,000 of every
Friday, June 21, 1912. 621
kind for additional representatives. He says that he wants
the situation divided, so this Convention can vote upon each
proposition separately, and so that the people of the state of
New Hampshire will vote upon it separately, and why? Be-
cause he favors an increase of the Senate, which is materia L
Gentlemen, we now have, and have had for years, a Senate
composed of twenty-four members, and the minority and ma-
jority of the Legislative Committee, by their reports, recom-
mend an increase of twelve, which is fifty percent, as the gen-
tleman from Concord well knew\ The minority report reduces-
the House of Representatives substantially one hundred mem-
bers, which is a reduction of twenty-five percent. Now, then^
the gentleman from Manchester, Mr. Pillsbury, tells us that
the cities favor the increase of the Senate, but object to the
decrease of the House as proposed. Why, did you ever see the
little balances? If you have, put the proposition for the Sen-
ate on one side, and print the sign, "fifty percent increase,'*
which benefits the cities; on the other balance put the words^
"decrease twenty-five percent," which represents the country
towns. I am not surprised that we members from the city favor
an increase of the Senate, and I say to you, Mr. President,
that, as a delegate to this Convention, I favor the increase of
the Senate. I also favor this saving to the members of the
country districts of the state of New Hampshire as many of
their rights that they now enjoy as we possibly can.
It has been said that the average man is a little selfish. It
has also been said that there are some men who are mag-
nanimous. On the proposition before this Convention at this
moment, on this division here, how does it even up? The coun-
try districts, the country towns, are magnanimous to the cities
in the Senate; the cities ought to be magnanimous to the towns.
It is decreasing the influence in parts of the larger towns and
wards of New^ Hampshire in the lower branch of the legislature,
but it is increasing the influence of the cities in the upper
branch. I believe that, inasmuch as the joint proposition calls
for giving and taking by the country towns and the cities,
that it is fair, as fair perhaps as we could formulate, if we
worked for weeks upon the subject; and, if it is, is it improper,
Mr. President, for this Convention to ask the voters of rhe
country districts, to ask the voters of the cities, to vote upon
the one proposition, and then, if it is defeated, the towns do
not lose and the cities do not gain?
Let us be fair, and by the votes of next November, whether
our action here today is ratified or defeated, let us not give
advantage greater to one section than we give to another, I
522 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
hope, Mr. President, that the motion of the gentleman from
Concord, Mr. Lyford, will be defeated, and that we shall meet
this issue, with the two together, fairly and squarely, and sub-
mit it to the voters of the good old Granite state next No-
vember.
Mr. WMtcher of HaverhilL — Mr. President and Gentlemen of
the Convention, there was one significant remark made by the
gentleman from Manchester that I hope did not escape the
attention of anj' member of the Convention, especially those
from the country towns. He was in favor of submitting these
propositions separately, because, if I am not mistaken, he said
the cities would take care of the first. In other words, the
cities would defeat the first, and he said the cities were in
favor of the second. Now, let's see. The cities would defeat
the first proposition of the gentleman from Newport, Mr. Bar-
ton, of one for every 600 and two for 3,000, with 2,400 as the
mean. Mark you, he said the cities would take care of that!
And the cities Would also take care of the thirty-six senators.
Let us not forget that, on the motion of the gentleman from
Concord to divide this proposition.
I want to say just a word, that I am delighted to see that
this Committee is edging around toward the onl}^ fair and just
and equal proposition of district representation, by providing
that the towns that have less than 600 may unite and form
districts. I hope. Sir, that the amendment of the gentleman
from Concord will be voted down, and that w^e will have a
vote, if we are going to increase by the paltry number of twelve
the much-maligned Senate of New Hampshire, which has saved
New Hampshire in the last few years from some disreputable
things; if we are going to increase that body, we will have the
propositions of decrease and increase voted on together.
Mr. Hohhs of Wolfeboro. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, I think
that there is a misapprehension among the delegates of this
Convention as to the feeling of a great majority of the voters.
I think, Mr. President, that previous to 1911 there was a feel-
ing in favor of the reduction of the House, but, since the 1911
legislature closed its work, that sentiment has changed, and
that today the feeling of country and city, by the great ma-
jority, is, leave the House where it is and increase the Senate.
Now, whether or not I am right does not cut much ice, but,
!Mr. President, I believe the people should have a chance to say
what they want. If they want to decrease the House, they
should have an opportunity to vote on that separately; they
should have that proposition by itself; and. if they want to
increase the Senate, they should also have the privilege to
Friday, June 21, 1912. 523
vote on that separately, without the other, or vice versa, — that
one should not be hitched on to the other to defeat one or
both. If it is the people's will that the House be reduced and
the Senate stay where it is, they should have an opportunity to
say so, and, on the other hand, they should have a chance
to increase the Senate and leave the House where it is, if they
wish that. Therefore I feel that we cannot be just to the
voters on any other proposition than to divide the question
and let them settle that matter, whether they want one in-
creased and the other diminshed or both left right where they
now are.
Mr. President, that is the only way we can put the matter
up to the people, and get their judgment, and it is their judg-
ment I think you want, and I think we all w^ant. I thank you,
Gentlemen.
Mr. Morse of Neicniarket. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I desire to say, Mr. President, that I hope the
motion made by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, will
prevail, and this is my reason.' Now, I do not want. Gentle-
men of the Convention, to let another day skip and not say
anything because j'ou would think I was not here. I did not
speak yesterday and you thought I was absent, but I was here
just the same.
I would suggest that when a Committee contemplates making
a majority and minority report, that they rather get together,
so they would not go back one on the other. Now, if you let
these fellows have room enough, they will let the cat out of the
bag, and every one of you will be convinced that the proposition
that I made to you at the first was the right one, and that is,
to let the House alone. The gentleman from Manchester wants
to get the milk of the cocoanut and the cocoanut and the skin.
You say, how is that? He says we fellows in the city, along
with you fellows in the country, will defeat the proposition to
reduce the House. Now, then, you fellows in the country whom
we have helped, you help us in the city and we will increase
the Senate. Now, if that isn't pretty nearly the whole thing,
I would like to know what is. I have, Mr. President, had the
honor of being a member of the honorable Senate, and the
devil isn't half as black as some people have tried to paint
him. The gentleman from Haverhill speaks well and truthfully
when he says the Senate has saved the state of New Hamp-
shire thousands of dollars. With 400 unruly men in the House,
you can pass almost any kind of legislation because we want
about 400 bills, — every man w^ants to go home to his constit-
uency and say, I had my name in the paper today. I intro-
524 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
duced a bill which passed the House. That pleases his people,
his neighbors, pleases himself, the same as it has pleased me in
days gone by, but when you come right down to legislation,
it is the Senate that passes upon those bills.
Now, the best argument that has been advanced, in my judg-
ment, Mr. President, so far as decreasing the House is con-
cerned, is this: They say it is unruly. Well, 400 men, if they
had any ginger in them at all, would be more unruly than 300,
and 300 than 200. Now, then, the more unruly a body is, the
straighter and the more honest has got to be the legislation
to get those men to pass it. You can hoodwink 100 men
easier than 200, and you can hoodwink 200 easier than 300.
Now, they laughed at me, Mr. President, because I offered an
amendment and asked that the House be left at 409. Now, fis^
I understand it, that will be the number of representatives
we will be entitled to under the promulgation of the preseat
census. If you submit these to the people, I have every reason
to believe that both of them will be defeated. I hope they
will. I hope you let the Senate alone. Send twenty-four good
men, and- you are all right, and send 409 men that aren't sa
jgood, and that will be all right, too. Now, the difficulty that
you haven't got any room for them has been exploded, be-
cause there are 421 seats, — 409 representatives are entitled to
sit in the next House, and you have got 421 seats, and it will
be more than ten years more before you have 421 representa-
tives, and I want to go on record as being opposed, first, last
and all the time to any reduction of this House, and I am
going to prophesy, — I am not a prophet nor the son of a
prophet, — but you will get most everlastingly walloped in the
reduction of the House when you submit it to the people. I
am not so sure about the Senate.
Mr. €rOS8 of Berlin. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, the argu-
ment which has been made by the gentlemen in favor of joining
these two propositions, if I understand it correctly, is based
upon the assumption that the increase in the Senate is going
to be in the cities at the expense of the country towns. Now,
if you will consider the question a minute, I think you will soe
that the increase is going to come from and benefit the small
country towns. Why? Because the representation in the Sen-
ate, as the Constitution now stands, provides for a representa-
tion on a property basis. The Senate is districted according
to the amount of money which is paid into the state tax, and
the cities pay $475 out of every $1,000 of the state tax.
Of course, the bulk of the property is in the cities and large
towns. If you add to the cities the town of Exeter and the
Fkiday, June 21, 1912. 525
town of Lebanon, or of Derrj-, either one of them, the cities
and two of those towns will pay more than half the state tax.
Now, then, Gentlemen, in this proposition a radical change is
made in regard to the basis upon which the Senate shall be
organized. The last vestige of property qualifications which
remains in our Constitution will be swept away. Originally,
in order to be a member of the Senate, a man had to be wealthy.
We have kept the question of qualifications as to wealth out
of everything, except that we have left this one provision in
regard to the Senate. Now, Gentlemen, a population basis is
the only fair basis. A population basis will increase the in-
fluence of the small towns, and it won't hurt the cities.
I deprecate the idea of arraying the towns against the cities.
I was brought up in a small town, and I love the small towns.
When I found that the towns were opposed to a district sys-
tem, although that provision was in a proposal which I had
introduced, I said not a word. If the towns want to come here
and be represented as towns, I am inclined to have them. I
believe in a good big House of Representatives; I believe in
discussion. I think the questions which have come up before
us have been clarified by debate, almost universally, and we
get light from the delegates of both the towns and the cities.
We find men who represent different ideas and who look at
things from different angles, and it is beneficial to us all to get
all the information which we can from every direction.
Now, these two propositions are both beneficial, if to any one
class, to the towns, but the House of Representatives' decrease
is almost entirely from the cities and large towns. The in-
crease in the Senate will be given very materially to the small
towns, and it won't increase the representation of the cities
so much. Both of these propositions probably are good, both
of them may become parts of our Constitution, but neither one
of them should be imperilled by being hooked up with the
other.
Mr. Morris of Lancaster. — It seems to me we are acting hastily.
Let us pause and act as sensible men. I believe we are sent here
for the purpose of formulating a constitutional amendment
that will make a material reduction in the size of the House
of Representatives. The people of the state expect that of us
and we shall be remiss in our duty if we do not present such
an amendment for their action. We shall fail to pass any reso-
lution on this subject if one member after another stands up
here and attempts to array the cities against the towns, and
the towns against the cities. The cities have their rights. The
towns have their rights. We ought to approach this question
526 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
in a spirit of compromise. We ought to present a resolution
to the voters of the state that will stand at least a fair chance
of being- adopted. We shall fail if we do nothing but quarrel
among ourselves. We want to adopt a resolution, if possx'ble,
that will be satisfactory alike to the people of the cities and
the towns.
Now, as a member of the Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, to which the several proposed amendments were re-
ferred, I have tried to bring about a compromise between the
members of the Committee from the cities and the members
from the towns. That compromise resulted in the resolutions
adopted by a majority of the Committee. The first resolution
provides that the Senate be increased to thirty-six members, to
be apportioned on a basis of population instead of on a basis
of property. The resolution relating to the House provides for
representation on a basis of six hundred population for the
first representative, — that was conceded to us by the cities, —
and twenty-four hundred population for the second representa-
tive, using eighteen hundred as the increasing mean. At the
public "hearing before the Committee, many persons appeared
representing small towns, asking that the number six hundred
be retained as a basis for the first representative. This ap-
peared to be what the towns wanted. That point was con-
ceded by a majority of the Committee from the cities, provided
that the increasing mean be placed at eighteen hundred. Upon
this basis the majority report of the Committee was agreed
upon, presented to the Convention, and is now before you for
your consideration. I feel very strongly that it should be
adopted and sent to the people for such action as they may
deem wise to take.
A majority of the members of the Committee voiced their
sentiments in the adoption of the majority report, and I be-
lieve they will go before the people and support it. It may
not represent the ideas of any individual member of the Com-
mittee or of this body. A compromise seldom does. I believe,
however, that it is the only form in which the resolution stands
any chance of being adopted by both cities and towns. I think
the people will support the proposed amendment as embodied
in the majority report of the Committee, and I hope the minor-
ity report, with all amendments proposed thereto, will be voted
down, and that, in our final action, the majority report will
be adopted.
Personally, I acknowledge that I do not believe in the town
system, but you will remember, Gentlemen of the Convention,
that you tied the hands of your Committee last week. We
Friday, June 21, 1912. 527
were instructed to bring in a resolution based on the town sys-
tem of representation.
I am going to take just a moment to explain what I mean by
saying I do not believe in the town system. I believe we men
of the small towns are adopting a short-sighted policy with
reference to this matter of representation. You ask why.
Don't you see, Gentlemen of the towns, that every decade the
cities and larger towns are increasing in population; they aro
sending more representatives to the legislature each ten years.
The small towns are decreasing in number and are sending
less representatives. How long, Gentlemen of the small towns,
before the cities will be able, if they choose to do so, — I don't
say they will, — to throttle the small towns, and give you a
district system which you will not want. Now, what I believe
the representatives of the small towns should do is to get
down to the district system and fix a representation which will
not increase with the increase of the population. I would have
it based upon the number of voters and not upon the popu-
lation. Then transient men, women and children brought into
the state, attracted by our lumber operations, mills and fac-
tories of various kinds, would not count in the matter of rep-
resentation until they had at least been here long enough to
become acclimated.
Now, I am sorry indeed that this Convention submitted these
resolutions to the Committee with the recommendation that
it did, because it tied our hands so that we could not work out
what seemed to a majority of the Committee the best thing to
do. Our hands were tied and we brought you a compromise.
I have the assurance of the city members that they will help
support the resolution. I hope that every measure connected
with this minority report, and every amendment to it, will be
voted down until we get to the majority report. Then we shall
be ready to adopt that.
Mr. WMtcJiej' of HavcrJiill. — Will the gentleman from Lancaster
permit me to ask a question? How often does his small pro-
rated town send a representative, or, if they send every year,
how many?
Mr. Morris of Lmwasier. — We send three representatives.
Mr. Wliitcher of norerJnU. — Small town.
Mr. Morris of Lancastn\ — I will explain to the gentleman from
Haverhill, Mr. Whitcher, that I quite recently moved into the
town of Lancaster. I feel, however, that what I have said ap-
plies to the cities and towns, whether large or small, alike.
Mr. Lamprey of Tuftnnboroiiqh. — Mr. President and Gentlem'^n r*
the Convention, T am not here to antagonize or find any fault
528 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
with the cities. I am from one of the towns that has a little
more than 600 inhabitants, and either of these resolutions will
satisfy me very well indeed. I am thankful I do live in a town
that these resolutions cover, and so the 600 population is per-
fectly satisfactory to me.
Now, I am aware that the state of New Hampshire has been
very liberal to the small towns by way of school money and
by helping us with our highways, and I hope they will be
liberal with us in the matter of representation in the House,
and I think the people of New Hampshire feel they ought, and
I am glad to feel so.
One of these propositions is exactly what I had here in the
first place, what I thought was correct. That was where the
mean increasing number was 2,400, but I would just as soon ac-
cept the 1,800 proposition as long as you leave the first rep-
resentative at 600.
Now, Gentlemen, we were sent here more particularly to con-
sider the size of the House than for anything else. I shall be
glad when I return to my home to be able to say to my towns-
people that the object for which I came here, and for which
they are contending, has been completed in accordance with
their instructions to me. I hope that one of these resolutions
will pass. I don't care which. I will take chances with the
cities. I advocated here on this floor the other day that we
should have 36 or 40 in the Senate. I shall insist on having
more senators, not less.
A little additional expense should not deter the state from
doing right by all the people.
Mr, Dunoan of Jaffrey. — I come from a small town, — not one
of the very smallest towns, because we send two representa-
tives to the legislature. Any proposition which tends to de-
crease the size of the legislature will affect my town, because
we have only 93 more than the necessary number to entitle us
to two representatives. It is, however, I believe, the practically
unanimous sentiment of our town that the House of Representa-
tives should be decreased somewhat. So I shall vote in favor
of some proposition to decrease the size of the House of Eep-
resentatives. At the same time I think I reflect the sentiment
of the people of my town when I say that the Senate should be
increased. How much, I do not know. I haven't made up my
mind yet, but I certainly hope that we shall have an opportunity
to vote on these two propositions separately, so that we may
deal with them separately, and so that the people, when they
come to pass on them, may also deal with them separately,
Friday, June 21, 1912. 529
and every one have an opportunity to vote as he wishes when
the time comes next November.
Mr. Towle of Northtooo4. — I am not in favor of this amendment
that has been offered. I believe that these two things should
be tied together. How would you feel to go home to your
people and say, "We have left it so we can decrease the House
and increase the Senate." When it comes next fall perhaps
send 36 senators and 409 representatives. If one of these goes
through, both should go; if one dies, both should die. I be-
lieve it is for the interest of the country towns as well as the
cities that these should go to the people together, and should
either live or die together, and I hope that the members of this
Convention will stand by one another, and that the country
towns will not oppose the cities to an extent that this fall,
when this comes up to be ratified by the people, we shall get
into a mess we shall be sorry for afterwards. It seems to me
we can agree upon one of these resolutions. We can fix it up in
such a way that our people will think next fall we have done
something at this Convention, and will be pleased with the reso-
lutions we have offered. It makes little difference to us country
towns whether it is 1,800 or 2.400. Nevertheless, whichever it is,
let us send them to the people together. Thank you.
Mr. Cavanaugh of Matwliester. — I wish to say a word at this
time. I regret as much as the gentleman who preceded me the
fact that the issue between the towns and the cities has been
drawn so sharply. Coming from the city of Manchester, I wish
to say this: There are a certain number of delegates here,
representing the city of Manchester. So far as I know, our
delegation hasn't pledged itself for or against any plan. We
are here, the same as you are, to hear the arguments for and
against different plans, and then make up our minds how we
will vote.
I want to say, because one of the resolutions bears the name
of a gentleman from our city, that this does not mean our
members have met and considered the matter, and have finally
decided as to his or any other resolution. On the subject of
the division of these two questions, I am strongly of the
opinion that we will be serving the interests of our constit-
uents better if we take up the matter of the Senate and the
House separately, for the reason that a change is contemplated
in the matter of the Senate other than the mere change of
number. A change is contemplated for dividing up the dis-
tricts on the basis of population rather than that of property
valuation. To my mind that is the desire of the people of this
sta,te. In our own city, in 1905, I represented one district made
530 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
up of two wards, containing less than three thousand voters.
There is another district in our city which is made up of 8,000
voters.
Now, I think the questions ought to be considered separately
here and go to the people in the form of two separate questions.
Whatever method we recommend on the representation of the
House should go in a different recommendation from that of
the Senate.
Mr. Barton of Newport. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, I am sorry that it has seemed necessary on the
pending motion to enter into the scope of the different meas-
ures which have been presented here. In fact, I do not think
I will go into details, which, I hope, we may have a chance to
discuss a little later.
The President. — I don't think it is in order.
Mr. Barton of Newport. — I don't think it is in order, but I havfi
noticed that previous speakers have been going into it. I am
just as sincere in making my report as are the other gentle-
men in making theirs. No charge of bad faith or anything
that is derogatory to any man is to be made because of his
attitude on this issue, but, just as true as you and I are here,
if the proposed changes in the House and Senate are no^
coupled together they won't be ratified by the people. As
pointed out by their own representatives, the cities will turn
down the proposition to reduce the House and will approve the
increase in the Senate. This ought not to be possible. Let
them go along together. If we decrease the House, let's In-
crease the Senate, and, if we cannot decrease the House, let's
not increase the Senate.
The measure before you, presented by the minority, will re-
duce the House 100; that is a substantial reduction. It will
take a long time, — fifty or seventy-five years, — before it get^J
back to its present size. If we stand together and insist we
cut down the House 100, and then increase tlie Senate to 86
we have a proposition that we can submit with confidence to
the people all over the state, unless the ^members go out of
this Convention with the avowed purpose of defeating it in
their community. If we meet it squarely and fairly, and say
we will try to put through what this Convention adopts, I have
no doubt that our action will be approved by the people. I
think it is of prime importance to keep these two matters to-
gether.
Mr. Leclerc of Manchester. — Mr. President and Gentlemen, as
I see these propositions, they are two separate, distinct resolu-
tions. "When it comes before the people it will have to be put
Fkiday, June 21, 1912. 631
to them in two questions, because there are two separate
amendments. Now, I do not want to go into the merits of eacn
resolution. One of them looks good to me, the other doesn't,
but the motion made by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Ly-
ford, ought to prevail, not because one is good and the other
not as good, but because they are two different questions,
and they ought to be submitted to this Convention in the same
manner that they will be submitted to the people, separately.
Mr. Wolf of Berlin. — Gentlemen, the gentleman from Newp-n-t
stated if this thing goes to the people jointly it will be ratified,
and if separately it will be defeated. I would like to give it
from information from those I have talked with, — and I have
talked with a good many, — that if we expect these things to go
through we must submit them separately, and that is the only
way we can hope to change the number in the Senate, and we
hope to increase the Senate.
Mr. Pattee of Mancliester. — I am in favor of a vote upon these
two propositions together. Now, we have no need to ask the
question why this resolution is submitted. There is a demand
for it from the people, and that demand is for a reduction of
the House, and, coupled with it, a demand for an increase of the
Senate. So far as I heard, there has been no separation, or
claim for the reduction of the House separately, but always
coupled with it was the increase in the Senate. Now, the gen-
tlemen from Manchester, some of them, have suggested that
Manchester would vote for an increase in the Senate and de-
feat the other proposition. I, for one, as a representative of
Manchester, do not care to see that go through. If one fail.s,
let them both fail. I do not believe in decreasing the House
and not increasing the Senate. I hope the motion of the gen-
tleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford, will be voted down.
Mr. P. J. Smyth of Berlin. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of
the Convention, I do not wish to trespass on the time of the
Convention, as it has already been occupied in the debate of this
question. I did not intend to speak on the question, deeming
it ably debated by gentlemen that were more thoroughly ac-
quainted with the subject than I, and I would not have spoken
at this time had I not paid particular attention to the speech
of the distinguished gentleman from Newport, Judge Barton,
who has asserted that, if there was no decrease in the House,
there should be no Increase in the Senate; and I rise to inquire
why, because, in my opinion, — and I have given the matter
some thought and some study, — the relation that the Senate
bears to the present House is greater in power, as far as mj
knowledge goes, than any other representative body in this
532 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
country, that is to saj^ that twelve men can nullify the acts of
400 chosen representatives of the people, which, in my opinion,
is out of proportion as to what is known as an ordinary House
and Senate. And for that reason I am much in favor of an in-
crease in the Senate of New Hampshire, no matter whether
the size of the House is increased or decreased.
In regard to the propositions before the Convention, I feel
that the gentlemen who composed the Legislative Committee
have earnestly tried to furnish to the Convention a report of
a difficult question, coming from a Committee of men who were
divided on the different propositions before them, but I also
feel that those propositions when sent to the people should
be acted on separately.
Mr. Carter of Lebanon. — Mr. President, as a member of the
Legislative Committee, I find myself one of the minority for
two reasons. One reason is because it has appealed to me from
the beginning, as has been stated by several gentlemen, that
if we decrease the House, then we might increase the Senate,
and if we did not decrease the House, then we ought not to
increase the Senate. This I believe in thoroughly, and there-
fore I stand with the minority on that ground. And as I have
considered this resolution it has appealed to me as being
about fair, as many of the gentlemen have said they have come
here almost instructed by their constituents to vote for the
decrease in the House. There is a very strong sentiment In
favor of this, and this amendment which has been proposed
would reduce the House about 100. It may be too much, but
I think if I should go home to my people they would say, "Why
didn't you reduce the House more?" You want to reduce it
60, why not reduce it a hundred? I feel that 300 would be
much better than 340 or 345. Now, the larger towns, like my
own town, lose two representatives. Lebanon will have three
instead of five. I think they will be as well served by these
three as they would be by five. I am aware the city of Man-
chester would have but thirty-one. Now, Gentlemen, if the
city of Manchester had half a dozen men to send here who
had the competency, the courtesy and the ability to do things
as some of the gentlemen they have sent to this Convention,
I am sure the interests of Manchester would not suffer, and
it seems to me, in sending 31, if they select some of these gen-
tlemen to look after the interests of the city they will be welT
looked after. I hope this minority report will be accepted by
this Convention, and I hope that these two resolutions will be
acted upon together for the reasons I have given.
Friday, June 21, 1912. 633
Mr. Stevens of Land<iff. — Mr. President, the question at the
present moment before the House is whether these two things
shall be considered together or separately, and I want to say
first, forestalling any question from the gentleman from Haver-
hill, that I come from a town that has one representative, and
it doesn't have that all the time.
I believe that these two measures should be considered sep-
arately. They were considered separately in the Committee of
the Whole, and they were sent to the Standing Committee under
special instructions, and they have been brought back here tie.l
up together. They do not belong together. There are actu-
ally three questions involved, — whether the House shall be
made smaller; whether the representation in the Senate shall
be on a basis of population or of wealth, and whether the
Senate shall be increased in size. There are three ques-
tions all tied up here together. Now, if these are put up
separately, everyfman who has an opinion on the questions
will have a fair chance to express his opinion. If he thinks
that the House should be reduced and the Senate increased,
he can vote that way; if he thinks the House should be left
where it is, he can vote that way; or that the Senate should
be increased, he can vote for that. This gives every man in
this Convention, and it will give every citizen in this state, a
fair opportunity to express the exact opinion that he has on
this subject. If you tie them up together, it cannot be done.
I haven't had time to figure it out yet, just what effect it is
going to have on Landaff, to put the Senate on the basis of
population, where it ought to have been fifty years ago. I
don't care. If putting it on a basis of population gives the
cities in this state half the Senate, I would vote for it. It ought
to be there. As a matter of fact, I have been told by men
who have figured it out that it will leave it about where it is
now.
On a viva voce vote the motion of Mr. Lyford of Concord
appeared to prevail.
Mr. Barton of Newport called for a division.
Division being had, and 177 gentlemen voting in the af-
firmative and 104 gentlemen voting in the negative, the mo-
tion of Mr. Lyford to strike out prevailed.
534 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Question being on the motion of ^Ir. Barton of Newport
to substitute the minority report as amended for the report
of the majority, —
(Mr. Morse of Newmarket in the Chair.)
Mr. Lyford of Concord'. — Mr. President, —
Mr. Barton of Newport. — I will rise to point of order. The
mover of a motion has the first right to discuss it.
The President. — He does if he gets recognized first.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I have not the slightest objection to
yielding to the gentleman from Newport.
Mr. Burton of Newport.— <jo ahead.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — He says go ahead. I intend to take
the time of this Convention but very briefl3'. You all know
the position that I take on this subject of representation.
You know I believe in the district system based upon the ac-
tual votes instead of upon population and that if we had had
the data I should have prepared an amendment that I believe
would have been acceptable to a majority of this Convention
and to the people. The Convention, however, has voted dif-
ferently. It has instructed the Committee on Legislative De-
partment to bring in a resolution that would provide for a
House of not exceeding 350 members. The Committee on Leg-
islative Department, as I think, sacrificed all its individual
opinions in an effort to bring before this Convention a meas-
ure that might stand some chance of being ratified by the
people. The Committee has considered itself the servant of
this body. Our proposition as presented here recognizes the
demand made by members from the smaller towns of the stato
that the population for the first representative should not be
increased above 600. We endeavored then to reach a mean of
increase that was most likely to meet the approval of the
people from the cities and the large towns, from whom all re-
duction is taken, that we might have a proposition that we
ourselves would not feel obliged to oppose before the people.
The majority, in fact almost all but four or five of the twenty
members of the Committee, agreed upon this proposition that
we are submitting to you. It is immaterial to the members
of this Committee who have signed this majority report, as
far as they may be considered as individuals, whether you ac-
cept orur report or that of the minority, and the only question
that I desire to present to you is this: In both propositions all
the reduction is taken out of the cities and large towns. We who
represent the cities and large towns ask you, in the spirit of
fairness, if you are willing to give us a proposition upon which
Friday, June 21, 1912. 535
we can go to our constituents and ask them to ratify your
work. The proposition that is brought here reduces the House
65 members. The other proposition reduces it 100 members.
I don't care to discuss the details of the matter at all, and I
may not speak on this subject again unless it is necessary to
defend some position we have taken. The question is up to
you whether you want our help in its ratification or whether
you propose to put upon us something that we are obliged
to oppose.
Mr. Flandet'S of HiUsbm-ougli. — I think strong arguments can
be made in favor of this minority report. If the majority re-
port is adopted it will cut the representation in fourteen towns
and fifteen wards of cities fifty percent. It has been stated
here by gentlemen who have looked it up that it would reduce
the House only about 65 members. Now, I claim that on these
twenty-nine towns and wards of cities it is placing too great
a sacrifice. We are asking them to furnish 29 of that 65.
Now, is that faif? We in the towns, who are going to sacri-
fice fifty percent of our representation, are willing to adopt,
and our constituents will sustain us, the minority report, but
we say the majority report is unfair and unjust, and we shall
vote against it here; our constituents will vote against ifc,
whenever it is voted upon, if you place such a sacrifice to ac-
complish so little. Now, if the minority report is adopted, it
will reduce the House about 100, and we shall be sacrificing
and others will be sacrificing, and half of the reduction will not
be placed on 29 towns and city wards — 14 towrus and 15 city
wards. Gentlemen, I believe that the minority report should
prevail, and I hope that it will.
Mr. Morris of Ixunoaster. — I would like to ask the gentleman
if he has not made a mistake in his figures? The minority re-
port starts with 600 inhabitants for one representative and
then makes the increasing mean 2,400, and the majority report
80-0—
Mr. Flanders of Hillsborough. — I understand all that. Towns
below 600 make no sacrifice. Towns between 600 and 1,800, by
either resolution, make no sacrifice. Then comes the sacri-
fice, and here is where the fourteen towns and fifteen city
wards come in. If you make the mean increasing number 1,800,
it will cut the representation of fourteen towns and fifteen city
wards fifty percent, and they make about half the sacrifice
of the whole reduction. Now, I say that is unfair. It is too
big a sacrifice to ask of us for what we accomplish. Now,
adopt the minority report, reduce it 100, so that it will not have
to be reduced again for forty years. Let others sacrifice with
636 Journal of Constitutional Coi^ventiox. .
these twenty-nine towns and wards, and then I believe it will
be ratified here, and be ratified by the people. It is just this:
Of that sixty-five that the majority report is going to reduce
this House, twenty-nine towns and city wards furnish half of
it. That is the whole question stated in a nutshell.
Mr. Eastman of Exeter. — My associates and myself are
fortunate in one thing. We come here without any instruc-
tions on any question. When matters come before the Con-
vention we are here for the purpose of exercising our judg-
ment to the best of our ability, after learning what we can
from the members of the Convention, and what we can get for
ourselves. Now, I find myself in the position of disagreeing
with my friend, the gentleman from Newport, for whom I
have great respect. Ten years ago I was in the Convention
and advocated that the first unit should be fixed at 600. The
Convention decided otherwise and made it 800. Now, in my
judgment, that was what defeated that measure before the peo-
ple. I think that with the unit of 600, and with the next number
at 1,800, the amendment is more likely to carry than 600 and
2,400. And why? Because, so far as the cities are concerned,
it gives them a larger representation. So far as the large
towns are concerned, it gives them a larger representation.
Now, for instance, in the town of Exeter we have today four
representatives. I agree that we could just as well be repre-
sented by two, but I do not know whether my fellow citizens,
who are ambitious to come to the legislature, will agree to
that or not. I am inclined to think, if you make the first
unit 600 and the next 1,800, you are going to get more votes
from the cities and large towns than on the proposition to
make the second unit 2,400, which reduces their number more
than it does, of course, with the unit at 1,800. I think it ap-
peals more to the people of the cities and the larger towns
to make that unit 1,800. I am in favor of that proposition. It
does not decrease the House very much. One gentleman has
said it only decreases the House 6o, and if the other propo-
sition is accepted, it reduces the number to the extent of about
100. Now, the difference between 65 and 100, Gentlemen, does
not amount to anything. What does it amount to? Of course,
I have a little different view than some of you have, be-
cause I come without any instructions, and have no fear, when
I return home, that I shall be clubbed or stoned in the streets
of Exeter, if I should happen to vote not to reduce the size of
the House. I think the proposition made by the majority of
the Committee is one that is more likely to carry. By it we get
the representation from the small towns, and I am in favor of
Friday, June 21, 1912. 537
that representation; I am in favor of the small towns. We are
reminded a good many times about the equality of the district
system. We have passed by that. I do not propose to discuss
the district system. We have ended that. If that qciestion were
before the Convention I should be pleased to argue the district
system on its merits as compared with the town system. I hope
the majority report, as far as representation in the House i?i
concerned, will prevail, because I think that proposition will
appeal to the cities and the larger towns more strongly than
the other proposition, which is submitted here by the minority
of the Committee. And, for the reason that I have solely in
mind the benefit which will accrue to the small towns, I say
you have got to concede something to the larger towns and
cities. We cut down the House 65 members by the majority
report, and I hope, therefore, as I have said, that the majority
report, as far as the representation in the House is concerned,
will prevail. When w-e get to the matter of the Senate I have
a notion about that.
Mr. Oakes of Lisbon. — ^Mr. President and Gentlemen, I am re-
minded of a story that I read a few days ago of a little inci-
dent which took place in the United States House of Repre-
sentatives.
One very well known congressman was arguing in favor of a
certain measure, which had to do with the Spanish war, and
he waxed very eloquent, and he said, "I gave my grandfather
to the Mexican war; I gave my father to the Civil war, and I
am willing to give my son to the Spanish war, in the cause of
freedom." Uncle Joe Cannon leaned over to a colleague and
said, "He is mighty generous with his relations, isn't he?" I
think that is the way we are doing here. We are mighty gener-
ous with somebody else's representatives. If we come within a
certain figure we are perfectly willing that that should be
adopted, but if we come outside that figure we have no use for
it. I do not care whether the increasing mean is made 1,800 or
whether it is made 2,400, although the 2,400 proposition will cut
my town out of one representative. I don't care which one is
adopted. All I ask is that the gentlemen who come from towns
of 600 and less than 2,400 and have got their representative any-
way, — and all the other people, — will consider carefully which
plan is going to meet with the approval of the people. There is
no use theorizing any longer. On theory the district system
is the proper one, but we tried out the district system and it
didn't work. Now, theoretically, an increasing mean of 2,400
is better than 1,800, but let's lay that right aside, and use our
538 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
"best judgment and our best common sense, and if we think,
after hearing the opinions of the men from the cities and the
men from the larger towns, that it is impossible to get the
people to ratify the plan of 2,400 for the increasing mean, let's
reject it, and get on to the other; but in any event let's all get
together and try to adopt something that will do some good.
Mr. Leclerc of Mmiclvester. — Mr. President and Members of the
Convention, we must propose such amendments to the people
as we think they will ratify. Now, I want to ask you, Gentle-
men, — and it makes no difference whether you come from the
small towns, the large towns or the cities, — if it is fair to have
a small town of 600, or a little over, have one representative,
and have some large ward or some town having four or five
times that number have two or three representatives? As I
said before, the members of the Convention must propose some-
thing to the people that we know or think they will ratify.
Approximately half of the voters of this state live in large
towns and cities. Do you think for a moment they are going
to cut down the representation, which today isn't fair? Do
you think that they are going to vote for something that is
still worse? We have wasted a lot of time discussing this and
should come to a vote, or else reject both the minority and
majority reports of the Committee. It is a pretty sure thing
that both of these measures will be defeated when they come
before the people for ratification.
Mr. Wolf of Berlin. — Do I understand that the way to get at
the majority report is to vote against this proposition that is
before us?
The President. — The question is. Shall the report of the minor-
ity be substituted for that of the majority?
Mr. Wolf of Berlin moved that the Convention proceed to
vote in ten minutes.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Wolf, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Question being on the motion of Mr. Barton of Newport
to substitute the report of the minority as amended for the
report of the majority, —
Mr. Barton of Neivport. — Gentlemen of the Committee, none of
the Committee, no more than Mr. Lyford, have any special pride
in their report. We have worked for the common good of the
FiiiDAY, June 21, 1912. 539
people along lines which we think are best. I am here to sup-
port this measure because I think it is right. We have met in
a Convention after an aidjournment of something like ten years
to see whether or not we would revise the Constitution with
respect to representation. Had it not been for this subject -
matter this Convention would not have been called. The only-
question now is, whether we want to so fix things, at this time,
that we shall have to call another Convention in the next ten
or twenty years, or fix them so that, as far as this feature is
concerned, we maj^ not have to call a Convention for fifty years.
Now, the only advantage in substituting the minority report for
that of the majority is that it defers the time when you will
have to call another Constitutional Convention. The small
towns stand alike in both reports. Shall we cut down the
House about sixty members or shall we cut it down 100?
That is all there is involved in the motion before the Com-
mittee.
On a viva voce vote the negative appeared to prevail.
Mr. Lyford of Concord called for a division.
Division being had, 120 gentlemen voted in the affirmative
and 142 gentlemen voted in the negative, and the motion to
substitute did not prevail.
Mr. Young of Charlestown called for the yeas and nays.
The call not being seconded by the required number, —
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendation
of the majority of the Committee that the amendment to the
Constitution proposed in the resolution be agreed to by the
Convention, —
On that question Mr. Lyford of Concord demanded the
yeas and nays.
The call was seconded by the following gentlemen: —
Mr. Pillsbury of Manchester, Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill, Mr.
Martin of Concord, Mr. Smith of Berlin, Mr. Hoyt of Madi-
son, Mr. Madden of Keene, Mr. Sanborn of Fremont, Mr.
540 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Quimby of Concord, Mr. Cavanaugh of Manchester, and Mr.
Fuller of Exeter.
Mr. Lyford) of Concord. — ^Let me inquire of tlie gentlemen of
the minority if they are satisfied with this proposition.
Mr. Barton of Newport. — Why certainly.
Mr. Lyford of Concord withdrew Ms call for the yeas and
nays.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Time
and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments
Agreed to by the Convention.
Mr. Lyford of Concord, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, to w'hom were referred various proposed amend-
ments in relation to increasing the number of members of
the Senate, and changing the basis of representation, with
instructions to report an amendment that should provide for
an increase of the Senate, with a change of basis to popu-
lation, having considered the same, report the following reso-
lution, with the recommendation that the resolution be
agreed to by the Convention: —
Eeisolution No. 61.
Relating to the Senate.
Resolved, That Articles 24 and 25 of Part Second of the
Constitution be amended to read as follows:
Art. 24. The Senate shall consist of thirty-six 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, di-
vide the state into thirty-six districts of contiguous terri-
tory as nearly equal as may be without dividing towns and
unincorporated places, on the basis of population according
to the last census of the United States or of this state.
Feiday, June 21, 1912. 541
The report was accepted and the recommendation of the
Committee adopted, and the resolution referred to the Com-
mittee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the
Amendments Agreed to by the Convention.
Mr. Lyford of Concord, for the Committee oq Legislative
Department, to whom were referred Eesolution No. 2, Relat-
ing to the Senate, Resolution No. 17, Relating to the Senate,
Resolution No. 25, Relating to the Senate, and Resolution
No. 43, Relating to the Senate, having considered the same,
report the same with the following resolution: —
Besohed, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitu-
tion as proposed in the resolutions.
The report was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
Mr. Lyford of Concord, for the Committee on Legislative
Department, to whom were referred Resolution No. 26, Re-
lating to Election of Representatives in Cities and Towns of
less than 800 Inhabitants, Resolution No. 1, Relating to the
House of Representatives, Resolution No. 13, Relating to the
House of Representatives, Resolution No. 14, Relating to the
House of Representatives, Resolution No. 15, Relating to the
House of Representatives, Resolution No. 18, Relating to the
House of Representatives, Resolution No. 22, Relating to the
House of Representatives, and Resolution No. 35, Relating
to the House of Representatives, having considered the same,
report the same with the following recommendation: —
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to amend the Constitution
as proposed, the subject matter of all of said resolutions, hav-
ing been reported in a new draft.
The report -was accepted and the recommendation adopted.
(Mr. Lyford of Concord in the Chair.)
Mr. MitcJiell of Concord. — Mr. President, approaching*, as we are,
the conclusion of our work, with which I trust the people will
642 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
be satisfied, there is one resolution that I know this Conven-
tion desires to unanimously adopt, and that is the one which
I am now about to propose.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord offered the following resolution
and moved its adoption: —
Resolved, That the sincere thanks of this Convention be
tendered the able, impartial and efficient President of this
Convention, for the untiring industry exhibited, the impar-
tiality with w^hich he has administered the trust committed
to him, and the success with which he has brought through
the arduous and delicate duties of this Convention.
Mr. Wason of NasJma. — Mr. President, I desire to secopd the
motion made by the gentleman from Concord, and in doing that
it gives me pleasure to sincerely say, and I think I can truth-
fully say I voice the sentiments of every member of this Con-
vention, that, since we assembled here, those of you and of
us who did not know our President intimately have learned
to like him and to love him. In all his dealings with us he
has exhibited a spirit of fairness, a spirit of clearness, and
taken a position on every question to encourage a short meet-
ing, to do our work well, to do it carefully, and do it in a
manner that will meet the approval of our constituents, and,
I hope, the people of the state when submitted to them. It is
no easy task, Mr. President, to preside over a body of this size.
It is no easy task to keep the unruly members on this floor in
order, but from the beginning until now order has prevailed
and we have proceeded with the duties assigned to us with
despatch, and it is due to the guiding hand of the captain of
the ship, our honored President.
Mr. Whitcher of Haverhill. — Mr. President, I do not wish to
multiply words, but I heartily second the motion of the gen-
tleman from Concord, Judge Mitchell, and hope that when we
vote it may be a rising vote to tender our honored President
our sincere thanks for his able, impartial conduct of the affairs
of this Convention. His name will go down in* history with
the names of his honored predecessors who have presided over
Constitutional Conventions, the first within my recollection, and
whose portrait hangs in this hall, was afterwards the Presi-
dent of the United States, and the wrangling, disorderly Con-
Fkiday, June 21, 1912. 543
vention in Chicago could do worse than to nominate the Hon-
orable Edwin F. Jones for the same office.
Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey. — Mr. President, as a representative of
those who have successively met defeat upon some of their
pet measures, I wish to second the motion of the gentleman
from Concord, Judge Mitchell, and to offer to our President
my heartiest and our heartiest congratulations for the able
manner in which he has presided over this Convention.
Mr. Hadley of Goffstown. — Mr. President, in behalf of those who
have not appeared, I want to second what has been said rela-
tive to the thanks which they wish to extend to the Presi-
dent of this Convention. We wish to thank him for the efficient
and the courteous manner in which he has presided over this
body.
On a rising vote the resolution was unanimously adopted.
The Presidmt.— ^Gentlemen of the Convention, for the vote
which you have just passed, and for the manner in which you
have passed it, I would return to you my sincere thanks. 1
do not think that the President of this Convention is deserv-
ing of all the kin'd words that have been said. I think that
the President has only done what he ought to do, and that
was to preside over' the body as best he could, with the idea
of facilitating business and reaching a conclusion as soon a:i
it could be done without interfering with the proper considera-
tion by the members of all measures brought before the Con-
vention. The Chair has undertaken to be fair. If he has suc-
ceeded in that, and if you feel that he has been so, then he is
amply repaid.
I trust. Gentlemen, that the work of this Convention, when
it comes to be considered by the people, will be found not to
have been the result of wasted time. Some of the amendments
which we have agreed to are of great importance to the people
of New Hampshire. The people will have the chance to vote
upon them, and, when they consider that amongst those meas-
ures is one which will take away from the Bill of Rights any
expression derogatory to the religious convictions of any class
of Christian men and women in New Hampshire, it does seem
that they will consider that a goo'd thing, and one which it
would be proper for them to ratify.
And, when we consider the matter of taxation, it seems to
me that we have gone a long way, — not quite so far as the
Stevens amendment would have gone, — but that in the three
544 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
amendments which are being submitted to the people we arc
giving to the legislature all the power that it ought to have
in dealing with the great question of taxation, limiting it still
by the reasonable and proportional rule of the Constitution,
which is to be unchanged.
The matter of plurality election of officers is important.
The matter of changing the basis of representation in the
councillor districts and in the Senate of the state is a great
advance.
The proposal to give to the Governor of the state the right
to veto certain items in an appropriation bill which he disap-
proves of, without endangering the whole measure, is a step
in the right direction. It seems to me that all these dozen
amendments to which we have agreed are giving to the people
something which they can clearly understand, and that, hav-
ing considered them carefully, they will vote favorably upon
most of them.
You will remember, in the few words which I said at the be-
ginning of your duties, I hoped that the old Constitution would
not be amended so that its friends would not know it. This
Convention has been, I think it is fair to say, a conservative
Convention, but not too conservative. It has been in favor of
some things in the line of progress. I believe that this Con-
vention and its work, if ratified by the people, will have the
result that New Hampshire can still stand among those who
shall "Be not the first by whom the new is tried, nor yet the
last to lay the old aside."
We have been conservatively progressive and progressively
conservative, and if the people, in most respects, shall look
upon our work in the same way that we have, the state of
New Hampshire, I believe, cannot fail to be benefited.
Once more. Gentlemen, I thank you.
(The President in the Chair.)
On motion of Mr. Hobbs of "Wolfeboro, the Convention
adjourned at 5.29 o'clock.
SATURDAY, June 22, 1912.
The Convention met at 10.3Q o'clock, according to adjourn-
ment.
(The President in the Chair.)
Prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Rev. Charles C. G-ar-
^and.
Saturday, June 22, 1912. 646
The reading of the Journal having begun, —
On motion of Mr. Hurd of Claremont, the further reading
of the Journal was dispensed with.
Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry, for the Committee on Time
and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amendments
Agreed to by the Convention presented the following re-
port: —
The State of N^ew Hamipshiiie.
In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and
Twelve.
In the Convention of delegates assembled at Concord on
the first Wednesday of June, in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and twelve, for the purpose of revising
the Constitution of this state, in pursuance of the act of the
legislature passed April 15, 1911.
I. Resolved: That the alterations and amendments pro-
posed to the Constitution shall be submitted to the qualified
voters of the state at the regular biennial election to be
holden on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in
November, 1912, to be by said voters acted upon at said meet-
ings.
II. Resolved: That the selectmenn of the several towns,
wards and places in the state be and are hereby directed to
insert in their warrants calling the said meetings an article
to the following effect: to take the sense of the qualified
voters whether the alterations and amendments to the Con-
stitution proposed by the Constitutional Convention shall be
approved.
III. Resolved: That the sense of the qualified voters shall
be taken by ballot upon each of the following questions sub-
mitted to them by the Convention.
546 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
1. Do you approve of increasing the Senate to thirty-six
members, and dividing the state into senatorial districts on
the basis of population; — as proposed in the amendment to
the Constitution?
2. Do you approve of amending the provision as to repre-
sentation in the House of Representatives by making 600 in-
habitants necessary to the election of one representative and
2400 inhabitants necessary for two representatives and 1800
necessary for each additional representative ; with the proviso
that a town, ward, x)r place having less than 600 inhabitants
may send a representative a proportionate part of the time;
or that such towns, wards, and places when contiguous may
unite to elect a representative, if each town so decides by
major vote; — as proposed in the amendment to the Constitu-
tion?
3. Do you approve of giving the Covernor authority to
approve or disapprove any separate appropriation contained
in any bill or resolution; — as proposed in the amendment to
the Constitution?
4. Do you approve of the requirement that the legisla-
ture, in dividing the state into councilor districts, shall be
governed by the population; — as proposed in the amendment
to the Constitution?
5. Do you approve of empowering the legislature to im-
pose a tax upon the incomes of public service corporations
and voluntary associations in lieu of a direct tax upon their
property; — as proposed in the amendment to the Constitu-
tion?
6. Do you approve of amending the Bill of Rights by
striking out the words "rightly grounded on evangelical
principles" after the words "As morality and piety," and
striking out the word "Protestant" before the words "teach-
ers of piety, religion, and morality"; — as proposed in the
amendment to the Constitution?
7. Do you approve of providing that no person shall have
the right to vote, or be eligible for office, who shall have been
Saturday, June 22, 1912. 547
convicted of treason, bribery, or wilful violation of election
laws, with the right to the Supreme Court to restore such
privileges; — as proposed in the amendment to the Constitu-
tion?
8. Do you approve of having the Grovernor, councilors,
and senators, elected by plurality instead of majority vote; —
as proposed in the amendment to the Constitution?
9. Do you approve of amending the Bill of Eights by
striking out the provision that pensions shall not be granted
for more than one year at a time; — as proposed in the amend-
ment to the Constitution?
10. Do you approve of empowering the legislature to give
Police Courts jurisdiction to try and determine, subject to
the right of appeal and trial by jury, criminal causes wherein
the punishment is less than imprisonment in the state prison;
— as proposed in the amendment to the Constitution?
11. Do you approve of providing that taxes assessed upon
the passing of property by will or inheritance or in contem-
plation of death may be graded and rated in accordance with
the amount of property passing, and reasonable exemptions
made; — as proposed in the amendment to the Constitution?
12. Do you approve of empowering the legislature to
specially assess, rate and tax growing wood and tim-
ber and money at interest, including money in savings
banks, and to impose and levy taxes on incomes from stock
of foreign corporations and foreign voluntary associations
and money at interest, except incomes from money deposited
in savings banks in this state received by the depositors, and
to graduate such taxes according to the amount of the in-
comes, and to grant reasonable exemptions, with the pro-
vision that if such taxes be levied on incomes from stock and
money at interest no other taxes shall be levied thereon
against the owner or builder thereof; — as proposed in the
amendment to the Constitution?
IV. Resolved: That the Secretary of State be directed to
procure to be printed one hundred and thirty thousand copies
648 Journal of Constitutional Convention. ^
of such parts of the Constitution as are altered and amended
by this Convention, together with the alterations and amend-
ments, and the same number of copies of the questions to be
proposed to the qualified voters, and the same number of
these resolutions, and to cause such copies to be distributed
immediately to the town clerks of the respective towns, wards
and places in the state, for the use of the qualified voters in
numbers proportionate as near as may be to the numbers of
the legal voters in the said respective towns, wards and
places; and it is made the duty of said clerks immediately to
distribute such copies among said voters.
V. Resolved, That the Secretary of State be required to
print said questions to be thus submitted upon the official
ballot for the towns and cities for said election, beneath the
list of candidates, and above the question relating to licenses
for the sale of liquor where such question is submitted, in
conspicuous type in the manner and form above prescribed.
Upon the said ballots containing said questions shall be
printed the word ^^yes" at the left hand with a square near
it, and at the right hand the word "no'' with a square near
it, and the voter desiring to vote "yes" upon any one of said
questions shall make a cross in the square near the word
"yes," and if he desires to vote "no" he shall make a cross in
the square near the word "no,'' and he shall do this as to
each question upon which he desires to vote. All ballots cast
where no cross is made in a square beside any question shall
not be counted as to such question.
The Secretary of State shall cause to be printed at the
bottom of each ballot distributed to the town clerks a note
in plain and conspicuous type as follows: "Every voter who
wishes to vote "yes" will make a cross in the square near the
word "yes"; if he wishes to vote "no" he will make a cross
in the square near the word "no." If he make no cross in
either square his ballot will not be counted."
VI. Resolved: That the town and ward clerks of the sev-
eral towns and wards in the state shall make a true and certi-
fied copy of the record of the votes given in upon each of the
I
Saturday, June 22, 1912. 649
said questions and shall forward the same in sealed packages to
the Secretary of State within five days from the day of said
election, and said clerks shall be subject to the same penalties
as are by law prescribed for neglect to return the votes for
Governor, and the returns shall be by the Secretary of State
seasonably laid before the Governor and Council.
VII. Resolved: That the Secretary of State is hereby di-
rected to furnish to the town clerks of the different towns,
wards and places suitable blanks for the return of the votes
on said questions.
VIII. Resolved: That the Governor and Council, prior to
the first Tuesday of December, 1912, shall canvass said returns
and make a record thereof, and the Governor shall forthwith
issue his proclamation announcing the result of the vote on
each of said questions submitted to the people.
IX. Resolved: That such of the proposed amendments as
shall be approved by the requisite number of votes shall take
effect and be in force when their adoption is proclaimed by
the Governor, provided that no amendment shall affect the
election and membership of the legislature of 1913.
X. Resolved: That these resolutions, signed by the Presi-
dent of this Convention and attested by the Secretary of
State, shall be published once in all the weekly newspapers of
the state authorized to publish public laws, and in the daily
newspapers, and that the original journal, together with all
the files of the Convention, shall be deposited in the office
of the Secretary of State.
The report was accepted.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendations
of the CJommittee, —
Mr. Lyford of Concord'. — I would like to inquire of the chair-
man of the Committee if there is any objection on the part of
the Committee to making the last two amendments the third
and fourth, instead of the eleventh and twelfth. They relate *o
the taxation of inheritances and that large taxation measure
that we passed the other day. They will follow the questions
550 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
for the increase of the Senate and the reduction of the House.
Mr. Lyford of Concord moved to amend the report so that
Question No. 12 will be No. 3; Question No. 11, No. 4;
Question No. 3, No. 12; and Question No. 4, No. 11.
Question being on the adoption of the amendment proposed
by Mr. Lyford, —
Mr. Pillsbury of Londmideny . — I would say to the gentlemen
of the Convention that we have no pride of opinion in our re-
port; that we tried to be fair and took them by lot, outside of
the first two, the representation measures, which we thought
should go together. The others were drawn by lot, and have
been reported in our report as they were drawn, so we would
have no opinion on the order in which they should appear, so
there is no objection to it, so far as we are concerned.
Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — What is question No. 3 now?
TJw President. — Question No. 3 now is: Do you approve of giv-
ing the Governor authority to approve or disapprove any sep-
arate appropriatnon contained in any bill or resolution; as pro-
posed in the amendment to the Constitution?
Mr. Fellmvs of Tilton. — I favor Mr. Lyford's motion most de-
cidedly, but in grouping these I understand there are three
amendments on taxation, the inheritance tax and the Stevens
amendment, so called. No. 59, and then the taxation of intangi-
bles. These four should come together somewhere.
Mr. Lyford of Conoordl. — I accept that suggestion.
Mr. Fellows of Tilton. — I believe these questions should follow
the questions regarding representation, because representation
and taxation were the two leading matters that were before
the Convention.
Mr. Lyford of Ooncord. — I only thought of those two, and I
forgot the other. We can group all the taxation measures to-
gether and let them follow the representation questions.
The President. — The amendment relating to the taxation of
incomes of public service corporations is now No. 5, so that,
with No. 12, No. 3, and No. 11, No. 4, thej^ will appear con-
secutively.
On a viva voce vote the amendment of Mr. Lyford of Con-
cord was adopted.
Question beino^ on the adoption of the report of the Com-
mittee, as amended, —
Saturday, June 22, 1912. 551
Mr. Lyford of Concord.— ^Ir. President, I would like to ask the
chairman of the Committee another question. Somewhere you
said that if a voter did not mark in the circle that the ballot
should not be counted for that amendment. Is it clear in your
minds that that is what 3"ou have accomplished?
Mr. PilUMry of LondonderTy. — We went over it very carefully
twice, and that was the understanding of the Committee, that
if you do not vote on any question it will not be counted.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — I should like the reading of that; I
should like to make sure.
TJw President. — The Chair is requested to read that portion
which provides how the voting shall be done.
(Reads question.)
Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — I observe in the resolution that the
word, "yes," is upon the left of the inquiry, while "no" stands
upon the right. Is there any reason wh,y it would not be
equally or more intelligent and accessible to have both words
upon the right?
Mr. Pillsbury of Lond'onderTy. — I would say for the informa-"
tion of the gentleman that we have followed the precedent of
the previous Conventions, and also the license law, and it ap-
pears in the usual place. "Yes" appears first and "No" after
the question, and that has been the custom in the previous Con-
ventions and in the license question.
The President. — The Chair would like to ask a question of the
chairman of the Committee. It refers to question No. 4, or 11,
as reported: Do you approve of providing that taxes assessed
upon the passing of property by will or inheritance, or in con-
templation of death, may be graded and rated in accordance
with the amount of property passing, and reasonable exemp-
tions made;— as proposed in the amendment to the Constitution?
The Chair will ask if in the proposed amendment there was
not also rated, "in accordance with the amount of property and
the relationship of the beneficiary to the deceased," and whether
it was left out intentionally or whether it was an oversight, or
whether the language of the question covers both?
Mr. Pillsbury of LondondeiTy. — I would say we took the original
resolutions and the chairman of the sub-Committee, Mr. Wilson,
very carefully put this into shape. The entire Committee then
read the original resolution and compared it, and adopted the
language that we thought covered the subject.
Tlie President. — Does the chairman think that the language
here, "shall be graded and rated in accordance with the amount
of property passing, and reasonable exemptions made," will
652 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
cover also the words, "relationship of the beneficiary to the
deceased," as in the original?
Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry. — Here is the resolution:
(Reads amendment.)
The President. — ^And the suggestion of the Chair is that this
says nothing about the degree of relationship. This simply
says, "in accordance with the amount of property passing and
reasonable exemptions may be made."
Mr. Pillshury of Londonderry. — Now, if that is the opinion of
the Chair or of the Convention, we would be very glad to insert
it. We would be very glad to accept the suggestion.
Mr. Pill&bury of Londonderry moved to amend Question
No. 4, by inserting after the words, "property passing/' in the
third line, "and with the degree of relationship between the
beneficiary and the person from whom it passes."
Question being on the adoption of the amendment proposed
by Mr. Pillsbury of Londonderry, —
The President. — I think the word, "beneficiary," would coven
the words, "donee, heir-at-law, or legatee," would it not?
On a viva voce vote the amendment of Mr. Pillsbury was
adopted.
Mr. Broderick of MancJwste7\—lt occurs to me to question the
advisability of submitting these questions to the voters upon
a separate ballot.
Tfw President.— The Chair would state that the statute requires
it to be done on the same ballot.
Mr. Pillshury of Londonderry.— It has been called to my atten-
tion that we said that this should be submitted attested by
the Secretary of State, and it has been called to my attention
in former Conventions by the Secretary of the Convention.
The President. — (Reads resolution relating to above.) Inas-
much as the Secretary of State will have to have publication
made, would it not be better to have the Secretary of State,
rather than the Secretary of the Convention?
Mr. Pillsbury of Lond)onderry. — I just wanted to bring it be-
fore the Convention and they can take their own action. It
is all right as it is, or it is all right otherwise.
Saturday, June 22, 1912. 668
Question being on the adoption of the report of the Com-
mittee on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the
Amendments agreed to by Convention, as amended, —
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Mr. Eowe of Kensington offered the following resolution: —
Resolved, That when this Convention finally adjourn, today,
it adjourn to meet at the call of the President, or, in case of
his death, at the call of the Governor of the state.
On a viva voce vote the resolution was adopted.
On motion of Mr. Young of Manchester, —
Resolved, That the sincere thanks of the Convention are
hereby tendered to Prof. James F. Colby for his painstaking,
exhaustive, and scholarly labors in the preparation of his ex-
cellent manual of the Convention, which has been so useful
and is so highly appreciated by the members of the Conven-
tion. Through the use of this serviceable book, the members
of the Convention have been able to more intelligently, expe-
ditiously, and thoroughly consider the various propositions
presented for action.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord!. — ^Mr. President, as we approach the
end of the work of this Convention, I desire to offer a reso-
lution, the object and sentiment of which, I am confident, will
meet with ready, hearty and appreciative response.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord offered the following resolution: —
Resolved, That the members tender to our Chaplain, Rev.
Charles C. Garland, our sincere thanks and grateful acknowl-
edgment for his services as Chaplain during the session of this
Convention.
Mr. Mitchell of Concord. — Mr. President and Gentlemen of the
Convention, it is fitting- that we, the representatives of the
people of this good commonwealth, engaged as we have been in
65i Journal of Constitutional Convention.
considering- proposed amendments to its organic, fundamental
law, — a law founded upon the principles of the Christian religion.
and the product of the patriotic labors of men imbued with the
spirit of the Christian faith, and representing, as we do, thi ;
people, who, from the foundation of our government to the pres-
ent time, have adhered strictly to the fundamental tenets of that
relig"ion as the rule and guide of their lives in public and private
affairs, and acknowledging, as we do, and always must, our
gratitude and obligation to the Divine Author of that religion,
it is fitting, I say, Mr. President and Gentlemen, that we should
here and now publicly acknowledge our gratitude and tender
our thanks to that worthy representative of this Christian
faith who has, at the beginning of each day's labor, so piously
and sincerely invoked, for our benefit, the blessings and as-
sistance of Him on whom we must rely, the source from whence
is derived all strength, sagacity and wisdom, and, expressive of
this sentiment, this gratitude, I offer this resolution.
On a rising vote the resolution was unanimously adopted.
Mr. Hobbs of Felham. — Mr. President, I have here a resolution
which I think will be seconded by every man in this Convention.
Mr. Hobbs of Pelham offered the following resolution: —
Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be extended
to the Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Sergeant-at-Arms, and
other officers and employees, for the faithful and efficient man-
ner in which they have performed their various duties during
the session.
Mr. Hohhs of Pelham. — Mr. President, I hope on this question
it will be a unanimous vote, for I do not desire to be obliged
to take the count of the division on this, and I trust that every
one will rise and stand without being counted.
On a rising vote the resolution was unanimously adopted.
On motion of Mr. Shontell of Manchester, —
Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be and are
hereby extended to the several representatives of the press
for the able and accurate reports of the daily proceedings of
Saturday, June 22, 1912. 555
the Convention and for their courteous treatment of the mem-
bers.
PKEISENTATION OF PUNCH BOWL TO PKESIDENT.
Mr. Leightan of Newflelds. — Mr. President, by one of those pe-
culiar results of the turn of the wheel of chance, or possibly
by a process of elimination, or again, possibly by the unwise
judgment upon the part of those who made the choice, — you
may describe it as you will, — I am asked to encroach for just
a moment in this, the closing hour of this Convention, and to
ask your permission that the rank and the file of this Con-
vention guide its affairs. In other words, Mr. President, re-
membering that at certain times during the past three weeks,
without fear or favor, you have told the members of this Con-
vention your estimate of their work, these same miembers,
believing now that a reversal of the situation is only fair play,
ask the privilege of talking back to you.
It does any man good to see himself as his fellows see him.
It did us good and worked for the good of the state to see our
tactics of delay as you saw them. We sincerely hope it will
do you as much good to see yourself as the members of this
Convention have seen you.
Honorable Gentlemen of this Convention, backed by the vote
of its members, told you yesterday afternoon, what we think
of the man who has presided over its sessions, and, Mr. Presi-
dent, as the successive days lengthen into years, we shall recall
with pleasure the associations, official and social, which we
have enjoyed here with you.
That these words may not seem empty of meaning, and that
the expression of sentiment may sparkle through a medium of
its own, I beg to present to you, in behalf of the members of
this Convention, this slight token of their respect. As it stands
in your home, and as oft as you look upon it, we ask you to
remember that the wishes of the givers are that the days of
your future success shall be commensurate with the success,
the great success, which jou have achieved as President of the
Constitutional Convention of New Hampshire for the year 1912.
TJie Presi^nt. — Mr. Leighton, Gentlemen of the Convention,
for once I am speechless. I thought yesterday, after the kind
words and the vote of the Convention, that everything had been
done that ought to be done, and perhaps more, in regard to ex-
pressing the opinion of the Convention towards its presiding
officer. And for this beautiful and substantial evidence of yonr
appreciation of the work that I have tried to do here, all I can
656 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
say is that, from the bottom of my heart I thank you most
sincerely.
Mr. Lyford of Concord. — Mr. President, I felt at the time that
perhaps the Chair and the chairman of the Committee did not
get the point that I made as to the printing of the ballot. "Ail
ballots cast, where no cross is made in the square opposite any
question, shall not be counted as to such question." Then fol-
lows the instruction to be printed on the ballot by the Sec-
retary of State. And those instructions read as follows: "Every
voter who wishes to vote 'Yes' will make a cross in the square
near the word, 'Yes'; if he wishes to vote 'No,' he will make a
cross in the square near the word, 'No'; if he makes no cross
in either square, his ballot will not be counted."
Now I sug-gest that the words used in the other paragrapii
be added there, — "will not be counted as to that question."
Mr. Lyford of Concord, moved that the vote whereby the
Convention adopted the recommendation of the Committee
on Time and Mode of Submitting to the People the Amend-
ments agreed "to by the Convention, as amended, be recon-
sidered.
On a viva voce vote the affirmative prevailed.
Question being on the adoption of the recommendations of
the Committee, as amended,-^
Mr. Lyford of Concord, offered the following amendment: —
Amend by adding at the end of Resolution V of the re-
port the words, "as to such question," so that the said Reso-
lution V of said report shall read as follows:
V. Resolved: That the Secretary of State be required to
print said questions to be thus submitted, upon the official
ballot for the towns and cities for said election, beneath the
list of candidates, and above the question relating to licenses
for the sale of liquor where such question is submitted, in
conspicuous type in the manner and form above prescribed.
Upon the said ballots containing said questions shall be
printed the word "yes" at the left hand with a square near it.
Saturday, June 22, 1912. 567
.and at the right hand the word "no" with a square near it,
and the voter desiring to vote "yes" upon any one of said
-questions shall make a cross in the square near the wo-rd "yes,"
and if he desires to vote "no" he shall make a cross in the
square near the word "no," and he shall do this as to each
question upon which he desires to vote. All ballots cast
where no cross is made in a square beside any question shall
not be counted as to such question.
The Secretary of State sh^ll cause to be printed at the bot-
tom of each ballot distributed to the town clerks a note in
plain and conspicuous type as follows: Every voter who wishes
to vote "yes" will make a cross in the square near the word
"'^yes"; if he wishes to vote "no" he will make a cross in the
square near the word "no." If he make no cross in either
square his ballot will not be counted as to such question.
Question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Lyford of
'Concord, —
On a viva voce vote the amendment was adopted.
Question being on the adoption of the report of the Com-
jnittee, —
On a viva voce vote the motion prevailed.
On motion of Mr. Shontell of Manchester, the Convention
.adjourned to meet at the call of the President, or in case of
-his death at the call of the Governor of the state.
ALLAN CHESTER CLARK,
Secretary.
A true record.
Attest:
Allan Cheister Clark,
Secretary.
APPENDIX.
I. Pamphlet Issued by Secretary of State Edward
N. Pearson, under Resolution of the Con-
vention.
II. Tabulation of Vote of the People upon the
Several Amendments.
III. Proclamation of His Excellency, Governor
Robert P. Bass.
IV. The Amended Constitution.
PAMPHLET ISSiJED BY SECRETAEY OF STATE
EDWARD N. PEARSON, UNDER RESOLUTION
OF THE CONVENTION.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Constitutional Convention
OF 1912.
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
IN THE TEAR OF OUR LORD ONE TBOUaAND NINE HUNDRED
AND TWELYE.
In the Convention of delegates assembled at Concord on
the first Wednesday of June, in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and twelve, for the purpose of revis-
ing the constitution of this state, in pursuance of the act of
the legislature passed April 15, 1911:
I. Resolved: That the alterations and amendments pro-
posed to the Constitution shall be submitted to the qualified
voters of the state at the regular biennial election to be holden
on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November,
1912, to be by said voters acted upon at said meetings.
II. Resolved: That the selectmen of the several towns,
wards and places in the state be and are hereby directed to
561
562 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
insert in their warrants calling the said meetings an a-rticle
to the following effect: To take the sense of the qualified vot-
ers w*hether the alterations and amendments to the Constitu-
tion proposed by the Constitutional Convention shall be
approved.
'" III. Re&olved: That the sense of. the qualified voters shall
be taken by hallot upon each of the following questions sub-
mitted to them by the Convention:
1. Do you approve of increasing the senate to thirty-six
members, and dividing the state into senatorial dis-
tricts on the basis of population; — as proposed in the
amendment to the Constitution?
2. Do you approve of amending the provision as to represen-
tation in the House of Representatives by making 600
inhabitants necessary to the election of one represen-
tative and 2,400 inhabitants necessary for two repre-
sentatives and 1,800 necessary for each additional
representative; with the proviso that a town, ward, or
place having less than 600 inhabitants may send a rep-
resentative a proportionate part of the time; dr that
such towns, wards, and places when contiguous may
unite to elect a representative, if each town so decides
by major vote; — as proposed in the amendment to the
Constitution?
3. Do ygu approve of empowering the legislature to specially
assess, rate and tax growing wood and timber and
money at interest including money in savings banks,
and to impose and levy taxes on incomes from stock
of fo.reign corporations and foreign voluntary associa-
tions and money at interest, except incomes from
money deposited in savings banks in this state re-
ceived by the depositors, and to graduate such taxes
according to the amount of the incomes, and to grant
reasonable exemptions, with the provision that if such
taxes be levied on incomes from stock and money at
Appendix. 563
interest no other taxes shall be levied thereon against
the owner or holder thereof; — as proposed in the
amendment to the Constitution?
4. Do yon approve of providing that taxes assessed upon the
passing of property by will or inheritance or in con-
templation of death may be graded and rated in accord-
ance with the amount of property passing and with the
degree of relationship between the beneficiary and the
person from whom it passes, and reasonable exemp-
tions made; — as proposed in the amendment to the
Constitution?
5. Do you approve of empowering the legislature to impose
a tax upon the incomes of public service corporations
and voluntary associations, in lieu of a direct tax upon
their property; — as proposed in the amendment to the
Constitution?
6. Do you approve of amending the Bill of Rights by strik-
ing out the words "rightly grounded on evangelical
principles" after the words "As morality and piety,"
and striking out the word "Protestant" before the
words "teachers of piety, religion, and morality"; — as
proposed in the amendment to the Constitution?
7. Do you approve of providing that no person shall have
the right to vote, or be eligible for office, who shall
have been convicted of treason, briber}^, or wilful vio-
lation of election laws, with the right to the Supreme
Court to restore such privileges; — as proposed in the
amendment to the Constitution?
8. Do you approve of having the governor, councilors, and
senators elected by plurality instead of majority vote;
— as proposed in the amendment to the Constitution?
9. Do you approve of amending the Bill of Rights by striking
out the provision that pensions shall not be granted
664 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
for more than one year at a time; — ^as proposed in the
amendment to the Constitution?
10. Do you approve of empowering the legislature to give
police courts jurisdiction to try and determine, sub-
ject to the right of appeal and trial by jury, criminal
causes wherein the punishment is less than imprison-
ment in the state prison; — as proposed in the amend-
ment to the Constitution?
11. Do you approve of the requirement that the legislature,
in dividing the state into councilor districts, shall be
governed by the population; — as proposed in the
amendment to the Constitution?
12. Do you approve of giving the Governor authority to ap-
prove or disapprove any separate appropriation con-
tained in any bill or resolution; — as proposed in the
•amendment to the Constitution?
IV. Resolved: That the Secretary of State be directed to
procure to be printed one hundred and thirty thousand copies
of such parts of the Constitution as are altered and amended
by this Convention, together with the alterations and amend-
ments, and the same number of copies of 'the questions to be
proposed to the qualified voters, and the same number of these
resolutions, and to cause sudh copies to be distributed imme-
diately to the town clerks of the respective towns, wards and
places in the state, for the use of the qualified voters, in num-
bers proportionate as near as may be to the numbers of the
legal voters in the said respective towns, wards and places;
and it is made the duty of said clerks immediately to distribute
such copies among said voters.
V. Resolved: That the Secretary of State be required to
print said questions to be thus submitted, upon the official
ballot for the towns and cities for said election, beneath
the list of candidates, and above the question relating to
Appendix. 666
licenses for the sale of liquor where such question is sub-
mitted, in conspicuous type in the manner and form above
prescribed.
Upon the said ballots containing said questions shall be
printed the word "yes" at the left hand with a square near
it, and at the right hand the word "no" with a square near it,
and the voter desiring to vote "yes" upon any one of said
questions shall make a cross in the square near the word "yes,"
and if he desires to vote "no" he shall make a cross in the
square near the word "no," and he shall do this as to each
question upon which he desires to vote. All ballots cast
where no cross is made in a square beside any question shall
not be counted as to such question.
The Secretary of State shall cause to be printed at the bot-
tom of each ballot distributed to the town clerks a note in
plain and conspicuous type as follows: Every voter who wishes
to vote "yes" will make a cross in the square near the word
"yes"; if he wishes to vote "no" he will make a cross in the
square near the word "no." If he make no cross in either
square his ballot will not be counted as to such question.
VI. Resolved: That the town and ward clerks of the sev-
eral towns and wards in the state shall make a true and certi-
fied copy of the record of the votes given in upon each of the
said questions and shall forward the same in sealed packages
to the Secretary of State within five days from the day of said
election, and said clerks shall be subject to the same penalties
as are by law prescribed for neglect to return the votes for
Governor, and the returns shall be by the Secretary of State
seasonably laid before the Governor and Council.
YII. Resolved: That the Secretary of State is hereby di-
rected to furnish to the town clerks of the different towns,
wards and places suitable blanks for the return of the votes on
said questions.
666 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
YIII. Resolved: That the Governor and Council, prior to
the first Tuesday of December, 1912, shall canvass said returns
and make a record thereof, and the Governor shall forthwith
issue his proclamation announcing the result of the vote on
each of said questions submitted to the people.
IX. Resolved: That such of the proposed amendments as
shall be approved by the requisite number of votes shall take
effect and be in force when their adoption is proclaimed by
the Governor, provided that no amendment shall affect the
election and membership of the legislature of 1913.
X. Resolved: That these resolutions, signed by the Presi-
dent of this Convention and attested by the Secretary of State,
shall be published once in all the weekly neT>-!5papers of the
state authorized to publish public laws, and in the daily news-
papers, and that the original journal, together with all the
files of the Convention, shall be deposited in the office of the
Secretary of State.
[Adopted June 22, 1912.]
ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS.
Amendment No. i.
Resolved, That Articles 24 and 25 of Part Second of thQ Consti-
tution be amended to read as follows: Art. 24. The senate
shall consist of thirty-six members who shall hold their office
for two years from the first Wednesday of January next en-
suing* 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 unincorporated
places, on the basis of population according to the last census
of the United States or of this state.
Amendment No. 2.
Resolved, That Articles 9 and 10 of Part Second of the Con-
stitution be amended to read as follows: Art. 9. There shall
be in the legislature of this state a representation of the peo-
ple biennially elected, and founded upon principles of equality,
and in order that such representation may be as equal as cir-
cumstances will admit, every town or place entitled to town
privileg-es, and wards of cities having 600 inhabitants by the
last general census of the state taken by authority of the
United States or of this state, may elect one representative; if
2,400 such inhabitants may elect two representatives, and so
proceeding in that proportion, making 1,800 such inhabitants
the mean increasing number for any additional representa-
tive; provided, that no town shall be divided or the boundaries
of the wards of any cities so altered as to increase the number
of representatives to which said town or city may be entitled
by the next preceding census.
Art. 10. Whenever any town, place or city ward shall have
less than six himdred such inhabitants, the general court shall
authorize such town, place or ward to elect and send to the
general court a representative such proportionate part of the
time as the number of its inhabitants shall bear to six hundred,
but the general court shall not authorize any such town, place
'or ward to elect and send such representative except as herein
provided; and provided furtJier, that the legislature may au-
thorize contiguous towns or contiguous towns and wards having
respectively less than six hundred inhabitants, but whose inhabi-
tants in the aggregate equal or exceed six hundred, to unite for
the purpose of electing a representative, if each town so de-
cides by major vote at a meeting called for the purpose, and the
667
568 Journal of Constitutional ('onvention.
votes of towns thus united shall be cast, counted, returned, and
declared as the votes for senators are cast, counted, returned,
and declared, and the governor shall, fourteen days before the
first Wednesday of each biennial session of the legislature,
issue his summons to such persons as appear to be chosen
representatives by a plurality of votes, to attend and take
their seats on that day.
Amendment No. 3.
Resolved, That Article 5, Part Second, of the Constitution be
amendetj by inserting in the twenty-second line of said Article
after the words "and upon all the estates within the same" the
following: but the said general court shall have full power
and authority to specially assess, rate and tax growing wood
and timber and money at interest including money in savings
banks, and to impose and levjr taxes on incomes from stock
of foreign corporations and foreign voluntary associations and
money at interest except on incomes from money deposited in
savings banks in this state received by the depositors and it
may graduate such taxes according to the amount of the in-
comes and may grant reasonable exemptions; provided, that if
such taxes be levied on incomes from stock and money at inter-
est no other taxes shall be levied thereon against the owner or
holder thereof, — so that the article as amended 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, ordinances, directions, and
instructions, either with penalties or without, so as the same be
not repugnant or contrary to this Constitution, as they may
judge for the benefit and welfare of this state and for the gov-
erning and ordering thereof and of the subjects of the same,
for the necessary support and defense of the government there-
of; and to name and settle biennially, or provide by fixed laws
for the naming and settling all civil officers within this state,
such officers excepted the election and appointment of whom
are hereafter in this form of government otherwise provided
for; and to set forth 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 respectively adminis-
tered unto them for the execution of their several offices and
places, so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this
Constitution; and, also, to impose fines, mulcts, imprisonments,
and other punishments; and to impose and levy proportional
and reasonable assessments, rates, and taxes upon all the in-
habitants of, and residents within, the said state, and upon all
estates within the same, but the said general court shall have
full power and authority to specially assess, rate and tax grow-
ing wood and timber and money at interest including money
in savings banks, and to impose and levy taxes on incomes from
stock of foreign corporations and foreign voluntary associations
and money at interest except on incomes from money deposited
in savings banks in this state received by the depositors and it
may graduate such taxes according to the amount of the incomes
Appendix. 569
and may grant reasonable exemptions; provided, that if such
taxes be levied on incomes from stock and money at interest
no other taxes shall be levied thereon against the owner or
holder thereof, to be issued and disposed of by warrants, un-
der the hand of the governor of this state for the time being,
with the advice and consent of the council, for the public ser-
vice, in the necessary defense and support of the government of
this state and the protection and preservation of the subjects
thereof, according to such acts as are or shall be in force within
the same. Provided, that the general court shall not authorize
any town to loan or give its money or credit, directly or indi-
rectly, 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.
Amendment No. 4.
Resolved, That Article 6, Part Second, of the Constitution o-?
amended by adding at the end of said Article the following:
Taxes assessed upon the passing of property by will or inherit-
ance 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 rea-
sonable exemptions may be made.
Amendment No. 5.
Amend Article 6, Part Second, of the Constitution, by adding
at the end thereof the following: and the general court in im-
posing a tax upon public service corporations and upon voluntary
associations doing a public service business, shall have full power
and authority to impose a tax upon the incomes of such corpo-
rations and voluntary associations in lieu of a direct tax upon
their property, so that as amended said section 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 franchises and property
when passing by will or inheritance; and there shall be a val-
uation of the estates within the state taken anew once in every
five years, at least, and as much oftener as the general court
shall order; and the general court in imposing a tax upon pub-
lic service corporations and upon voluntary associations doing
a public service business, shall have full power and authority
to impose a tax upon the incomes of such corporations and vol-
untary associations in lieu of a direct tax upon their property.
Amendment No. 6.
Resolved, That Article 6 of the Bill of Eights of the Constitu-
tion 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 six shall read
as follows: Aut. 6. As morality and piety will give the best
and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts
570 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
of men the strongest obligations to due subjection, and as the
knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a
society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity
and of public instruction in morality and religion, therefore,
to promote these important purposes, the people of this state
have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the
legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns,
parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this
state to make adequate provision, at their own expense, for the
support and maintenance of public teachers of piety, religion,
and morality. Provided, notwithstanding, that the several
towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies shall
at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own public
teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and
maintenance. And no person of any one particular sect or
denomination shall ever be compelled to pay toward the support
of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or de-
nomination. And every denomination of Christians, demeaning
themselves quietly and as good subjects of the state, shall be
equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination
of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be estab-
lished by law. And nothing herein shall be understood to affect
any former contracts made for the support of the ministry;
but all such contracts shall remain and be in the same state as
if this Constitution had not been made^
Amendment No. 7.
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, bribery, or any wilful violation of the
election laws of this state or of the United States; but the
supreme court may, on notice to the attorney-general, restore
the privileges of an elector to any person who may have for-
feited them by conviction of such offences, so that Article 11
shall read: Art. 11. All elections ought to be free; and every
inhabitant 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, how-
ever, that this provision shall not apply to any pers^a prevented
by a physical disability from complying -vvith its requisitions,
nor to any person who now has the right to vote, nor to any
person who shall be sixty years of age or upwards on the first
day of January, A. D. 1904; 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 trea-
son, bribery, or any wilful violation of the election laws of this
state or of the United States; but the supreme court may, on
notice to the attorney-general restore the privileges of an
elector to any person who may have forfeited them by convic-
tion of such offences.
Appendix. 671
Amendment No. 8.
Resolved, That Part Second of the Constitution be amended as
follows: Part Second, title "Senate," articles thirty-two and
thirty-three, article forty-one, title "Executive Power — Gover-
nor," and article sixty, title "Council," by striking out the
word "majority" wherever it occurs in said article, and sub-
stituting therefor the word plurality.
Amendment No. 9. — --
Resolved, That Article 36 of the Bill of Rights be amended by
■striking out the words "and never for more than one year at a
time," so that said Article 36, as amended, shall read as follows:
Art. 36. Economy being a most essential virtue in all states,
especially in a young one, no pension should be granted but in
consideration of actual services; and such pensions ought to be
granted with great caution by the legislature.
Amendment No. lo.
Resolved, That Article 76, Part Two [Second], of the Constitu-
tion 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 pun-
ishment is less than imprisonment in the state prison, so that
when amended said section shall read: The general court are
empowered to give to justices of the peace jurisdiction in civil
causes, when the damages demanded shall not exceed one
hundred dollars, and title of real estate is not concerned, but
with the right of appeal to either party to some other court.
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, all criminal causes wherein
the punishment is less than imprisonment in the state prison.
Amendment No. ii.
Resolved, That Article 64 of Part Second of the Constitution
be amended by striking out the words "ratable polls and pro-
portion of public taxes," and inserting' in place thereof the
word population, so that Article 64 as amended shall read:
AuT. 64. The legislature maj^ if the public good shall here-
after require it, divide the state into five districts, as nearly
equal as may be, governing theinselves by the number of popu-
lation, each district to elect a councillor; and, in case of such
division, the manner of the choice shall be conformable to the
present mode of election in counties.
Amendment No. 12.
Amend Article 44, Part Second, of the Constitution by adding
at the end thereof the following: The governor may approve
or disapprove any separate appropriation contained in any bill
'or resolution. Such portions as he may approve shall thereupon
become a law and such portions as he may disapprove shall
thereupon be returned separately in the manner provided in
the preceding section and separately reconsidered and if re-
passed as therein provided shall become a law.
PAETS OF THE CONSTITUTION ALTEEED
AND AMENDED.
Amendment No. i.
PART SECOND. ARTICOLES 24 AND 25.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. 24. The senate shall con-
sist of twenty-four members,
who shall hold their office for
two years from the first Wed-
nesday of January next ensuing
their election.
Art. 25. And, that the state
may be equally represented in
the senate, the legislature shall,
from time to time, divide the
state into twenty-four districts,
as nearly equal as may be with-
out dividing towns and unincor-
porated places; and, in making
this division, they shall govern
themselves by the proportion of
direct taxes paid by the said
districts, and timely make
known to the inhabitants of the
state the limits of each district.
Provision if Amended.
Art. 24. The senate shall con-
sist of thirty-six members,
who shall hold their office for
two years from the first Wed-
nesday 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 divid-
ing towns and unincorporated
places, on the basis of popula-
tion according to the last cen-
sus of the United States or of
this state
Amendment No. 2.
PART SECOND, 'ARTICLES 9 AND 10
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. 9. There shall be, in the
legislature of this state, a rep-
resentation of the people, bien-
nially elected, and founded upon
principles of equality, and, in or-
der that such representation
may be as equal as circum-
stances will admit, every town,
or place entitled to town privi-
leges, and wards of cities having
Provision if Amended.
Art. 9. There shall be, in the
legislature of this state, a rep-
resentation of the people bien-
nially elected, and founded upon
principles of equality, and in or-
der that such representation
may be as equal as circum-
stances vsnll admit, every town
or place entitled to town privi-
leges, and wards of cities having
572
Appendix.
573
six hundred inhabitants by the
last general census of the state,
taken by authority of the
United States or of this state,
may elect one representative; if
eighteen hundred such inhabi-
tants, may elect two represen-
tatives; and so proceeding in
that proportion, making twelve
hundred such inhabitants the
mean increasing number for
any additional representative:
provided, that no town shall be
divided or the boundaries of
the wards of any citj' 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, furtJier, 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 altera-
tion been made.
Art. 10. Whenever any town,
place or city ward shall have
less than six hundred such in-
habitants, the general court
shall authorize such town,
place or ward to elect and send
to the general court a represen-
tative such proportionate part
of the time as the numoer of
its inhabitants shall bear to six
hundred, but the general court
shall not authorize any such
town, place or ward to elect and
send such representative except
as herein provided.
six hundred inhabitants by the
last general census of the state
taken by authority of the United
States or of this state, may elect
one representative; if 2,400 such
inhabitants may elect two rep-
resentatives, and so proceeding
in that proportion, making
eighteen hundred such inhabi-
tants the mean increasing num-
ber for any additional represen-
tative: provided, that no town
shall be divided or the bounda-
ries of the wards of any cities
so altered as to increase the
number of representatives to
which said town or city may be
entitled by the next preceding
census.
AnT. 10. Whenever any town,
place or city ward shall have
less than six hundred such in-
habitants, the general court
shall authorize such town,
place or ward to elect and send
to the general court a represen-
tative such proportionate part
of the time as the number of
its inhabitants shall bear to six
hundred, but the general court
shall not authorize any such
town, place or ward to elect
and send such representative
except as herein provided; and
provided further, that the leg-
islature may authorize contigu-
ous towns or contiguous towns
and wards having respectively
less than six hundred inhabit-
ants, but whose inhabitants in
the aggregate equal or exceed
six hundred, to unite for the
purpose of electing a represen-
tative, if each town so decides
by major vote at a meeting
called for the purpose, and the
votes of towns thus united shall
be cast, counted, returned, and
declared as the votes for sena-
tors are cast, counted, returned,
and declared, and the governor
shall, fourteen days before the
first Wednesday of each bien-
nial session of the legislature.
574 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
issue his summons to such per-
sons as appear to be chosen rep-
y resentatives by a plurality of
votes, to attend and take their
seats on that day.
Amendment No. 3.
PART SECOND, AETICLE 5.
Present Provision of Constitution.
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 estab-
lish all manner of wholesome
and reasonable orders, laws,
statutes, ordinances, directions,
and instructions, either with
penalties or without, so as the
same be not repug'nant or con-
trary 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 gov-
ernment thereof; and to name
and settle biennially, or provide
by fixed laws for the naming*
and settling- all civil officers
within this state, such officers
excepted the election and ap-
pointment of whom are here-
after in this form of govern-
ment 'otherwise provided for;
and to set forth the several du-
ties, powers, and limits of the
several civil and military offi-
cers of this state, and the forms
of such oaths or affirmations as
shall be respectively adminis-
tered unto them for the execu-
tion of their several offices and
places, so as the same be not
repugnant or contrary to this
Constitution; and, also, to im-
pose fines, mulcts, imprison-
ments, and other punishments;
.and to impose and levy propor-
Provision if Amended.
Art. 5. And, further, full
power and authority are hereby
given and granted to the said
g-eneral court, from time to
time to make, ordain, and estab-
lish all manner of wholesome
and reasonable orders, laws,
statutes, ordinances, directions,
and instructions, either with
penalties or without, so as the
same be not repug-nant or con-
trary 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 gov-
ernment thereof; and to name
and settle biennially, or provide
by fixed laws for the naming
and settling all civil officers
within this state, such officers
excepted the election and ap-
pointment of whom are here-
after in this form of govern-
ment 'otherwise provided for;
and to set forth the several du-
ties, powers, and limits of the
several civil and military offi-
cers of this state, and the forms
of such oaths or affirmations as
shall be respectively adminis-
tered unto them for the execu-
tion of their several offices and
places, so as the same be not
repugnant or contrary to this
Constitution; and, also, to im-
pose fines, mulcts, imprison-
ments, and other punishments;
and to impose and levy propor-
Appendix.
575
tional and reasonable assess-
ments, rates, and taxes upon
all the inhabitants of, and resi-
dents within, the said state, and
upon all estates within the
same, to be issued and disposed
of by warrant, under the hand
of the g-overnor of this state
for the time being, with the ad-
vice 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 preser-
vation of the subjects thereof,
according to such acts as are
or shall be in force within the
same. Provided, that the gen-
eral court shall not authorize
any town to loan or give its
money or credit, directly or in-
directly, for the benefit of any
corporation having for its ob-
ject a dividend of profits, or in
any way aid the same by taking
its stock or bonds. .
tional and reasonable assess-
ments, rates, and taxes upon
all the inhabitants of, and resi-
dents within, the said state, and
upon all estates within the
same, but the said general court
shall have full power and au-
thority to specially assess, rate
and tax growing wood and tim-
ber and money at interest in-
cluding money in savings banks,
and to impose and levy taxes on
incomes from stock of foreign
corporations and foreign vol-
untary associations and money
at interest except on incomes
from money deposited in sav-
ings banks in this state re-
ceived by the depositors and it
may graduate such taxes ac-
cording to the amount of the
incomes and may grant reason-
able exemptions; provided, that
if such taxes be levied on in-
comes from stock and money at
interest no other taxes shall be
levied thereon against the
owner or holder thereof, to* be
issued and disposed of by war-
rants, 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 gov-
ernment 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. Pro-
vided, that the general court
shall not authorize any town to
loan or give its money or cred-
it, directly or indirectly, for the
benefit of any corporation hav-
ing for its object a dividend of
profits, or in any way aid the
same by taking its stock or
bonds.
676 Journal of Constitutional Convention,
Amendment No. 4.
PART SECOND. ARTICLE 6.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. (). The public charges of
government or any part thereof
may be raised by taxation upon
polls, estates, and other classes
of property, including fran-
chises and property when pass-
ing by will or inheritance; and
there shall be a valuation of
the estates within the state
taken anew once in every five
years, at least, and as much
oftener as the general court
shall order
Provision if Amended.
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 fran-
chises and property when pass-
ing bj' will or inheritance; and
there shall be a valuation of
the estates within the state
taken anew once in every five
years, at least, and as much
oftener as the general court
shall order. Taxes assessed up-
on the passing of property by
will or inheritance or in con-
templation 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 lega-
tee and the person from whom
it passes, and reasonable ex-
emptions may be made. .
Amendment No. 5.
PART SECOND. ARTICLE 6.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. 6. The public charges of
government or any part thereof
may be raised by taxation upon
l)olls, estates, and other classes
of property, including fran-
chises and property when pass-
ing by will OT inheritance; and
there shall be a valuation of
the estates within the state
taken anew once in every five
years, at least, and as much
oftener as the general court
shall order.
Provision if Amended.
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 fran-
chises and property when pass-
ing by ^vill or inheritance; and
there shall be a valuation of
the estates within the state
taken anew once in every five
years, at least, and as much
oftener as the general court
shall order; and the general
court in imposing a tax upon
public service corporations and
upon voluntary associations do-
ing a public service business,
Appendix.
577
Amendment No. 6.
shall have full power and au-
thority to impose a tax upon
the incomes of such corpora-
tions and voluntary associations
in lieu of a direct tax upon
their property.
BILL OF RIGHTS, ARTICLE 6.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Aet, 6. As morality and pie-
ty, rightfully grounded on evan-
gelical principles, will give the
best and greatest security to
government, and will lay in the
hearts of men the strongest ob-
ligations to due subjection, and
as the knowledge of these is
most likely to be propagated
through a society by the institu-
tion of the public worship of the
Deity and of public instruction
in morality and religion, there-
fore, to promote these impor-
tant purposes, the people of
this state have a right to em-
power, and do hereby fully em-
power, the legislature to au-
thorize, from time to time, the
several towns, parishes, bodies
corporate, or religious societies
within this state to make ade-
quate provision, at their own
expense, for the support and
maintenanceiof public Protestant
teachers of piety, religion, and
morality. Provided, notmtlistand-
ing, that the several towns,
parishes, bodies corporate or
religious societies shall at all
times have the exclusive right
of electing . their own public
teachers, and of contracting
with them for their support and
maintenance. And no person
of any one particular religious
sect or denomination shall ever
be compelled to pay towards the
support of the teacher or teach-
ers of another persuasion, sect
or denomination. And every
denomination of Christians, de-
meaning themselves quietly and
Provision if Amended.
Art. 6. As morality and pie-
ty will give the best and great-
est security to government,
and will lay in the hearts of
men the strongest obligations
to due subjection, and as the
knowledge of these is most
likely to be propagated through
a society by the institution
of the public worship of the
Deity and of public instruction
in morality and religion, there-
fore, to promote these impor-
tant purposes, the people of
this state have a right to em-
power, and do hereby fully em-
power, the legislature to au-
thorize, from time to time, the
several towns, parishes, bodies
corporate, or religious societies
within this state to make ade-
quate provision, at their own
expense, for the support and
maintenance of public teach-
ers of piety, religion and mo-
rality. Provided, notmthstand-
ing, that the several towns,
parishes, bodies corporate or
religious societies shall at all
times have the exclusive right
of electing their own public
teachers, and of contracting
with them for their support and
maintenance. And no person
of any one particular religious
sect or denomination shall ever
be compelled to pay towards the
support of the teacher or teach-
ers of another persuasion, sect,
or denomination. And every
denomination of Christians, de-
meaning themselves quietly and
as good subjects of the state.
678
Journal of Constitutional (convention.
as good subjects of the state,
shall be equally under the
protection of the law; and no
subordination of any one sect
or denomination to another
shall ever be established by
law. And nothing herein shall
be understood to affect any for-
mer contracts made for the sup-
port of the ministry; but all
such contracts shall remain and
be in the same state as if this
Constitution had not been
made.
shall be equally under the
protection of the law; and no
subordination of any one sect
or denomination to another
shall ever be established by
law. And nothing herein shall
be understood to affect any for-
mer contracts made for the sup-
port of the ministry; but all
such contracts shall remain and
be in the same state as if this
Constitution had not been
made.
Amendment No. 7.
BILL OF RIOHTS, ARTICLE 11.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. 11. All elections ought
to be free; and every inhabit-
ant 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 eli-
gible to office under the Consti-
tution of this state, who shall
not be able to read the Consti-
tution in the English language,
and to write, provided, however,
that this provision shall not ap-
ply to any person prevented by
a physical disability from com-
plying with its requisitions, nor
to any person who now has
the right to vote, nor to any
person who shall be sixty years
of age or upwards on the first
day of Januar3% A. D. 1904.
Provision if Amended.
Art. 11. All elections ought
to be free; and every inhabit-
ant 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 eli-
gible to office under the Consti-
tution of this state, who shall
not be able to read the Consti-
tution in the English language,
and to write, provided, noicever,
that this provision shall not ap-
ply to any person prevented by
a physical disability from com-
plying with its requisitions, nor
to any person who now has
the right to vote, nor to any
person who shall be sixty 3'ears
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, bribery, or any wilful
violation of the election laws of
this state or of the United
States; but the Supreme Court
may, on notice to the attorney-
general restore the privileges
of an elector "to any person who
may have forfeited them by
conviction of such offences.
Appendix.
579
Amendment No. 8.
PAPtT SECOND, ARTICLES 32, 33, 41, 60.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. 82. And, that there may
be a due meeting of senators on
the first Wednesday of Janu-
ary, biennially, the governor
and a majority of the council
for the time being shall, as soon
as may be, examine the re-
turned copies of such records,
and, fourteen days before the
first Wednesday of January, he
shall issue his summons to sucn
persons as appear to be chosen
senators by a majority of votes
to attend and take their seats
on that day: provided, neverthe-
less, that, for the first year, the
said returned copies shall be
examined by the president and
a majority of the council then
in office; and the said president
shall, in like manner, notify the
persons elected to attend and
take their seats accordingly.
Art. 33. And in case there
shall not appear to be a senator
elected by a majority of votes
for any district, the deficiency
shall be supplied in the follow-
ing manner, viz.: the members
of the house of representatives
and such senators as shall be
declared elected shall take the
names of the two persons hav-
ing the highest number of votes
in the district, and out of them
shall elect, by joint ballot, the
senator wanted for such • dis-
trict; and, in this manner, all
such vacancies shall be filled up
in every district of the state;
all vacancies in the senate aris-
ing by death, removal out of
the state, or otherwise, except
from failure to elect, shall be
filled by a new election by the
people of the district, upon the
requisition of the governor, as
Provision if Amended.
Art. 32. And, that there may
be a due meeting of senators on
the first Wednesday of Janu-
ary, biennially, the governor
and a majority of the council
for the time being shall, as soon
as may be, examine the re-
turned copies of such records,
and, fourteen days before the
first Wednesday of January, he
shall issue his summons to such
persons as appear to be chosen
senators by a plurality of votes
to attend and take their seats
on that day: promded, neverthe-
less, that, for the first year, tne
"said returned copies shall be
examined by the president and
a majority of the council then
in office; and the said president
shall, in like manner, notify the
persons elected to attend and
take their seats accordingly.
Art. 33. And in case there
shall not appear to be a senator
elected by a plurality of votes
for any district, the deficiency
shall be supplied in the follow-
ing manner, viz.: the members
of the house of representatives
and such senators as shall be
declared elected shall take the
names of the two persons hav-
ing the highest number of votes
in the district, and out of them
shall elect, by joint ballot, the
senator wanted for such dis-
trict; and, in this manner, all
such vacancies shall be filled up
in every district of the state;
all vacancies in the senate aris-
ing by death, removal out of
the state, or otherwise, except
from failure to elect, shall be
filled by a new election by the
people of the district, upon the
requisition of the governor, as
680
Journal of Constitutional Convention.
soon as may be after such va-
cancies shall happen.
Art. 41. The governor shall
be chosen biennially, in the
month of November, and the
votes for governor shall be re-
ceived, sorted, counted, certi-
fied, and returned in the same
manner as the votes for sena-
tors; and the secretary shall
lay the same before the senate
and house of representatives on
the first Wednesday of January,
to be by them examined; and,
in case of an election by a ma-
jority 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
the same as those for senators;
and, if no person snail have a
majority of votes, the senate
and house of representatives
shall, by a joint ballot, elect one
of the two persons having the
highest number of votes, who
shall be declared governor.
And no person shall be eligible
to this office unless, at the time
of his election, he shall have
been an inhabitant of this state
for seven years next preceding,
and unless he shall be of the
age of thirty years.
Art. 60. And the person hav-
ing a majority of votes in any
county shall be considered as
duly elected a councilor; but, if
no person shall have a majority
of votes in any county, the sen-
ate and house of representa-
tives shall take the names of
the two persons who have the
highest number of votes in each
county and not elected, and out
of those two shall elect, by
joint ballot, the councilor
wanted for the county; and the
qualifications for councilors
shall be fhe same as for sena-
tor
soon as may be after such va-
cancies shall happen.
Art. 41. The governor shall
be chosen biennially, in the
month of November, and the
votes for governor shall be re-
ceived, sorted, counted, certi-
fied, and returned in the same
manner as the votes for sena-
tors; and the secretary shall
lay the same before the senate
and house of representatives on
the first Wednesday of January,
to be by them examined; and,
in case of an election by a plu-
rality 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
the same as those for senators;
and, if no person shall have a
plurality of votes, the senate
and house of representatives
shall, by a joint ballot, elect one
of the two persons having the
highest number of votes, who
shall be declared governor.
And no person shall be eligible
to this office unless, at the time
of his election, he shall have
been an inhabitant of this state
for seven years next preceding,
and unless he shall be of the
age of thirty years.
Art. 60. And the person hav-
ing a plurality of votes in any
county shall be considered as
duly elected a councilor; but, if
no person shall have a plurality
of votes in any county, the sen-
ate and house of representa-
tives shall take the names of
the two persons who have the
highest number of votes in each
county and not elected, and out
of those two shall elect, by
joint ballot, the councilor
wanted for the county; and the
qualifications for councilors
shall be the same as for sena-
tor
Appendix.
581
Amendment No. g.
BILL OF RIGHTS, ARTICLE 36.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. 36. Economy being a
most essential virtue in all
Btates, especially in a young
one, no pension s hould be
granted but in consideration of
actual services; and such pen-
sions ought to be granted with
great caution by the legisla-
ture, and never for more than
one year at a time.
Amendment No. lo.
Provision if Amended.
Art. 36. Economy being a
most essential virtue in all
^tates, especially in a young
one, no pension s hould be
granted but in consideration of
actual services; and such pen-
sions ought to be granted w^ith
great caution by the legisla-
ture.
PART SECOND, ARTICLE 76.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. 76. The general court
are empow^ered to give to jus-
tices of the peace jurisdiction in
civil causes, when the damages
demanded shall not exceed one
hundred dollars and title of real
estate is not concerned, but with
right of appeal to either party
to some other court.
Provision if Amended.
Art. 76. ' The general court
^re empowered to give to jus-
tices of the peace jurisdiction in
civil causes, when the damages
demanded shall not exceed one
hundred dollars and title of real
estate is not concerned, but with
the right of appeal to either
party to some other court. And
the general court are further
empowered to give to police
courts original jurisdiction to
try and determine, subject lo
right of appeal and trial by jury,
all criminal causes wherein the
punishment is less than im-
prisonment in the state prison.
Amendment No. ii.
PART SECOND,
Present Provision of Constitution,
ARIT. 64. The legislature may,
if the public good shall here-
after require it, divide the state
into five districts, as nearly
equal as may be, governing
themselves by the number of
ratable polls and proportion of
ARTICLE 64.
Provision if Amended.
Aict. 64. The legislature may,
if the public good shall here-
after require it, divide the state
into five districts, as nearly
equal as may be, governing
themselves by the number of
population, each district to
682 JouiLNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
public taxes, each district to
elect a councilor; and, in case
of such division, the manner of
the choice shall be conformable
to the present mode of election
in counties.
elect a councilor; and, in case
of such division, the manner of
the choice shall be conformable
to the present mode of election
in counties.
Amendment No. 12.
PAKT SECOND. AT?TTCLE 44.
Present Provision of Constitution.
Art. 44. Every resolve shall
be presented to the g-overnor,
and, before the same shall take
effect, shall be approved by him,
or, being disapproved by him,
shall be repassed by the senate
:ind house of representatives,
according" to the rules and limi-
lations prescribed in the case of
a bill.
Provision if Amended.
Art. 44. Every resolve shall
be presented to the g-overnor,
and, before the same shall take
effect, shall be approved by him,
or, being disapproved by him,
shall be repassed by the senate
and house of representatives,
according to the rules and limi-
tations prescribed in the case of
a bill. The governor may ap-
prove or disapprove any sepa-
rate appropriation contained in
any bill or resolution. Such
portions as he may approve
shall thereupon become a law
and such portions as he may dis-
approve shall thereupon be re-
turned separately in the man-
ner provided in the preceding
section and separately reconsid-
ered and if repassed as therein
provided shall become a law.
II.
TABULATION OF VOTE OF THE PEOPLE UPON THE
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS.
584 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
I iH C<l Irt rH evj LO iH M 1-1 M tH M -^ CO O tH rH i-l rH O Tfi M •
*SSgS"'S?:S?§S;3;^^S*^Sg?3'«^l8^S^*i8S§2S?5
e^iMi-i-*-«m-»t<iH^(M<x>rHe;icoco«>THC>»e«9<Deoeoi-iooe«3C<ie<5?Jcooc5t-i«o
O>;J<(MT»<<»Tj<(Mt-.r-IOS00(3j<2.
t-r-IOSOO(3jC>t-N«DOO«e00000500«OOOt-OOC<)lOlOOCOl
00 th eo t» tH t-i OS! e<i Csi l5 ifii co t-i cvi tH c<> eo t- <m <
tHtH th eo-^ •
rHOO'^o»t-cooeot-t-e<se<ieD'S<t-'^o>e9caNou30»eQTHOTHe<iost--^eo
r-l IM rH ■<«< eo CO iH iH CO OXM ,-1 CO M tHi-I e<!5 lO tH rH Tt< lO (M r»< rH lO CO iH Cfl CO
-*«o«oe<j<»cqos(MMioioooeDeo«>t-o»use<9t-ooi-it-e<i^«oopNoo©«ct-
c<]eo<Mcc>kaoou3<oc<i0)ooeoeo'^ooeoTHioi:-c4coe^rH^'^eQ«oc4eotQea«o
t-cqiflt-t--t--^ooojooiaTt<o-^c5ooooOi-ib-ort<t-i-i'^ip«oe^ooe<so-«*<
i-<e<5M-*eoeoioc^iT-(t-THeoT»<-^»<ooc>5YH'«*<t»5<«^i-it-u5M^*c<ieocor-i«o
§3^aS5§SS|53^|S*S5JS5S^5^SS^i§2S^?383S|^^
iPseoMeo 00 'S' M eo eo N o t- esj <
<j<leQ
Appendix,
585
CO iH rH r-i
S^Sg5SI5IS?3g3
C-C5 W t-t- rH t-3 "5 O
!^ lA <?5 M< T-l eOrH i-H
;iJ5^^S13l
leq ■^ tHiH i-(c<i
^ S !§ U9 CO ca T-5 -"f M
I ifl w iH tH cq eo
^gsssss^s
«S _ rt W
686 Journal of Constitutional Convention
W »0 tH tH CO •><»< 1-1 cm cm CO 00 Ca C>5
ooQece>3Tt<90t-'*«et-io50i-ii-it-ooo'^^»<eoe<iooT-<t-ooo5iHe<5r-t«DOj
rHe5r-i-<«''!»<eceqosrMri<ONeoc^u5,-iiHeoioc^eo,Ht-coT-icMTHcjoir5oJo
r^r-li-leo^ MIOiHC«3tH tH tH rH Ui tH • CO e<S iH eO tH iH Its i-( T-c
r-1 C<l tH ■T*< 55 eO eO rH r-l «0 O Cvl Tf CO «> 1-1 CM CO iO CM CO t- ■* rH CM CM CM O 1-1 T-l «e
c<i cq ,_( c^i 1-1
CMiHcqB N t- iH 00 1- iH CMe>5 c5ini-( r»< eo cm eMeooi-i«
iiH'>*<3T«<c4oi-iioojT-ieoec«Or-iiHeoirtMcoT-it--«»<CMc<5CMNa>THiH<
^ CM iH C<llH
T-l CJ iH Tj« CO CO ^j rH eO 0» CM ^ CM CO iH CM«OrHlH Tf lO rH CO CO U3 CO •^
"=?S$3??SSSSS5S?35:S3S3g^'^S3§5^S^«'Ss3SSi5?3S^§g
c<iooOT»<«ofc:a<'<j<i-!«ooqt--»¥Ot-ooeooooo«ei«»<t-ego»u3eMTHNe3oo
SS5^SS^^|^S|§3^i§SS^?§?S^<^feS^SSS3S||l
'?idSS?3'^^SSSS?iS?5'*SS'*Sag9S«g§5;^S*gi5SSI5a
»0«e?-l<— )t~eorHcOOiHCOU5lrtO«000-*>«OU5rHO>u50C30rH'<*il«lO?OOrH
e1cvic<)Sifi'*iou5c^«eMSeM'^»i3«oi-icM-^ioeocoTHOioco-^eMc5i-i«o«oo
CM CM rH rH CM rH
<!<JCQO
' a >» cJ S 2 fl a ft a-';! w £ g tS 5 9 2
eiJ o
rHCMCO •*
a :5
sa
stj:n wi2
o o
J5CU0H
Appendix.
587
O'J'tradt-e^ooooo
°^i^?5^'*'SlS;:JS
T(< •>* CO lO M 1
O to CO OS >o 00 O 1
lOOlOOStOlOiHOt-
588 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
(MOOi-HOSeOCOO-TCMt-lMOOt-O
r-it-
=■
■^
T O
>J-.
ocinc^i
1 '»
o
Mosoooooo eooMM -^r-iuseCTreoiMtc-^coeo.-i ca
1 CO
6
;^
1 ^
'A
3^f£§^SS55SS"=S?S??§8S;2:?^gS^Sg5?3^S
rH
m
CM
(U
r-ti-t>HiH rl T-H CM
00
>^
gS3S88^§3?2?5g5"^«>SSg§?3g^§5SSg5S'«g
o
•«»<
z
00
■<*<
03
Sp!§s3SS'*S^?SS«g5J^S5!S^§S^^aS?SS
rH T-l tH tH
•^
>^
'*
1
SJ2gS:S8*^?5S3^^^St3§3^g;^^S^^5:;i5^^S
i
1
03
0)
gSSS^^?gSSS^SSJ2:ji^^^^S^^t5S§53S
kO
14
tH iH r-l
>H
'^
_
J0C<lt-00T-IC^OJlO00T(<-<»<rHeC>OJlO-Tttt-OJ«SOl<Mt">»<-«»<TjtC0
«
O
t-e<S00O5rH iHOOrHlO • ■»«« tH iH OJ Tf (M iH CO CO <N tH ,H <M CO
CO
z
rn rH 1
2-
6
2;
1
[
S
ssg^^«?2g^'«s§s^S3SS5§^?:^;2;?:?:??s I
»*
^
o-
t-\
r-l T-l i-H
OrH«DaiT»<OSO«DOOlOTl
i-H
«.
<eo
Ift-^Ci-
M000O0000O>i-IU3000O
c>»
o
■««< t- ""(iio C- C<lt- >H (M iH rH N -TO e<l r-l <M CO 1-1 tH c<li-l T-H eo
00
N
^
t-
1"
OB
Sg2|§-§2g§g5°°{3§^Ei5!S^||SgS^SS
^
^
rH
tH
O
15
SSSSg'*'Sgi3^'^g?3^^!$^S:3j;iSS;S?3g'*^
1
1
1
Sg2|S|;:iS|»SSSSSS5:Sg?Sgt§S?3}gS5S
3
>■
E-
Z
J3
c
r-l M CO •«*< U5
p
rH n" CO ■<»< l« ;o
I'S^'SS
•^
e^
cc
ut
•S'S'S'S'H'H
cB cS ed ee oj CO
rt OS cd c« CO
-co-o-o-o
a^^^^^^
1
rt 5 S cd 5 S
Q
« 1 «r
t
rringtoi
ver— W
W
W
W
W
rham .
rmingtc
F»
so c
«S5
w Durl
Chester-
llinsfori
nerswoi
■afford
2
<tf o s nj (L "! — — iJ o o ;; ."-:
PQ
O
C
b
<-J
S
s
,»'
Z
QJ
ci
'^
W
Appendix.
589
o
^Sg^?:
1-1
^
gg;:!
UJ
?5
t-
s^
^sss^
s
T^
s
1-h"^
§5
i
eq
^
d
m
0)
>H
T-T
^
o
^!5^5JS :;5S^S*^S'«i5S§?S'^^S?3'"SS^?5
i
d
s
55S^SS;^S§S^^di:?£!E:^S^gS5!Sj;5^iS?s
00
e<5
iHiHT-<r-l tH ^
lO
>^
rH
~
g^^^g^SS^^^S:^^SS:3^^SSgSSSS"=S
(M
o
t—
d
_
^
«D
^
SgSS;S?3^|^S3^!5i?Sg^§??gS^5J53^l3a
\s>
s
t-
>^
T-T
1
o
S?:s?:S'^SS^55«g'^^S5SS5igg5?5?5S5:;'^S
t-J
1
^
1
?^?3^S?SS553S^?;?^^gS^?3S?^gS?353Si£
s
T-1,-1 iH
^sss?2^?^S'«s*^S'^gg5:^?;^§3Sigs"=«s
00
o
?3
00
^
•
d
"
05
-sS^S^^5^^^^-^^^""l^^^^3"^
CO
«
o
ggS^lS :SSSS«S5^gg^5J;5«'^g?3?3SS**§:
§
1
.
^
'^
s
^SSII^"^^^*'^^^^^^^!^^^^^^^
o
<M
t-
>H
H
z;
T-! M M •<*< us
?
i-i C<i CO -<P U5 «3
^ t- fc, t- 1-.
^
(N
■«t
\c.
•S'S'S'S'S'S
oi cd cii OS OS OS
«J oJ CO cd cij
-o-a-o-o-o
a^^^^^^
X]
^4
d S cd cd oi 03
1
be
a
s
u a.
o
oJO 3cSajW.-~<Do ot; '-'
cr
c
c
&
*J
:§
s
^
^
tf
Q:J
M
M
1
590 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
I
I
«
H
H
D
CO'
o
H
c»
o
sj^i
I C- Tt< t- -^ Cvl(M U9
eoiOT*<oooojoO'>i»'i
( to ■<»< T»t eo ■«*< lo to
« t- OD 00 «0 CO •>»< CO
(M -Tji M CO N N rH T«< rH Tl* -"l* t- U5 c!5 <M •* \^
>(M o eg I
iequ50«oojeoc<ie^'*oeoeoc<9U5oo
<MT»<cvi(MMeoi-i«ie>9t-io
eoeoc<9U5<
ooeowwi
'«OOOl-IC5i-IOJWt-lH0005IMlfl-«»t,H
ic-oje<9«5cDUSo-<»io}«oost-'«<«otc
uST-(oJo»THU3«o«)eoi-HC<iTt<ooooaso
loceioeoce-^eoooioot-c^weoooto
'-.^■B
_• CO — (U >-■ CO M
tH cvi CO Tf lo eo
"O 'O'O'O "CO
^ (, ^ ^ L. »4
qj aJ rt eS OS ^efl
S^^ o d o
Appendix.
691
C0C<l
_l
_l
Oi M to 00 t- 05
,_!
in
t-
,_(
00 e^
1 ^
o
r-(r-IM<M M tH CO l-t IM eC «J M CM TH Tt-
hs
e^
J5
1
1
5§s§8S^^^ss3§§;g?:?ig^
tH
o
S^«§3S§^§S?SSS^^§§S?5
^
T-l
Z
CO
tH
o
^
§gS^J35^|^|53S:SS?5|
1
a)
tH
.
»H
o
?S?:?Si^S^3P;aS?S:jS§5l2^^
s
o
Z
1
d
-
1
;z;
^Sg§3S5$^|SgSSl2^§^
(^
ro
OJ
>^
'~'
d
2:
^
^^S5S3S§^S^S5§2^§3?Sg
s
1
•
a;
gS^g*SS^gj:5^S5S^SS
fg
i-H rH
>H
o
§35?S§3?5^^5g^5S§^§3l§
1
00
d
Z
U3
^
0/
eo-<»<coas?oeow*e<i<M«oajiMeoot-
rH
iat-00r-lc0'»<ONTt<j^t'rHI:-CClfl^
^.
><
iH
d
«^S2S^S^«?3g?g?g3?S^J^
§
iz;
■^
s
^.
L_
>'
>H
1h
2^
3
O
y
<
»-i CO eo ■* U5 CO
fe
•O'O'O'd'O'O
ca
2
^
ed nS cS as oi oj
o ■
tii
„^^^^^^
oa
*
J
^
^^K
li 5il
7i
CQ
o 1
z
1 <
^
e
c
C
1
a
a
C
ci
c
E-
592 Journal of Constitutional Convention
I
i
o
I
p
w
H
H
W
D
m
m
O
I— I
H
D
O"
5^
O
H
O
r-( lH«0 iHt- r^r^ «5 tH CO «0 -^ (M I t-
iOO«OOOOOr-IOTHt"<
I
I O
\-^t~iaeo-^iat~iOiat-e<iiae^t~t-
13S:i'^S^SIg??S5^^5
I iH lO «<
eo rH iH eo cJI eo T*!
<! P3 33 o O W K fc<
c4
SO '. ■ o : _,c3 j:_, o
ejS'-'cOo^,.HJ:;xi«o
CO JSOcooOoSteEctC-^
5 5*2 rt o
o^cg^^-g-as
; S O w H H P^ ?^
Appendix.
593
ieoiH-«j<ooocoeoMo5irt'^oic
I N I t-
I,-! t-
ooooeoa>oioeoMTHOoooooJ05t-o>
Cg|.rH00 00O«0.t:j«^;
T-H rH lO T-( IM iH 1-1 CM ■i-li-le<I(
eoiou5co«ast-t-T-ioo«poooo'*'ajOrHoo
CO tH r-( -* <M !it< M eoeOT-tOOco^tOt'^
594 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
■i-tT-i^T-teoMweoeoe^ooocsii-HrHcoNCOiHcgiat-eor-tcq'VMrHSiH'
> 05 M N «D T-l t- <
c<i N c<i e<i ,
r3oOost-e<3**C9»-<oocoo*3ooooo<*»-it-e<nee«900oooooot-*oo
lr-<toCg-^l<rt<t-«5iratCt~(MTt«Oloe<JeoeOT}-t-Oi^(X>r-l-*NrHiHT»<t-00
ooect-Tfiiflcaqseoejosr-iiHCxsi-^iHioeocoeocooiooooMeoT-Hust-oot-
"jeooooeoOi-ioo-^itLOoooMOo^-ir-itDt-oeoioM-^oii-iooiMinus
co<MojTfit-«ooococ<ioooooot-c<joe9-»««'*»<oooc^ioeoT»<t--vojTj<ini-<r-(
tH r-l CO e5 (M SM rH l-H tH rH iH ,-1 ,-!,-,
«>:2922S:E:2!:3riS:£22«>
^ss^53Sf3Ssssssss;§ssg?§pi53^^5^ss^!§
■q< M T-l N eo oq oi eo 00 •>!»< t« tH M U5 00 »-i 00 e<5 oj w o «> O _ _
ooeoo3eot-'*iooN<Mt^oo'^«Oi-i-^TH-<}<irt«oooiHNi-iecioc<i
i-H iH (M <M Cq M tH ,-1 ■
t- O OS Tt" O t~ «o
t_ooo«)Cso-veoe<5i«tDt~^ev5«nc<io>ooe<iT-c^Mece<ie^iooeo«escco
eooojOeor-oo«Dr-(tc>°oo>ooMOOinio«o«cooc«?Dt'-r^00op5t-h-i
eoooT-iu5cou5ioeo«oto5»— Hoi'^iHcoe^>nooTHi-(ioi-H'^eoe<i<Faiooc<
rH CM ^ C^ 1-t "-• rH tH >H
i-4e4e<3^tatot>ooo»
^ ,Q 00*0
W i ^ . O t- Q> b
12 "^ ai »-i Qj ra O
g O O fe-O "««
^-o M g cu a-2 a
-. a o o t, ojx3 o
a
a On S
'O'O'O
U ^ (h
a2
W ^ ^ ,Q ■—
0/ .^ o o Q a> <u
"•^ s
Appendix.
596
§S5^SSS
S
N
§;5SS^S
!5
CO
g^og^S
§ss;?2^g5
eo
S;^gpi?3S
1
^'"^J^SS?
eo
^S^5!?S^
gssi^s?
1
eo
S;:^^S55J5
eo
O
e<r
|?5^g?i;5
1
1 ^
Pittsfleld
Salisbury
Sutton
Warner
Webster
Wilmot
tt
696 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
I r-t M eo iH eo ca -i* CO CO Si OS t- -* iH ,-1 -^ff c* Jsi th M eo »o "«i< eo Ss w ?3 S § eS
eoo»<Meoirtw>wt-c<ieoiot-tcioo'>*iiH«eor-(t-oo«D«c>05ooooo>^iO'^
wect-N-^eoCvit-Mt-oocooiasi-MT-iNoocot-cfleot-r-ieoTHir-irHwSSS
(•»i<iHe^«©eor-ioO(M<:»e<i'<t<MT-iu5coirtoo'^0-^ev505iHr-ieot-iHONio
)Ooool^^lOeoc<^t-ecWr^lQ(^ooTH<^3e<5eoooo5NlClt-(^^us(^^r^w•^l<^>^-
iH COC^C^C^ItHt— ( tHt— ( tH
I <M OO U5 OS O iH eO rH tH CvJ CO Irt <M N CC i? c5 Jh t-5 S
lOSCOSMrHOOC^COCOOlC^COOOlOO-^OgsepOOt-OOOSTHt^teifSeO
.t-eo-^e<5Nt-Tt<t-ooM>'«*<o<=>eoMe»5eoooOMt-i-(Ttii-ieac<ieS«Db-
rHoot-ose<>i(;»rtc<icocou5eDU5(Min«)Oi-ie<i-»tiiojpeooosi-iosooe<)«eos
THt-•<«<lH■^»^l^5■<«<•<«^<Meo^o■Tt^■«l^c<^■«^<c<^e»scqeou5t-u^,^e<^l01Hc^JMS5S
«DC»eorHT»<e«siH«>Oeooic5ooeoooooo5o5»oosooos«ee<»Tj<'.*<ei«Diooso>
C^"<*<05lHOOC<lC<10SUSOOU3T-(THb-lHOC<IC<liHOOOS«C<eT-3eOOSi-lT-lc4SS
tH (M CO c^ eo th ■* eo N CO tH 00 S eg tH eo iH rH rH CO eo <c m eg eo n cq n m 5
iOO>eo«»ST-ioO'^t-'«*<i-ioso5THT-t-^t-eoe<>e<9t-in<5ooost-t~itsoe<5iH(
1-1 M M M M rH iH iH 1-1 i— I y-{
Oi-t-^T-<oseOT»<t-t-oo5t-ajoooseo«OT»<t-oo«oo"'ose<joi«DmT-i-«ft-
•<«it-oocou3-^e<ioo'^c«cooQOtc>u3eo-«f'i}<eoo5M'«o05wt-<MMeoino:. cs
tH COCQCOC^t-H rHrH tH
a
o t- S!
M) >^ 1^
i-IC<le<2'«<lO«Ot-00l7S
o ^H Q) 5-
::5 a o o t, cs^ o
POHfc
cd cts eS
-5 •>?§
g a fl a J
a- o ft^ ^ ^
a> « o o % 0) a)
52
o g
Appendix.
597
I ,-1 O «0 00 00
lO 00 IM 00 lO t-
^"^§513
|SS5SSS S
O5T-(e000(M(M
5:ss53*;2:
COt-ICOO IMCO JO
Sid 3>5 cuS
598 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
CO
d
55
O
W iH Tt< <M <M lO ■«»« MCJ-^ tH iH
to
6
Yes
S§8SS5?"«?3SS^^g^gi:^^§S||||gg||Sg|?S|
d
Z
o
Z
CSICOtH t-I tHMt-I
■
1
5g2^;2;^^SSSS§|^St5^||||||5g||§g|SS
d
1
S^tg^S'^f:3|S?^§gS^S!gggg|||?g|||§5ISg^S
i
o
z.
§^§§5:;^SS§iSSSS5?2SSS«5:5S|§||g^|||SSS^^
S|p!§g;:3?§|S^Sgig?2S?5^S||gSS|ggg^^|gg
1
o
z
iH 1-H eo ■^ 1-H 1-1 1-1 M rH iH
I
th »-i 1* e^ ec eo eo •^ eo co eo y-^
^
Amherst
Antrim
Bedford
Bennington
Brookline
Deering
Francestown
Goffstown
Greenfield
Greenville
Hancock
Hillsborough
Hollis
Hudson
Litchfield
Lyndeborough
Manchester— Ward 1
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Ward 9
Ward 10
Mason
MerrTllTack
Milford
Mont Vernon
Nashua— Ward 1
Appendix.
699
SSS^55S^aS§S2 :SSS"
§
"
?:iS!§^gS|5;^g5^|'^;3J§§^
O«ogu5oog300;2;oojo^oogg^
M
gg!§5Sg|gS^!S|"Sg^^
■xt<
in
SS3^§3^S^§?^S^ :'«??S'*
(M
|55S^S||§?SS5^2^Sg2|-^
'if'"
§55:iS*S3S?2^g2j;5i:?S^«'SS^
co"
S---||-^-|^^^S : 1
SSS^§3^g§§gi5SS-^«'§§^-^
1
|S^^5^|S5!;^s?|^ss||'*'
^S?S^g?2^?^g^^§SS^^5S"*
CO
|g5^S|g|SS§5g^g^Sg :
$3
lo"
Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Ward 9
New Boston
New Ipswich
Pelham
Peterborough
Sharon
Temple
Weare
Wilton
Windsor
c
E-
600 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
tDt-«OeoeousooeoeoOTHr-ieooo'-'ooooo«iT-i<MM<T»<«>iOT-ieO'<«>oeoeoeM
T»<00'<»<c5'#THiH<MC<leO'*l-(lO-»t"-leoe^OLOi-IOOOOt-COCD-^THT(<TPi-lt-0
iH rH rHlOi-lTflMCvieOrHM C?l t-I
53sa;g'««*;^
«0 CO OS Tt* 00 t- <
ioo«o T-ieo <mtH
it-'OiOTfWc^joo-^nrteot-oc^t-t-toioeaoj
, -)Oi-lt-W<»00, — '
I CO CO Tf M ei
(•<«<«C>rHcO«>COOMOi
ll^OQr-lTjttOTHOSO
rH^COM iH t- rH-^«CiHeSI i-l U3 OS OJ i-H t- 00 CO ^ iS O IM Tf -^ti CO
»=,
cou3t-eoot-05Ntv3Tt<Oe»5>fteooooeoos05<ieo<Nr-io«ocooo"5T-it-
US5o-<t<THN<Mr-leO(MOOinSrHcOeO»HS5<M«55o<£>OOTt<lOrH-<t<tDIMt-0
lfie<IC<10000000l^eOlOCvl0522«CT-IOOT-l»-ICsIOO-Tt<C5THt-Tj<OOt-000»
IMNOOOOOOOI^
iTfCO r-(t-40Ji-((M
IU5T-i tH
oo»©iHeot-05e<ieo'Tt<oooooj05t-CQCoo»HeDoO'^ot-Oieot-coTH;^rj«oO
M«5eoMeo tH 2b r-n-i <m t- Jq eo tH w <o -* lo <=> eo «d oo «o eo oo i-i eo U5 th us o»
lH I— 1 tHCOtHttCO'^COCOCO i-HrH
c<i'^eoe<3 iHt- THeot-Neo ih ift os eo c5 •^ oo co eo K ** r-iojrHt-eo
.eoeoeoc^50t-«o■«*<«5«cr^|^3'*'^leo^st-•-«*<ool2^-,--lr:iS'e5S:^iri2°S
ie>6Keo-^MM"*MioeoO<»t-rHeotAeo<Nit--<»'Ot-Jn»«ciocq«cioMt-rj
;553SS5'-S^?2"»?3?S5§3i8'^?3gggS&Sg«SgS'*SS''SS§
•Tt<Mo»OopNOio«o«e-^wwo50^iAt-weofOr-<t«OT-(Oeooj;*Tf<«£
SoS-*US>HeOt--(NTl4lf5eqU500rH^-*j-<r-!,H05»20055Ne2M«C>ge<ljO:;2
tH tH r-t r-( «0 tH ec T-I CO .^ CO eo C^ M t-i
d
So
fcS
i-lcieo'^io
t-00O>Q
o <u
<5<jeQpqpQPfeOOOffiffiffiff J)JS
ts'O'cJ'O'O'O'O'O'O'O
;edcdc4e4odc4cdc4c(]c4
«5 ►^
5-2^:.
Appendix.
601
§5g^S^SS5S?3^ :^s55g^
S
3
g^^pilllgss^g^ssi-^
1
03 Tj. t- C<J O t- «0 00 eo 03 ■* -COMIO,-!
CO
JS^^gggg^^J^I-^S^i^^
i-
^S^g55SI5S^^S^-??§-^
S5!5:{§gsgs^ss?^2^^^
1
US
sa«'ss^ss?^s?2-*«^^^
ss5:^Hg^?3^|^g|g^
id
SS3«'53^2$:;SS?3?S^-g3§S'^
^sss^igi^^jg^g-^s^l^
id
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
Ward 6
Ward 7
Ward 8
Ward 9
New Boston
New Ipswich
Pelham
Peterborough
Sharon
Temple
Weare
Wilton
Windsor
602 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
iHff<ieoeoc<ie<iust-t
icaeoa)tHooiAO>eot>t>
I OJ eO M 1-H o to o
lO CO CI t-l lO
C» N rH iH tH iH '^ Csl eo eo CO lO eO lO iH Cd -^ <-( M T-1 esi
« «s N e<i ^ •^ O o> M «> o t— 00 eo 00 oj M • ■^ os tH O t- t- o> e<i
i-li-l tH
o5 5S tH iH i-t r-i eo N ■«*< -^ e<s ■* <M 'a* (M i-i -f i-i ■* S w
I eo 1-i rH (£>lO(
SS C^ W «<J Tf< eO lO rt us lO lO in (M <X> i-l ^ rH iH r-l m<
O5i-lTHeO00<
•^ •* N lO cq 00 o -^ Oi OS 00 o irt ^3 i-t Tti »-i
f»(M rH tH rH CO *« eo •<l< CO 00 e<5 eO rH »H rH CO CO ^ J*
CO'^'^>OCOC<|OOOS^OSO>OOOOseoMrHT*< rHe»5r^0it-O'^00
■ eqkOMCDOOOrHOcOtOt-OOCO^OieOAC^COlArHtCcOUSOO
I ■««« rH CM rH rH U3 T»< ?0 lis lO lO CO S rH r^ rH 4^1 rH «D CvJ 5S CO B
0> lo 0» 0» O rH CO e<l rH rH rH t— O OO rH ■^ -^ CO • rH ■^ 0> lO O C>3 '^ ^
(M C<l CO •«< CO C<l S OS eg 00 S S « ^ CO N rH 5? . rH S iS«CO<MS
rHPJ CO T»< ITS
'O "O 'O T3 TS
^^^^^§
o
rtos'^oMoO'ss^ t:
Appendix.
608
gc •«»' <35 T-j cs 2 00 M « 3; o; iH OS t- o> lo ■* t- 00 t- o 1X1 ;d ec -^ «o «? «£>
OOOOOOe^l«ir5lf5«C>Nt»C<lt-OOt^OT»'T»<TH<000'^OTt<C<lt-'^
eo CO eo ■* CO rH f 00 1-1 00 00 00 t- 1- iH T-i r-i eo rH S «D ^ 00 eq S
Ol C<I P5 •* fiv) IM t- 00 iM 00 O t- OS "5 r-l rH i-H eO i-i t- -^ 05 (M <»
M r-l 1-1 CM IM ■* CO IM eO ?3 "^ tH r-l IM rH C<l i-l CO
I
I 00-»ti00^CTSC0O0005-*<3V(Ml0O00'Ni-IO«<lT-l00O00050)-
S^^I^'OMeoe^ooeoooioOTHOSifli-it-oooot-iflcocouSTjt
CO tH tH iH rS r-( •^ CO «0 "5 •V««< T)< ■.,»< iH i-4 tH Cq CO rH eo CJ CO
lMMMC0c<|r-l00«>O'Xit0t^t»-^iHTH C^ incOt-C<liP
«gc3co'*;t-'^u50©ipe»5coOJ>nt-«>T»<oot-<ei-i«c«oiHoO'
CO rH iH r-l ^ ^ j^ eO 10 ■^ f 10 e^ •^ e<l COlHU»M(
22 ri t: 3 "5 "=> "5 <=> "^ 3? «^ t~ 'i? '^ "^ "5 «> M fi^"^ '*' e^ «> «"-< o o b-
C<I •* eo i-t (M eq t» 00 M t~ OJ t- OJ U3 <M rH tH iH t-i 1-1 Ir- Tj< O M 00 CO
iM«Dasc»t-oo«eo5oo(
ICO 1-t 1-1 ^ 00 «0 O CO 05
r-ioicOT*<m
TS TJ 'O 'O TS _-
t- I- t, W, ^,f3
ai <!i a be
|;|„;|g||^
O' 03 7; g P tH 03 (^ fl
P ^ fl 2 ® i?
2J -2
604 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
d
O
2;
§3^g§S^'*|:3S3g?3SIJ{3S
§3
^'
CO tH
B
d
2;
o
Sgg§SS?:3°°^S?2S^^S«'
s
§S5g:S-SS;:Jg|^S;j^;35l
1
^
1
^^S§3Sg5°°SSg;2:«§g;2;
i
1
1
§3Sg5SsS;2;sg5:?2^g5^
§
Q
1— 1
PP
00
d
o
§5S|Sg53?ISSgSS^§3S
i
^
1
2
1
o
Z
5^^|S!S§5S'-§fe5:3«Si53 ,
i
S5?2g^SgSS?3g^^g^??
u
o
i
1-1
1
1
(
n
00
1
§
<
>
flliiiltiiii}
Appendix.
605
1
o
;^
d
5R
S§SS"'5:;'«S§^g?3^^S§3
^
>^
^§5ssss^;5s^^<*^s^
iH
^
o?
O
;z;
OJ
ot-(M-*Oeni-irH(55t-«5ineooO
1^
g
>H
'-'
OOOOlOlt-OCOWOOOONOOOOt-
g
o
-^
6
!
1
^
%
^f2Ei^^^?3gSg?;;^^iSS
U5
\
1
at
6
o
s§|§s;f5S"';2;s|S^Si§S5S
S
CO
o^o^ooo>coj.ogg^^^g3»
CO
■"
;2:s|gi3j^"'^sg2§^«'^§3S
00
d
^
"
^
~
532§S^«^^g3§3g53^§gS?^
\a
CU
'A
>
tH
O
S^gSSS'^^SS^r^^^SsSSS
^
t-
d
J?;
g:'S[§r3Sg?3S:S|^Si§S^
^
(U
g
1
;^
^
>*
H
Z
P
O
o
%
<
>
• a ■
A
•&*.:••• • -a • -o
P
03
worth
arlesto
iremon
rnish
oydon
shen .
antham
ngdon
mpster
wport
linfleld
ringflel
napee
ity ...
ishlngt
Totals
1 o^.::: o t- o t, ca oj Q^.r: p,3 fl^
1 <;ooc;a0OH:3M^pHmMp^
1
606 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
to
6
o
15
■^5JI3'*;3'^S§5^»»'^ :55S^j35^i§«'§8°°SS rgiSg^^^SS
S
«'§g?"l5^g§i3S?^^-^§^;5^|J2:^SggS||"'«S^^S*
6
o
SS^^^'^^^iS;^^ ::?«'S^^g?|^S^S'^i5S igS^J^'^SS
1
C^ '-1 C<1 T-H CO
6
o
'^^Z'^^^f^t^n^i^ :^^^^?;;§^SS^^S^ :S?JS^i3S
Q}
;g^«'^?:?Sg?5Sj'«s-'5gS5^|g'««SgJ2||"'«S^'*'f:?a
6
o
;5
SJ^SSSg^'^SSIgS^ :?sSS^^^«'S5;5?2«gS ig^SS^gJ^l
1
r-l e»5 C>J M T-( CO
1
o
S3i§§S'*S"'^g3S?^'^^S*S5'*ig^S^I5S"lg!5 i^SS'^SS
■ 1
6
Z
1
o !S1SJ^^^*S^^S^ :?^^^^S|S&53g«'§&^S;3^<^g^
^« ^S35:'^:3*gg3i$"*2:'-^j§P;«>gg*SS|Sg5'^^^^'^^g3
>
c
<
4S : : :a« : • :fe :ja :«j : : "^ iw : • : : "2 : : : : :J
ll'^g||2lilililig|lg|liiglig«is-i
Appendix.
60^
^^sss
?s?^
g^^C.^C2«
1
!$?§?2e?
:Si5
i
^^:^^r
'^^
^§§i5!^l
■■^^
i
S^sjs-^s^
1
•
!
•t8S'
(o-'fotr
>>2_g 03 cS Oi O
608 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
1
1
?5§s3'''S'^s:;s;3'*"'^S'-''?i^'5?g'*ss?2"'sg?s isss'^-'s:
CQ
Sf§t5-^??^Sg55°°'^ :??fv?§°°S^^^^SS^|"«g?i5'=^S
1
1
^oo^ust^-iogc.^* : :g^«S";??2^s«5:"'t§iS issS'^SS
CO
C>» iH W tH CO
6
O
S'cSS^g^^SS;"'^ :iS^?:J«:;:g=*?3*fS'*^S:S°^^^;:^
i»
o
^5§5-S«'5:gS5^?3^^!§S^|S'*gS§§|;1||«'«SS^I3S
00
6
o
S^S^5^S5;2;s°°^ :^^g3'"5g"'§'*|"*S§ :SgS^§:j^
><
;:3i2g"'SSig5SS'*;3^^g?i^g|i3g§sgS||"S^s^^g?
6
o
2;
S;^J3^^*'g§Sg^ : :g<»gs :^?::"i3at22^r; iS^'^^S?:-
S
C
t;
c
1
<
PC
c
1
>
■ !!!' «H ■.:;■:•::::: : ;:;■.:•;;::::
Sl-|ll2is|§ll|lg||i|lil§lss«£|?l
ll|sllrlifesll22£g5ll||S|2S£Bg§a|
<:<ooia:acao5QHBBt..aoXa:SB:jjjJj»!jjSooS
Appendix.
609
•5 evj oi CM • o t- I lo
1(5 M T-l C-) . CM rH I tH
«0 CO t- •^ ■^ M Tf
i-H 00 C^l CM Tt<
00
p
i5
CM in c» o ■* p eo
22
c<f
SSS?3
s
lO
i
■<^
C!
cm"
ig^^^
• CMIO
•eOrH
-
-H
iSS^
iH rneo
■ r
P 5 n '- a^ -" "O r
>> S _£ ^ t'i S' <^
610 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Q
r-i
H
♦-H
m
O
«— (
H
a
o
w
H
O
t- 00 Ol tH ■>* -^ -
04 Ifl tH »-l US « ev3 ,H t- iH op •«1< t- OT «e H ** «> S "i ri * jS
t- 15 «o eo o CO «o tH M 00 «o eo 00 OS oj ;* 1-1 CD eo o t-- • j-j
LO«o?DiHioinrt i-iiHC<StHio-<»<-*«> cqco(M -eo
l|^g^??°°'^"' '1^1'
JOJ^-^OOOJ
§§§5 :S
t~-«Dr-ii(SOt-eOTHmi-it-0'*<asO<M •«ot-q»oo -^
3t-<3JM t-iH rH iH iH W 35 IM g Tl ,H iH ,-1 lO •©
yHT-\ i-( C<I tH tH
SSlSS^tSiS-^igSSSS^SSK^Sg^gSg? :S
,«)^ia .t-fOfoooooooi2oot--iMOOMi«oo
;oioOt-i .-^i-i ,-( ooin«£ •- ■ ■-- -
?3i2S^ :^
*-■ ^ »-■
03 0] OS
I
2-^
C o
C Oj
iiii|ipi|llilil ^
Appendix.
611
|§i3 :S;2;<^;:!^f2§g:!;<s«>^t3«3s» :« |
C^ -^ -^ l-t -^ CC a THrHM •^nC^iO MlSw -CO
e^i5!i2i2 • rt 23 «^ *"^ SJ ?2 :* ?5 ■* "^ «) U3 00 <o O -t-
^ C~ rH T-l •iar-t 00 kO t— iH la tH iH U3 '00
JggS;:!^^^ I'-jg^^Sog.fs^^-fs-N
SSS :^
'evsT-(i--icoooa>epooccirto}ooo
tr- 00 » r-( ■««< in eo iH iH la »-( tH CO ■>«< >o r-i ta ^ ••^
^^^iS :§3*^"««'^S^g««g;«'«'S"';^!g :ig
•«« «D te rt •* CO eo .r-t ■* tH t- eO •<* us (NkOrH
|ggiS^?iS^SSSSgSS*^"'^SgS :S
cooso"5coeoeM^05«o^eoevi'^OJ'r-ir-(ev]t— tool -to
)t-00lOrHI— <»C0'»»<CDM'<«<Tf>'^.^C<5t-O'9"^'-l -co
1-iiMeo
eS «J OS
>- O >-- ,1 C o ^ •
SSm
o
a
-2^ o oj "3
6 3 b £ ^ "g -g
- o o^ 3 tH o^g oj- o-ti «^i3i;i:4.i^
612 Journal of Constitutional Convention,
in CO « t- c<i s^ o s-i t:; -^ I
r: r-i t- eo r-i -"C^^J-. t^ "^^."^
I-
eoe<im'<t<'*"ooTHev3*eo
cq oo eo eo 22 2^
) ■^ Tf «; t— uo 05 o>
I 05 t- S^?5 eo o i^^O
eo' ic tH -th m 1-1
j'^'^eot-coiooooo
l-HC-f
o
in
?°
M
s
o
^;:::?2§?§^
^
CVJ
1^-
^
d
rH »-l C^>-<*> .-i
CI
00
t— WOOlOCOO^OOOi
^•^O-fOONooioeo
t- 00 to o t^ 00 to o t-;0.
cS y-i i-i i-i ei id y-* rH(riiH
,HOOo90i-i-»»«t-oeoi3
c<it-«5inin'^"5u3<3>oo
•5««er-(l31C<50«er-l«C>(
(MCor^f^MMiOooMO
oo2?^'^'-''-''2e^o»?5
t^ rH N 25 'T eo eo o 00 e;; w
o '« 00 do oi --i CO oi evj O 'f'
ctf • : : ^ a • •
5» o
U TO »3--i
CJ K ;2 o S E c V2 ou
Appendix.
613
13 CO i-'i t- -^ >« to m lo 5
f~ QC y-l t~ yi tr ^O i^ ,-) '.
ow<t>eo^^u5l^-^<oi(
r-T r-T -4 Cvf ■* i-l
lO T-l i-H rH M l« t— OJ O
O0lf5COMO500-*ie<3l»<»
^
I — I
OarHTH eolOi-HT-lMi
?D t— 00 M O ■* t~ "'i -^ 5
z I -
CCOSW>*'«0<5St-<»005
C-T»tOJ«jOTHi-IOeOIMU5
irq lO 30 -^ «i as CO O «5
t-ojt-iot-co —
I o t- t- t-
OO e5 rH to 00 #0 t- lO 00 0=
e<9 35 th t- e« 00 e^'-i*i'-l
NrHrH CO lOi-TrHNl-T
OJt-CO-^r-lT-llO-^OOt-
■^ t- CO Oi lO 00_^lA (M -^^Cq
MrHt-T CO in i-TtHC^I tH
3 • : :^3
x^ a t, ^ "^ oi-'^a to
pi M ra o ^ K u CO o o
m.
PKOCLAMATION OF HIS EXCELLENCY, GOVEKNUK
EOBEET P. BASS.
PROCLAMATION OF HIS EXCELLENCY
GOVERNOR ROBERT P. BASS.
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
ExEcruTivE Department,
CoNOORD, November 20, 1912.
Be it known, that I, Robert P. Bass, governor of the state
of New Ha(mpshire, in obediene to the request of the Consti-
tutional Convention of said state, holden in June, 1912, do
hereby proclaim to the people of this state that the Consti-
tution of the state is amended as provided for in the seventh,
eighth, tenth, and eleventh propositions or questions sub-
mitted by said Constitutional Convention to the qualified
voters of the state at meetings held in the several towns, city
wards, and places in this state on the Tuesday next following
the first Monday of November, 1912.
All the alterations and amendments in said Constitution
covered by said several propositions or questions have been
adopted, and the Constitution is thus amended by the suf-
frages of more than two thirds of the legal voters present at
said meetings, and voting upon said questions.
I further proclaim to the people of this state that the Con-
stitution of the state is not amended, as provided for in the
first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and twelfth
propositions or questions submitted by 'said Convention to
the qualified voters of the state at meetings held in the sev-
eral towns, city wards, and places in this state on the Tuesday
next following the first Monday of November, 1912, as none
of these last-mentioned propositions or questions, nor the
amendments to the Constitution covered by the same, were
617
618 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
adopted by the suffrages of two thirds of the legal voters pres-
ent at said meetings and voting upon said questions.
[seal] Given under my hand and the seal of said state,,
at the council chamber, this twentieth day of
November, A. D. 1912, and of the Indepen-
dence of the United States of America, the
one hundred and thirty-seventh.
ROBERT P. BASS.
By the Grovernor,
Edwaet) N. Peakson, Secretary of State.
IV.
THE AMEl^DED COXSTITUTTOK
CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
PART FIRST— BILL OF RIGHTS.
Article
1. Equality of men; origin and ob-
ject of government".
2. Natural rights.
?. Society, its organization and
purposes,
s Rights of conscience unalienable.
5 Religious freedom recognized.
6. Public worship of the Deity to
be encouraged; right of elect-
ing religious teachers; free tol-
eration; existing contracts not
affected.
7. State Sovereignty.
8. Accountability of magistrates and
officers to the people.
9. No hereditary office or place.
10. Right of revolution.
11. Elections and elective franchise.
12. Protection ana taxation recip-
rocal; private property for pub-
lic use.
13. Conscientiously scrupulous not
compellable to bear arms.
14. Legal remedies to be free, com-
plete and prompt.
15. Accused entitled to full and sub-
stantial statement of charge;
not obliged to furnish evidence
against himself; may produce
proofs and be fully heard, etc.
16. No person to be again tried af-
ter an acquittal; trial by jury in
capital cases.
17. Criminal trials in county, except
in general insurrection.
18. Penalties to be proportioned to
offenses; true design of punish-
ment.
19. Searches and seizures regulated.
20. Trial by jury in civil causes; ex-
ceptions.
21. Only qualified persons to serve as
jurors, and to be fully compen-
sated.
22. Liberty of the press.
23. Retrospective laws prohibited.
24. Militia.
25. Standing armies.
26. Military, subject to civil power.
27. Quartering of soldiers.
28. Taxes to be levied only by the
people or legislature.
Article
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Suspension of laws by legislature
only.
Freedom of speech.
Meetings of legislature, for what
purpose.
Rights of assembly, instruction,
and petition.
Excessive bail, fines and punish-
ments prohibited.
Martial law limited.
The judiciary; tenure of office.
Pensions.
The legislative, executive and ju-
dicial departments to be kept
separate.
Social virtues inculcated.
PART SECOND— FORM OF GOV-
ERNMENT.
1. Name of body politic.
2. Legislature, how constituted.
3. General Court, when to meet and
dissolve.
4. Power of general court to estab-
lish courts.
5. To make laws, elect officers, define
their powers and duties, impose
fines, and assess taxes.
6. Valuation of estates.
7. Members of legislature not to take
fees or act as counsel.
8. Legislature to sit with open
doors.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
10.
Representatives elected biennially;
ratio of representation.
Small towns may elect a propor-
tionate part of time.
EXECUTIVE POWER-
GOVERNOR.
Biennial election of representa-
tives in November.
Qualifications of electors.
Representatives, how elected, and
qualifications of.
Compensation of legislature.
Vacancies in house, how filled.
621
622 JouRisAL oi' Constitutional Convention.
16. House to impeach before the sen-
ate.
17. Money bills to originate in house.
18. Power of adjournment limited.
19. Quorum, what constitutes.
20. Privileges of members of the leg-
islature.
21. House to elect speaker and offi-
cers, settle rules of proceeding,
and punish misconduct.
22. Senate and executive have like
powers; imprisonment limited.
23. Journal and laws to be published;
yeas and nays and protests.
SENATE.
24. Senate, how constituted; tenure of
office.
25. Senatorial districts, how consti-
tuted.
26. Election of senators.
27. Senators, how and by whom
chosen; fight of suffrage.
28. Qualification of senators.
29. Inhabitant defined.
30. Inhabitants of incorporated places;
their rights, etc.
31. Biennial meetings, how warned,
governed, and conducted; return
of votes.
32. Governor and council to count
votes for senators and notify the
persons elected.
33. Vacancies in senate, how filled.
34. Senate judges of their own elec-
tions.
35. Adjournments limited, except In
impeachment cases.
36. Senate to elect their own officers;
quorum.
37. Senate to try impeachments;
mode of proceeding.
38. Judgment on impeachments lim-
ited.
39. Chief justice to preside on im-
pea.;hment of governor.
40. Title of governor.
41. Election of governor; return of
votes; electors; if no choice, leg-
islature to elect one of two
highest candidates; qualifications
for governor.
•42. In case of disagreement, governor
to adjourn or prorogue legisla-
ture; if infectious distemper or
other causes exist, may convene
them elsewhere.
43. Veto of governor to bills, provi-
sions as to.
44. Resolves to be treated like bills.
4.). Governor and council to nominate
and appoint officers; nomination
three days before appointment.
46. governor and council have nega-
tive on each other.
47. Field officers to recommend, and
governor to appoint, company
officers.
48. President of senate to act as gov-
ernor when office vacant.
Article
49. Governor to prorogue or adjourn
legislature and call extra ses-
sions.
50. Power and duties of governor as
commander-in-chief; limitation.
51. Pardoning power.
52. Militia officers, removal of.
53. Staff and non-commissioned offi-
cers, by whom appointed.
54. Division of militia into brigades,
regiments, and companies.
55. Money drawn from treasury only
by warrant of governor pursu-
ant to law.
56. Accounts of military stores, etc.,
to be rendered quarterly.
57. Compensation of governor and
council.
58. Salary of judges.
COUNCIL.
59. Councilors, mode of election, etc.
eo. Vacancies, how filled, if no choice.
61. Occurring afterward; new elec-
tion; governor to convene; du-
ties.
62. Impeachment of councilors.
63. Secretary to record proceedings of
council.
64. Councilor districts provided for.
65. Elections by legislature may be
adjourned from day to day; or-
der thereof.
SECRETARY, TREASURER, COM-
MISSARY-GENERAL, ETC.
66. Election of secretary, treasurer,
and commissary-general.
.67. State records, where kept; duty of
secretary.
68. Deputy secretary.
69. Secretary to give bond.
COUNTY TREASURERS, ETC.
70. County treasurers and registers of
probate, solicitors, sheriffs, and
registers of deeds elected.
71. Counties may be divided into dis-
tricts for registering deeds.
JUDICIARY POWER.
72. Tenure of office to be expressed
in commissions; judges to hold
office during good behavior, etc.;
removable by address. ,
73. Judges to give opinions, when.
74. Justices of the peace commissioned
for five years.
75. Divorces and appeals, where tried.
76. Jurisdiction of justices In civil
causes.
77. Judges and sheriffs, when disqual-
ified by age.
78. Judges and justices not to act as
counsel.
79. Jurisdiction and terms of probate
courts.
Appendix.
623
Articles
80. Judges and registers of probate
not to act as counsel.
CLERKS OF COURTS.
81. Clerks of courts, by whom ap-
pointed.
ENCOURAGEMENT OF LITERA-
TURE, ETC.
82. Encouragement of literature, etc.
OATHS AND SUP'^CRIPTIONS, EX-
CLUSIVE FROM OFFICE, ETC.
83. Oath of civil officers.
84. Before whom taken.
85. Form of commissions.
86. Form of writs.
Article
87.
95.
100.
Form of indictments, etc.
Suicides and deodands.
Existing laws to continue in
force, if not repugnant to con-
stitution.
Habeas Corpus.
Enacting style of statutes.
Governor and judges prohibited
from holding other offices.
Incompatability of offices; only
two offices of profit to be
holden at same time.
Incompatability of certain offices.
Bribery and corruption aisquali-
fy for office.
Value of money, how computed.
Constitution, when to take effect.
Revision of constitution pro-
vided for.
Question on revision to be taken
every seven years.
Enrollment of constitution.
PART FIEST.
BILL OF RIGHTS.
Article 1. All men are born equally free and indepen-
dent; therefore all government of right originates from the
people, is founded in consenit, and instituted for the general
good.
Art. 2. All men have certain natural, essential, and in-
herent rights, among which are the enjoying and defending
life and libert}^, acquiring, possessing, and protecting prop-
erty, and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.
Art. 3. When men enter into a state of society they sur-
render up some of their natural rights to that society in order
to insure the protection of o'thers; and, without such an equiv-
alent, the surrender is void.
Art. 4. Among the natural rights, some are in their very
nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or
received for them. Of this kind are the rights of conscience.
Art. 5. Every individual has a natural and unalienable
right to worship God according to the dictates of his own con-
science and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested or
624 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
restrained;, in his person, liberty or estate, for worshiping God
in ithe manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of
his own conscience, or for his religious profession, sentiments
or persuasion, provided he doth not disturb the public peace
or disturb others in their religious worship.
Art. 6. As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evan-
gelical principles, will give the best and greates-t 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 ito be propagated through a society by the insti-
tution of the public worship of the Deity and of public in-
struction 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, bod-
ies corporate, or religious societies within this state to make
adequate provision, at their own expense, for the support and
maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion,
and morality. Provided, notwithstanding, that the several
towns, parishes, bodies corporate or religious societies shall
at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own pub-
lic teachers, and of contracting with them for their support
and maintenance. And no person of any one particular re-
ligious sect or denomination shall ever be compelled to pay
towards the support of the teacher or teachers of another per-
suasion, sect or denomination. And every denomination of
Christians, demeaning themselves quietly and as good sub-
jects of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the
law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to
another shall ever be established by law. And nothing
herein shall be understood to affect any former contracts made
for the support of the ministry; but all such contracts shall
remain and be in the same state as if this Constitution had
not been made.
Art. 7. The people of this state have the sole and exclu-
sive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and
Appendix. 625
independent state, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise
and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining
thereto which is not or may not hereafter be by them express-
ly delegated to the United States of America in congress
assembled.
Art. 8. 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
accountable to them.
Aet. 9. No office or place whatsoever in government shall
be hereditary, the abilities and integrity requisite in all not
being transmissible to posterity or relations.
Art. 10. Government being instituted for the common
benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and
not for the private interest or emolument of any one man,
family, or class of men, therefore, whenever the ends of gov-
ernment are perverted and public liberty manifestly endan-
gered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the peo-
ple may, and of right ought to, reform the old or establish a
new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against
arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destruc-
tive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Art. 11. All elections ought to be free; and every inhab-
itant of the state, having the proper qualifiations, 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 Con-
stitution of this state, who shall not be able to read the Con-
stitution in ithe 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
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 pro-
vided fiirther, that no person shall have the right to vote, or
be eligible to office under the constitution of this state who
626 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
shall have been convicted of treason, bribery, or any wilful
violation of the election laws of this state or of the United
States; but the Supreme Court may, on notice to the attor-
ney-general restore the privileges of an elector to any person
who may have forfeited them by conviction of such offenses.
Art. 12. Every member of the community has a right to
be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and
property. He is, therefore, bound to contribute his share in
the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal ser-
vi'ce, when necessary, or an equivalent. But no part of a
man's property shall be taken from him or applied to public
uses without his own consent or that of the representative
body of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this state
conifcrollable by any other laws than those to which they or
their representative body have given their consent.
Art. 13. No person who is conscientiously scrupulous
about the lawfulness of bearing arms shall be compelled there-
to, provided he will pay an equivalent.
Art. 14. Every subject of this state is entitled to a certain
remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries he
may receive in his person, property, or character; to obtain
right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase
it; completely and without any denial; promptly, and with-
out delay; conformably to the laws.
Art. 15. No subject shall be held to answer for any crime
or offense until the same is fully and plainly, substantially
and formally, described to him, or be compelled to accuse
or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall
have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to
himself, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to
be fully heard in his defense by himself and counsel. And
no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived
of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the pro-
tection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or
estate, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the
land.
Appendix. 627
Art. 16. No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an
acquittal, for the same crime or offense; nor shall the legisla-
ture make any law that shall subject any person to a capital
punishment (excepting for the government of the army and
navy, and 'the militia in actual service) without trial by jury.
Art. 17. In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in
the vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security
of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or
offense ought to be tried in any other county than that in
which it is committed, except in cases of general insurrection
in any particular county, when it shall appear to the judges of
the superior court that an impartial trial cannot be had in the
county where the offense may be committed, and, upon their
report, the legislature shall think proper to direct the trial in
the nearest county in which an impartial trial can be obtained.
Art. 18. All penalties ought to be proportioned to the
nature of the offense. No wise legislature will affix the same
punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery, and the like, which
they do to those of murder and treason. Where the same
undistinguishing severity is exerted against all offenses, the
people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes
themselves and to commit the most flagrant with as little
compunction as they do the lightest offenses. For the same
reason, a multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and
unjust, the true design of all punishments being to reform,
not to exterminate mankind.
Art. 19. Every subject hath a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses,
his papers, and all his possessions. Therefore, all warrants to
search suspected places or arrest a person for examination or
trial, in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to this
right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously
supported by oath or affirmation, and if the order, in a war-
rant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places or to
arrest one or more suspected persons or to seize their property,
628 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
be not accompanied with a special designation of the person
or object of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought
to be issued but in cases and with the formalities prescribed
by law.
Art. 20. In all controversies concerning property and in
all suits between -two or more persons, except in cases in which
it has been heretofore otherwise used and practiced, and ex-
cept in cases in which the value in controversy does not exceed
one hundred dollars and title of real estate is not concerned,
the parties have a right to trial by jury; and this method of
procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in cases arising on the
high seas and such as relate to mariners' wages, the legislature
shall think it necessary hereafter to alter it.
Art. 21. In order to reap the fullest advantage of the
inestimable privilege of trial by jury, great care ought to be
taken that none but qualified persons should be appointed to
serve; and such ought to be fully compensated for their travel,
time, and attendance.
Art. 22. The liberty of the press is essential to the security
of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably pre-
served.
Art. 23. Eetrospective laws are highly injurious, oppres-
sive, and unjusit. No such laws, therefore, should be made,
either for the decision of civil causes or the punishment of
offenses.
Art. 24. A well-regulated militia is the proper, natural,
and sure' defense of a state.
Art. 25. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and
ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the
legislature.
Art. 26. In all cases and at all times, the military ought
to be under strict subordination to, and governed by. the civil
power.
Appendix. 629
Art. 27. No soldier, in time of peace, shall be quartered
in any house without the consent of the owner; and, in time
of war, such quarters ought not to be made but by the civil
magistrate, in a manner ordained by the legislature.
Art. 28. No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duty shall
be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext what-
soever, without the consent of the people or their representa-
tives in the legislature, or authority derived from that body.
Art. 29. The power of suspending the laws or the execu-
tion of them ought never to be exercised but by the legisla-
ture, or by authority derived therefrom, to be exercised in
such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly
provide for.
Art. 30. The freedom of deliheration, speech, and debate
in either house of the legislature is so essential to the rights
of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action,
complaint, or prosecution in any other court or place what-
soever.
Art. 31. The legislature shall assemble for the redress
of public grievances and for making such laws as the pub-
lic good may require.
Art. 32. The people have a right, in an orderly and
peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common
good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request
of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance,
redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they
suffer.
Art. 33. No magistrate or court of law shall demand ex-
cessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines or inflict cruel
or unusual punishments.
Art. 34. No person can in any case be subjected to law
martial or to any pains or penalties by virtue of that law,
except those employed in the army or navy, and except the
militia in actual service, but by authority of the legislature.
630 Journal of Constitutional Convention
Art. 35. It is essential to the preservation of the rights
of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character,
that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws and ad-
ministration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be
tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.
It is, 'therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security
of the rights of the people, that the judges of the supreme
judicial court should hold their offices so long as they behave
well, subject, however, to such limitations on account of age
as may be provided by the Constitution of the state; and that
they should have honorable salaries, ascertained and estab-
lished by standing laws.
Art. 36. Economy being a most essential virtue in all
states, especially in a young one, no pension should be granted
but in consideration of actual services; and such pensions
ought to be granted with great caution by the legislature, and
never for more than one year at a time.
Art. 37. In the government of this state, the three essen-
tial powers thereof — 'to wit, the legislative, executive, and
judicial — ought to be kept as separate from, and independent
of, each other as the nature of a free government will admit
or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds
the whole fabric of the Constitution in one indissoluble bond
of union and amity.
Art. 38. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental prin-
ciples of the Constitution and a constant adherence to justice,
moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social
virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings
of liberty and good government. The people ought, there-
fore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the
choice of their officers and representatives; and they have a
right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates an exact
and constant observance of them in the formation and execu-
tion of the laws necessary for the good administration of gov-
ernment.
Appendix. 631
PART SECOND.
FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
Article 1. 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, and independent body politic, or state, by the
name of The State of New Hampshire.
general court.
Art. 2. The supreme legislative power within this state
shall be vested in the senate and house of representatives, each
of which shall have a negative on the other.
Art. 3. The senate and house shall assemble biennially,
on the first Wednesday of January and at such other times as
they may judge necessary, and shall dissolve and be dissolved
seven days nest preceding the said first Wednesday of Janu-
ary biennially, and shall be styled Thei General Court op
New Hampshire.
Art. 4. The general court shall forever have full power
and authority to erect and constitute judicatories and courts
of record or other courts, to be holden in 'the name of the
state, for the hearing, trying, and determining all manner of
crimes, offenses, pleas, processes, plaints, actions, causes, mat-
ters, and things whatsoever, arising or happening within this
state, or between or concerning persons inhabiting, or resid-
ing, or brought within the same, or whether the same be crim-
inal or civil, or whether the crimes be capital or not capital,
and whether the said pleas be real, personal, or mixed, and
for the awarding and issuing execution thereon; to which
courts and judicatories are hereby given and granted full
power and authority, from time to time, to administer oaths
or affirmations for the better discovery of truth in any matter
in controversy or depending before them.
632 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Art. 5. And, further, full power and authority are hereby
given and granted to the said general court, from time to time
to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and
reasonable orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, directions, and
instructions, either with penalties or without, so as the same
be not repugnant or contrary to this Constitution, as they may
judge for the benefit and welfare of this state and for the gov-
erning 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 naming and settling all civil officers within this
state, such officers excepted the election and appointment of
whom are hereafter in this form of government otherwise pro-
vided 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 afiirmations as shall be re-
spectively administered unto them for the execution of their
several offices and places so as the same be not repugnant or
contrary to this Constitution; and, also, to impose fines,
mulcts, imprisonments, and other punishments; and to impose
and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates, and
taxes upon all the inhabitants of, and residents within, the
said state, and upon all estates within the same, to be issued
and disposed of by warrant, under the hand of the governor
of this state for the time being, with the advice and consent
of the council, for the public service, in the necessary defense
and support of the government of this state and the protec-
tion and preservation of the subjects thereof, according to
such acts as are or shall be in force within the same. Pro-
vided, that the general court shall not authorize any town to
loan or give its money or credit, directly or indirectly, for the
benefit of any corporation having for its object a dividend of
profits, or in any way aid the same by taking its stock or
bonds.
Art. 6
thereof may
The public charges of government or any part
r be raised by taxation upon polls, estates, and
Appendix. 633
other classes of property, including franchises and property
when passing by will or inheritance; and there shall be a val-
uation of the estates within the state taken anew once in
ever}' five j^ears, at least, and as much oftener as the general
court shall order.
Art. 7. No member of the general court shall take fev3s,
be of counsel or act as advocate in any cause before either
branch of the legislature; and, upon due proof thereof, such
member shall forfeit his seat in the legislature.
Art. 8. The doors of the galleries of each house of the
legislature shall be kept open to all persons who behave de-
cently, except when the welfare of the state, in the opinion
of either branch, shall require secrecy.
HOUSE OB REPRESEIN-TATIVBS.
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
representation may be as equal as circumstances will admit,
every town, or place entitled to town privileges, and wards
of cities having six hundred inhabitants by the last general
census of the state, taken by authority of the United States
or of this state, may elect one representative; if eighteen hun-
dred such inhabitants, may elect two representatives; and so
proceeding in that proportion, making twelve hundred such
inhabitants the mean increasing number for any additional
representative: provided, that no town shall be divided or the
boundaries of the wards of any city so altered as 'to increase
the number of representatives to which such town or city may
be entitled by the next preceding census; and provided, fur-
ther, that, 'to those towns and cities which since the last cen-
sus have been divided or had their boundaries or ward lines
changed, the general court, in session next before these
amendments shall take effect, shall equitably -apportion repre-
sentation in such manner that the number shall not be greater
634 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
than it would have been had no such division or alteration
been made.
AnT. 10. Whenever any town, place, or city ward shall
have less than six hundred such inhabitants, the general court
shall authorize such town, place or ward to elect and send to
the general court a representative such proportionate part of
the time as the number of its inhabitants shall bear to six
hundred; but the general court shall not authorize any such
town, place or ward to elect and send such representative,
except as herein provided.
Art. 11. The members of the house of representatives
shall be chosen biennially, in the month of November, and
shall be the second branch of the legislature.
Art. 12. All persons qualified to vote in the election of
senators shall be entitled to vote, within the district where
they dwell, in the choice of representatives.
Art. 13. Every member of the house of representatives
shall be chosen by ballot, and, for two years, at least, next pre-
ceding his election, shall have been an inhabitant of this state;
shall be, at the time of his election, an inhabitant of the town,
parish, or place he may be chosen to represent; and shall cease
to represent such town, parish, or place immediately on his
ceasing to be qualified as aforesaid.
Art. 14. The presiding officers of both houses of the leg-
islature shall severally receive out of the state treasury as
compensation in full for their services, for the term elected,
the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, and all other mem-
bers thereof seasonably attending and not departing without
license, the sum of two hundred dollars, exclusive of mileage:
provided, however, that when a special session shall be called
by the governor, such officers and members shall receive for
attendance an additional compensation of three dollars per
day for a period not exceeding fifteen days, anr] the usual
mileage.
Appendix. 635
Art. 15. All intermediate vacancies in the house of rep-
resentatives may be filled up from time to time in the same
manner as biennial elections are made.
Art. 16. The house of representatives shall be the grand
inquest of the state, and all impeachments made by them shall
be heard and tried by the senate.
Art. 17. All money bills shall originate in the house of
representatives, but the senate may propose or concur with
amendments as on other bills.
Art. 18. The house of representatives shall have power to
adjourn themselves, but no longer than two days at a time.
Art. 19. A majori'ty of the members of the house of rep-
resentatives shall be a quorum for doing business, but, when
less than two thirds of the representatives elected shall be
present, the assent of two thirds of those members shall be
necessary to render their acts and proceedings valid.
Art. 20. No member of the house of representatives or
senate shall be arrested or held to bail on mesne process dur-
ing his going to, returning from, or attendance upon, the
court.
Art. 21. The house of representatives shall choose their
own speaker, appoint their own officers, and settle the rules of
proceedings in their own house, and shall be judge of the re-
turns, elections, and qualifications of its members, as pointed
out in this Constitution. They shall have authority to pun-
ish by imprisonment every person who shall be guilty of disre-
spect to the house, in its presence, by any disorderly and con-
temptuous behavior, or by threatening or ill treating any of
its members, or by obstructing its deliberations; every person
guilty of a breach of its privileges in making arrests for debt,
or by assaulting any member during his attendance at any
session; in assaulting or disturbing any one of its officers in
the execution of any order or procedure of the house in as-
saulting any witness or other person ordered to attend by,
636 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
and during his attendance of, the house, or in rescuing any
person arrested by order of the house, knowing them to be
such.
Akt. 22. The senate, governor, and council shall have
the same powers in like cases, provided, that no imprisonment
by either for any offense exceed ten days.
Art. 23. The journals of the proceedings and all public
acts of both houses of the legislature shall be printed and pub-
lished immediately after every adjournment or prorogation,
and, upon motion made by any one member, the yeas and nays
upon any question shall be entered on the journal, and any
member of the senate or house of representatives shall have a
right, on motion made at the time for that purpose, to have
his protest or dissent, with the reasons, against any vote, re-
solve, or bill passed, entered on the journal.
senate.
Art. 24. The senate shall consist of twenty-four members,
who shall hold their office for two years from the first Wed-
nesday of January next ensuing their election.
Art. 25. And, that the state may be equally represented
in the senate, the legislature shall, from time to time, divide
the state into twenty-four districts, as nearly equal as may be
without dividing towns and unincorporated places; and, in
making this division, they shall govern themselves by the
proportion of direct taxes paid by the said districts, and timely
make known to the inhabitants of the state the limits of each
district.
Art. 26. The free holders and other inhabitants of each
district, qualified as in this Constitution is provided, shall,
biennially give in their votes for a senator at some meeting
li olden in the month of November.
Art. 27. The senate shall be the first branch of the legis-
lature, and the senators shall ho chosen in the following man-
Appendix. 637
ner, viz.: every male inhabitant of each town, and parish with
town privileges, and places unincorporated, in this state, of
twenty-one years of age and upward, excepiting paupers and
persons excused from paying taxes at their own request, shall
have a right, at the biennial or other meetings of the inhabit-
ants of said 'towns and parishes, to be duly warned and holden
biennially, forever, in the month of November, to vote, in the
town or parish wherein he dwells, for the senator in the dis-
trict whereof he is a member.
Art. 28, Provided^ nevertheless, that no person shall be
capable of being elected a senator who is not of the age of
thirty years, and who shall not have been an inhabitant of
this state for seven years immediately preceding his election;
and, at the time thereof, he shall be an inhabitant of the dis-
trict for which he. shall be chosen.
Art. 29. And every person qualified as the Constitution
provides shall be considered an inhabitant, for the purpose of
electing and being elected into any office or place within this
state, in the town, parish, and plantation where he dwelleth
and hath his home.
Art. 30. And the inhabitants of plantations and places
unincorporated, qualified as this Constitution provides, who
are or shall be required to assess taxes upon themselves
towards the support of government, or shall be taxed therefor,
shall have the same privilege of voting for senators, in the
plantations and places wherein they reside, as the inhabitants
of the respective towns and parishes aforesaid have. And
Ihe meetings of such plantations and places, for that purpose,
shall be holden biennially in the month of November, at such
places respectively therein as the assessors thereof shall direct;
which assessors shall have like authority for notifying the
electors, collecting and returning the votes, as the selectmen
and town clerks have in their several towns by this Constitu-
tion.
638 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Art. 31. The meetings for the choice of governor, coun-
cil, and senators shall be warned by warrant from the select-
men, and governed by a moderator, who shall, in the presence
of the selectmen (whose duty it shall be to attend), in open
meeting, receive the votes of all the inhabitants of such towns
and parishes present and qualified to vote for senators; and
shall, in said meetings, in presence of the said selectmen and
of the town clerk in said meetings, sort and count the said
votes, and make a public declaration thereof, with the name
of every person voted for and the number of votes for each
person; and the town clerk shall make a fair record of the
same, at large, in the town book, and shall make out a fair
attested copy thereof, to be by him sealed up and directed to
the secretary of the state, with a superscription expressing
the purport thereof; and the said town clerk shall cause such
attested copy to be delivered to the sheri5 of the county in
which said town or parish shall lie thirty days, at least, before
the first Wednesday of January, or to the secretary of the
st^te at least twenty days before the said first Wednesday of
January; and the sheriff of each county or his deputy shall
deliver all such certificates by him received into the secretary's
office at least twenty days before the first Wednesday of Jan-
uary.
Art. 32. And, that there may be a due meeting of sena-
tors on the first Wednesday of January, biennially, the gov-
ernor and a majority of the council for the time being shall,
as soon as may be, examine the returned copies of such rec-
ords, and, fourteen days before the first Wednesday of Janu-
ary, he shall issue his summons to such persons as appear to
be chosen senators by a plurality of votes to attend and take
their seats on that day: provided, nevertheless, that, for the
first year, the said returned copies shall be examined by the
president and a majority of the council then in office; and the
said president shall, in like manner, notify the persons elected
to attend and take their seats accordingly.
Appendix. 639
Art. 33. And in case there shall not appea.r to be a sen-
ator elected by a plurality of votes for any district, the
deficiency shall be supplied in the following manner, viz.: the
members of the house of representatives and such senators as
shall be declared elected shall take the names of the two per-
sons having the highest number of votes in the district, and
out of them shall elect, by joint ballot, the senator wanted for
such district; and, in this manner, all such vacancies shall be
filled up in every district of the state; all vacancies in the
senate arising by death, removal out of the state, or other-
wise, except from failure to elect, shall be filled by a new
election by the people of the district, upon the requisition of
the governor, as soon as may be after such vacancies shall
happen.
Art. 34. The senate shall be final judges of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of their own members, as pointed
out in this constitution.
Art. 35. The senate shall have power to adjourn
themselves, provided such adjournment do not exceed two
days at a time: provided, nevertheless, that, whenever they
shall sit on the trial of any impeachment, they may adjourn
to such time and place as they may think proper, although
the legislature be not assembled on such day or at such
place. *
Art. 36. The senate shall appoint their president and
other officers, and determine their own rules of proceedings.
And not less than thirteen members of the senate shall make
a quorum for doing business; and, when less than sixteen
senators shall be present, the assent of ten, at least, shall be
necessary to render their acts and proceedings valid.
Art. 37. The senate shall be a court, with full power and
authority to hear, try, and determine all impeachments made
by the house of representatives against any officer or officers
of the state, for bribery, corruption, malpractice, or malad-
ministration in office, with full power to issue summons or
640 JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
compulsory process for convening witnesses befre them; but,
previous to the trial of any such impeachment, the members
of the senate shall respectively be sworn truly and impartially
to try and determine the charge in question according to
evidence. And every officer impeached for bribery, corrup-
tion, malpractice, or maladministration in office shall be
served with an attested copy of the impeachment and order
of senate thereon, with such citation as the senate may direct,
setting forth the time and place of their sitting to try the im-
peachment; which service shall be made by the sheriff or such
other swo.rn officer as the senate may appoint, at least four-
teen days previous to the time of trial; and, such citation
being duly served and returned, the senate may proceed in the
hearing of the impeachment, giving the person impeached,
if he shall appear, full liberty of producing witnesses and
proofs and of making his defence by himself and counsel;
and may also, upon his refusing or neglecting to appear, hear
the proofs in support of the impeachment, and render judg-
ment thereon, his nonappearance notwithstanding; and such
judgment shall have the same force and effect as if the person
impeached had appeared and pleaded in the trial.
Art. 38. Their judgment, however, shall not extend
further than removal from office, disqualification to hold or
enjoy any place of honor, trust, or profit under this state; but
the party so convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable to indict-
ment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to the
laws of the land.
Art. 39. Whenever the governor shall be impeached, the
(fhief justice of the supreme judicial court shall, during the
trial, preside in the senate, but have no vote therein.
EXECUTIVE POWER. QOVERNOR.
Art. 40. There shall be a supreme executive magistrate,
who shall be styled Governor of the State of New Hampshire,
and whose title shall be His Excellency.
Appendix. 641
Art. 41. The governor shall be chosen biennially, in the
month 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 representatives on
the first Wednesday of January, to be by them examined ; and,
in case of an election by a plurality of votes through the
state, the choice shall be by them declared* iind published;
and the qualifications of electors of the governor shall be
the same as those for senators; and, if no person shall have
a plurality of votes, the senate and house of representatives
shall, by a joint ballot, elect one of the two persons having the
highest number of votes, who shall be declared governor.
And no person shall be eligible to this office unless, at the
time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this
state for seven years next preceding, and unless he shall be
of the age of thirty years.
Art. 42. In cases of disagreement between the two
houses with regard to the time or place of adjournment or pro-
rogation, the governor with advice of council, shall have the
right to adjourn or prorogue the general court, not exceeding
ninety days at any one time, as he may determine the public
good may require; and he shall dissolve the same seven days
before the said first Wednesday of January. And, in case
of any infectious distemper prevailing in the place where the
said court at any time is to onvene, or any other cause where-
by dangers may arise to the health or lives of the members
from their attendance, the governor may direct the session
to be holden at some other, the most convenient, place with-
in the state.
Art. 43. Every bill which shall have passed both houses
of the general court shall, before it becomes a law, be pre-
sented to the governor; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if
not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in
which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections
at large on their journal and proceed to reconsider it. If,
642 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall agree
to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with such objec-
tions, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be recon-
sidered; and, if approved by two thirds of that house, it shall
become a law. But, in all such cases, the votes of both hu-ases
shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the
persons voting for or against the bill shall be entered on the
journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be
returned by the governor within five days (Sundays excepted)
after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a
law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the legisla-
ture, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case
it shall not be a law.
Art. 44. Every resolve shall be presented to the governor,
and, before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by
him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by the
senate and house of representatives, according to the rules
and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Art. 45. All judicial officers, the attorney-general, coro-
ners, and all officers of the navy and general and field officers
of the militia, shall be nominated and appointed by the gov-
ernor and council; and every such nomination shall be made
at least three days prior to such appointment; and no appoint-
ment shall take place unless a majority of the council agree
thereto.
Art. 46. The governor and council shall have a negative
on each other, both in the nominations and appointments.
Every nomination and appointment shall be signed by the
governor and council, and every negative shall be also signed
by the governor or council who made the same.
Art. 47. The captains and subalterns in the respective
regiments shall be nominated and recommended by the field
officers to the governor, who is to issue their coonmissions
immediately on receipt of such recommendation; provided,
that no person shall be so nominated and recommended until
Appendix. 643
he shall have been examined and found duly qualified by an
examining board appointed by the governor.
Art. 48. Whenever the chair of the governor shall become
vacant, by reason of his death, absence from the state, or
otherwise, the president of the senate shall, during such va-
cancy, have and exercise all the powers and authorities, which,
by this constitution, the governor is vested with when pr r-
sonally present; but, when the president of the senate shall
exercise the office of governor, he shall not hold his office in
the senate. Whenever the chair both of the governor and
of the president of the senate shall become vacant, by reason
of their death, absence from the state, or otherwise, the
speaker of the house shall, during such vacancies, have and
exercise all the powers and authorities which, by this consti-
tution, the governor is vested with when personally present;
but when the speaker of the house shall exercise the c:T:ce of
ciovernor, he shall not hold his office in the house.
Art. 49. The governor, with advice of council, shall have
full power and authority, in recess of the general court, to
prorogue the same from time to time, not exceeding ninety
days in any one recess of said court; and, during the session*
of said court, to adjourn or prorogue it to any time the two
houses may desire; and to call it together sooner than the time
to which it may be adjourned or prorogued, if the welfare of
the state should require the same.
Art. 50. The governor of this state, for the time being,
shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy and all the
military forces of the state by sea and land; and shall have
full power, by himself or by any chief commander or other
officer or officers, from time to time to train, instruct, exer-
cise, and govern the militia and navy; and for the special
defense and safety of this state, to assemble in martial array
and put in warlike posture the inhabitants thereof, and to
lead and conduct them, and with them to encounter, repulse,
repel, resist, and pursue by force of arms, as well by sea as
644 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
by land, within and without the limits of this state; and also
to kill, slay, destroy, if necessary, and conquer, by all fitting
ways, enterprise, and means, all and every such person and
persons as shall at any time hereafter, in a hostile manner,
attempt or enterprise the destruction, invasion, detriment
or annoyance of this state; and to use and exercise over the
army and navy and over the militia in actual service the law
martial, in time of war, invasion, and also in rebellion declared
by the legislature to exist, as occasion shall necessarily re-
quire; and surprise, by all ways and means whatsoever, all
and every such person or persons, with their ships, arms, am-
munition, and other goods, as shall, in a hostile manner,
invade, or attempt the invading, conquering, or annoying this
state; and, in fine, the governor hereby is instructed with all
other powers incident to the office of captain-general and
comimander-in-chief and admiral, to be exercised agreeably to
the rules and regulations of the constitution and laws of the
land, provided, that the governor shall not at any time here-
after, by virtue of any power by this constitution 'granted, or
hereafter to be granted to him by the legislature, transport
any of the inhabitants of this state or oblige them to march
out of the limits of the same without their free and volun-
tary consent or the consent of the general court, nor grant
commissions for exercising the law martial in any case with-
out the advice and consent of the council.
Art. 51. The power of pardoning offenses, except such as
persons may be convicted of before the senate, by impeach-
ment of the house, shall be in the governor, by and with
the advice of council; but no charter of pardon, granted by the
governor, with advice of council, before conviction, shall avail
the party pleading the same, notwithstanding any general or
particular expressions contained therein, descriptive of the
ofi'ense or offenses intended to be pardoned.
Art. 52. No officer, duly commissioned to command in
the militia, shall be removed from his office but by the ad-
Appendix. 646
dress of both houses to the governor or by fair trial in court
martial pursuant to the laws of the state for the time being.
Art. 53. The commanding officers of the regiments
shall appoint their adjutants and quartermasters; the brig-
adiers, their brigade-majors; the major-generals, their aids;
the captains and subalterns, their non-commissioned officers.
Akt. 54. The division of the militia into brigades, regi-
ments, and companies, made in pursuance of the militia laws
now in force, shall be considered as the proper division of
the militia of this state, until the same shall be altered by
some future law.
Art. 55. No moneys shall be issued out of the treasury
of this state and disposed of (except such sujms as may be
appropriated for the redemption of bills, of credit or treas-
urer's notes, or for the payment of interest arising thereon)
but by warrant under the hand of the governor for the time
being, by and with the advice and consent of the council, for
the necessary support and defense of this state and for the
necessary protection and preservation of the inhabitants
thereof, agreeably to the acts and resolves of the general
court.
Art. 56. All public boards, the commissary-general, all
superintending officers of public magazines and stores belong-
ing to this state, and all commanding officers of forts and gar-
risons within the same shall, once in every three months,
officially and without requisition, and at other times when re-
quired by the governor, deliver to him an account of all
goods, stores, nrovisions, ammunition, cannon with their ap-
pendages, and all s(mall arms with their accoutrements, and
all other public property under their care respectively, dis-
tinguishing the quantity and kind of each as particularly as
may be, together with the condition of such forts and garri-
sons. And the commanding officer shall exhibit to the gov-
ernor, when required by him, true and exact plans of such
forts, and of the land and sea, or harbor or harbors adjacent.
6^6 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Art. 57. The governor and council shall be compensated
for their services, from time to time, by such grants as the
general court shall think reasonable.
Art. 58. Permanent and honorable salaries shall be es-
tablished by law for the justices of the superior court.
COUNCIL.
Art. 59. There shall be biennially elected by ballot five
councilors, for advising the governor in the executive part
of government. The free holders and other inhabitants in
each county, qualified to vote far senators, shall, some time in
the month of ISTovember, give in their votes for one councilor,
which votes shall be received, sorted, counted, certified, and
returned to the secretary's office, in the same manner as the
votes for senators, to be by the secretary laid before the sen-
ate and house of representatives on the first Wednesday of
January.
Art. 60. And the person having a plurality of votes in
any county shall be considered as duly elected a councilor;
but, if no person shall have a plurality of votes in any county,
the senate and house of representatives shall take the names
of the two persons who have the highest number of votes in
each county and not elected, and out of those two shall elect,
by joint ballot, the councilor wanted for the county; and the
qualifications for councilors shall be the same as for senator.
Art. 61. If any person thus chosen a councilor shall be
elected governor or member of either branch of the legisla-
ture and shall accept the trust, or if any person elected a
councilor shall refuse to accept the office, or in case of the
death, resignation, or removal of any councilor out of the
state, the governor may issue a precept for the election of a new
councilor in that county where such vacancy shall happen;
and the choice shall be in the same manner as before directed;
and the governor shall have full power and authority to con-
Appendix. 647
vene the council, from time to time, at his discretion; and
with them or the majority of them, may and shall, from time
tO' time, hold a council for ordering and directing the affairs
of the state, according to the laws of the land.
Art. 62. The me/mbers of the council may be impeached
by the house and tried by the senate for bribery, corruption,
malpractice, or maladministration.
Aet. 63. The resolutions and advice of the council
shall be recorded by the secretary in a register, and signed
by all the members present agreeing thereto; and this rcord
may be called for at any time by either house of the legis-
lature; and any member of the council may enter his opinion
contrary to the resolution of the majority, with the reasons
for such opinion.
Art. 64. The legislature may, if the public good shall
hereafter require it, divide the state into five districts as
nearly equal as may be, governing themselves by the number
of population, each district to elect a councilor; and, in case
of such division, the manner of the choice shall be conforma-
ble to the present mode of election in counties.
Art. 65. And, whereas the elections appointed to be made
by this constitution on the first Wednesday of January bien-
nially, by the two houses of the legislature, may be completed
on that day, the said elections may be adjourned from day to
day until the same be completed. And the order of the elec-
tions shall be as follows: The vacancies in the senate, if
any, shall be first filled up ; the governor shall then be elected,
provided there shall be no choice of him by the people; and
afterwards, the two houses shall proceed to fill up the vacancy,
if any, in the council.
^SECRETTiART, ^TREASURER, CX)MMISSL1RY-GENERAL, JFTC.
Art. 66. The secretary, treasurer, and commissary-gener-
al shall be chosen by joint ballot of the senators and repre-
sentatives, assembled in one room.
648 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Art. 67. The records of the state shall be kept in the
office of the secretary; and he shall attend the governor and
council, the senate and representatives, in person or by dep-
uty, as they may require.
Art. 68. The secretary of the state shall at all times have
a deputy, to be by him appointed, for whose conduct in office
he shall be responsible ; and, in case of the death, removal, or
inability of the secretary, his deputy shall exercise all the
duties of the office of secretary of this state until another
shall be appointed.
Art. 69. The secretary, before he enters upon the busi-
ness of his office, shall give bond, with sufficient sureties, in
a reasonable sum, for the use of the state, for the punctual
performance of his trust.
OOTIN"TT TREASURERS, ETC.
Art. 70. The county treasurers, registers of probate, so-
licitors, sheriffs, and registers of deeds shall be elected by the
inhabitants of the several towns in the several counties in
the state, according to the method now practiced and the
laws of the state; provided, nevertheless, the legislature shall
have authority to alter the manner of certifying the votes
and the mode of electing those officers, but not so as to deprive
the people of the right they now have of electing them.
Art. 71. And the legislature, on the application of the
major part of the inhabitants of any county, shall have au-
thority to divide the same into two districts for registering
deeds, if to them it shall appear necessary, each district to
elect a register of deeds; and, before they enter upon the busi-
ness of their offices, shall be respectively sworn faithfully to
discharge the duties thereof, and shall severally give bond,
with sufficient sureties, in a reasonable sum, for the use of
the county, for the punctual performance of their respective
trusts.
Appendix. 649
JUDICIARY POWER.
Art. 72. The tenure that all commissioned officers shall
have by law in their offices shall be expressed in their respec-
tive commissions. All judicial officers, duly appointed, com-
missioned, and sworn, shall hold their offices during good
behavior, excepting those concerning whom there is a differ-
ent provision made in this constitution; provided^ nevertheless,
the governor, with consent of council, may remove them upon
the address of both houses of the legilature.
Art. 73. Each branch of the legislature, as well as the
governor and council, shall have authority to require the
opinions of the justices of the superior court upon important
questions of law and upon solemn o.ccasions.
Art. 74. ■ In order that the people may not suffer from
the long continuance in place of any justice of the peace who
shall fail in discharging the important duties of his office
with ability and fidelity, all commissions of justices of the
peace shall become void at the expiration of five years from
their respective dates; and upon the expiration of any com-
mission, the same may, if necessary, be renewed, or another
person appointed, as shall most conduce to the well being of
the state.
Art. 75. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony,
and all appeals from the respective judges of probate, shall
be heard and tried by the superior court, until the legislature
shall by law make other provision.
Art. 76. The general court are empowered to give to
justices of the peace jurisdiction in civil causes, when the
damages demanded shall not exceed one hundred dollars and
title of real estate is not concerned, but with right of appeal to
either party to some other court and the general court are
further empowered to give to police courts original jurisdic-
tion 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.
850 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Art. 77. No person shall hold the office of judge of any
court, or judge of probate, or sheriff of any county, after he
has attained the age of seventy years.
Art. 78. 'No judge of any court or justice of the peace
shall act as attorney, or be of counsel to any party, or origi-
nate any civil suit, in matters which shall come or be brought
before him as judge or justice of the peace.
Art. 79. All matters relating to the probate of wills and
granting letters of administration shall be exercised by the
judges of probate in such manner as the legislature have
directed or may hereafter direct; and the judges of probate
shall hold their courts at such place or places, on such fixed
days as the conveniency -of the people may require and the
legislature from time to time appoint.
Art. 80. No judge or register of probate shall be of coun-
sel, act as advocate, or receive any fees as advocate or counsel,
in any probate business which is pending or may be brought
into any court of probate in the county of which he is judge
or register.
CLERKS OF courts.
Art. 81. The judges of the courts (those of probate ex-
cepted) shall appoint their respective clerks, to hold their
ofRce during pleasure; and no such clerk shall act as an at-
torney or be of counsel in any cause in the court of which he
is a clerk, nor shall he draw any writ originating a civil action.
ENOOUItAOEMENT OF LITERATURE, ETC.
Art. 82. Knowledge and learning generally diffused
through a community being essential to the preservation of
a free, government, and spreading the opportunities ana ad
vantages of education through the various parts of the country
being highly conducive to promote this end, it shall be the
duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods
of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and
the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools; to encour-
Appendix. 661
age private and public institutions, rewards, and immunities
for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce,
trades, manufactures, and natural history, of the country; to
countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and
general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and
economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobriety, and all
social aifections and generous sentiments, among the people;
provided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxation shall
ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or insti-
tutions of any religious sect or denomination. Ftcc and fair
competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and
essential right of the people and should be protected against
all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or de-
stroy it. The size and functions of all corporations should
be so limited and regulated as to prohibit fictitious capitaliza-
tion, and provision should be made for the supervision and
government thereof: — ^Therefore, all just power possessed by
the state is hereby granted to the general court to enact laws
to prevent the operations within the state of all persons and
associaions, and all trusts and corporations, foreign and domes-
tic, and the officers thereof, who endeavor to raise the price
of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair compe-
tition in the trades and industries through combination, con-
spiracy, monopoly, or any other unfair means; to control and
regulate the acts of all such persons, associations, corpora-
tions, trusts, and officials doing business within the state; to
prevent fictitious capitalization; and to authorize civil and
criminal proceedings in respect to all the wrongs herein de-
clared against.
O'ATHS AND SUBSORIPTION-S. EXCLUSION FROM OFFICES. —
COMMISSIONS. — ^WRITS. — ^CONFIRMATION OF iLAWS. — HABEAS
OORPTJiS. — THE EiNACTINO STYLE. — CONTIINFANCE OF OFFI-
CERS. — PROVISION FOR A FUTURE REVISION OF THE CONSTI-
TUTION, ETC.
Art. 83. Any person chosen governor, councilo.r, senator,
or representative, military or civil officer (town officers ex-
652 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
cepted), accepting the trust, shall, before he proceeds to exe-
cute the duties of his office, make and subscribe the following
declarations, viz.: —
I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will bear faith and true
allegiance to the state of New Hampshire and will support
the constitution thereof. 80 help me God.
I, A. B, do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that 1
will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the
duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of
my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this
constitution and the laws of the state of New Hampshire. So
help ine God.
Any person having taken and subscribed the oath of alle-
giance, and the same being filed in the secretary's office, he
shall not be obliged to take said oath again.
Provided, always, when any person chosen or appointed as
aforesaid shall be of the denomination called Quakers, or shall
be scrupulous of swearing and shall decline taking the said
oaths, such person shall take and subscribe them, omitting
the word "swear,'' and likewise the words "So help me God,"
subjoining instead thereof, "Tliis I do under the pains and
penalties of perjury."
Art. 84. And the oaths or affirmations shall be taken and
subscribed by the governor, before the president of the senate,
in presence of both houses of the legislature ; and by the sen-
ators and representatives first elected under this constitution,
as altered and amended, before the president of the state and
a majority of the council then in office, and forever afterward
before the governor and council for the time being; and by all
other officers, before such persons and in such manner as the
legislature shall from time to time appoint.
Art. 85. All commissions shall be in the name of the
state of New Hampshire, signed by the governor, and attested
by the secretary or his deputy, and shall have the great seal
of the state affixed thereto.
Appendix. 653
Art. 86. All writs issuing out of the clerk's office, in any
of the courts of law, shall be in the name of the state of Xew
Hampshire, shall be under the seal of the court whence they
issue, and bear teste of the chief, first or senior justice of the
court: but, when such justice shall be interested, then the
writ shall bear teste of some other justice of the court, to
which the same shall be returnable; and be signed by the
clerk of such court.
Art. 87. All indictments, presentments, and information
shall conclude, "against the peace and dignity of the state."
Art. 88. The estate of such persons as may destroy their
own lives shall not for that offense be forfeited, but descend
or ascend in the same manner as if such persons had died in a
natural way. Nor shall any article which shall accidentally
occasion the death of any person be henceforth deemed a
deodand, or in any wise forfeited on account of such misfor-
tune.
Art. 89. All the laws which have heretofore been
adopted, used, and approved in the province, colony, or state
of New Hampshire, and usually practiced on in the courts of
law, shall remain and be in full force until altered and re-
pealed by the legislature, such parts thereof only excepted as
are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this
constitution; provided, that nothing herein contained, when
compared with the twenty-third article in the bill of rights,
shall be construed to affect the laws already made respecting
the persons or estates of absentees.
Art. 90. The privilege and benefit of the habeas corpus
shall be enjoyed in this state in the most free, easy, cheap,
expeditious, and ample manner, and shall not be suspended
by the legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing
occasions, and for a time not exceeding three months.
Art. 91. The enacting style, in making and passing acts,
statutes, and laws, shall be, Be it enacted hy the senate and
house of representatives in general court convened.
Qbi JouKNAL OF Constitutional Convention.
Art. 92. No governor or judge of the supreme judicial
court shall hold any office or place under the authority of this
state, except such as by this constitution they are admitted to
hold, saving that the judges of the said court may hold the
offices of justices of the peace throughout the state; noj* shall
they hold any place or office or receive any pension or salary
from any other state, government, or power whatever.
Art. 93. No person shall be capable of exercising at the
same time more than one of the following offices within this
state, viz: judge of probate, sheriff, register of deeds; and
never more than two offices of profit, which imay be held by
appointment of the governor, or governor and council, or sen-
ate and house of representatives, or superior or inferior
courts, military offices and offices of justices of the peace
excepted.
Art. 94. No person holding the office of judge of any
court (except special judges), secretary, treasurer of the state,
attorney-general, commissary-general, military officers receiv-
ing pay from the continent or this state (excepting officers
of the militia occasionally called forth on an emergency), reg-
ister of deeds, sheriff, or officers of the customs, including
naval officers, collectors of excise and state and continental
taxes hereafter appointed, and not having settled their ac-
counts with the respective officers with whom it is their duty
to settle such accounts, members of congress, or any person
holding any office under the United States, shall at the same
time hold the office of governor, or have a seat in the senate
or house of representatives or council; but his being chosen
and appointed to and accepting the same shall operate as a
resignation of their seat in the chair, senate, or house of repre-
sentatives, or council, and the place so vacated shall be filled
up. No member of the council shall have a seat in the sen-
ate or house of representatives.
Art. 95. No person shall ever be admitted to hold a seat
in the legislature, or any office of trust or importance under
this government, who, in the due course of law, has been con-
Appendix. 655
victed of bribery or corruption in obtaining an election or
appointment.
Art. 96. In all cases where sums of money are mentioned
in this constitution, the value thereof shall be computed in
silver at six shillings and eight pence per ounce.
Art. 97. To the end that there may be no failure of jus-
tice or danger to the state by the alterations and amendments
made in the constitution, the general court is hereby fully au-
thorized and directed to fix the time when the alterations and
amendments shall take effect, and miake the necessary arrange-
ments accordingly..
Art. 98. It shall be the duty of the selectmen and as-
sessors of the several towns and places in this state, in warn-
ing the first annual meetings for the choice of senators, after
the expiration of seven years from the adoption of this consti-
tution as amended, to insert expressly in the warrant this pur-
pose among the others for the meeting, to wit: to take the
sense of the qualifiied voters on the subject of a revision of
the constitution; and, the meeting being warned accordingly,
and not otherwise, the moderator shall take the sense of the
qualified voters present as to the necessity of a revision; and
a return of the number of votes for and against such necessity
shall be anade by the clerks, sealed up and directed to the
general court at their then next session ; and if it shall appear
to the general court by such return that the sense of the
people of the state has been taken, and that, in the opinion
of a majority of the qualified voters in the state present and
voting at said meetings, there is a necessity for a revision
of the constitution, it shall be the duty of the general court
to call a convention for that purpose; otherwise the general
court shall direct the sense of the people to be taken, and
then proceed in the manner before mentioned; the delegates
to be chosen in the same manner and proportioned as the
representatives to the general court; provided, that no altera-
tion shall be made in this constitution before the same shall
656 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
be laid before the towns and unincorporated places and ap-
proved by two thirds of the qualified voters present and vot-
ing on the subject.
Art. 99. And the same method of taking the sense of the
people as to a revision of the constitution, and calling a con-
vention for that purpose, shall be observed afterward, at the
expiration of every seven years.
Art. 100. This farm of government shall be enrolled on
parchment and deposited in the secretary's office, and be a
part of the laws of the land, and printed copies thereof shall
be prefixed to the books containing the laws of this state in
all future editions thereof.
ERRATA.
Page 6, line 5 from bottom, read Frederick Pickering- for
"Frederick H. Pickering."
Page 13, line 12, read John P. Lampron for "James P. Lamp-
ron."
Page 14, line 4, read Willard H. Pierce for "William H. Pierce."
Page 17, line 8, read Johannes J. Haarvei for "Jonathan J.
Haarvei."
Page 149, line 6, read Constitution for "Convention."
Page 200, line 23, read Parker of Merrimack for "Barker of
Merrimack."
Page 481, line 9, read question for "motion."
Page 547, line 4 from bottom, read holder for "builder."
Page 557, line 19, read recommendation for "report."
. INDEX.
I. Index of Names of Places.
II. Index of Names of Persons.
III. Index of Subjects.
IV. Index of Resolutions.
I.
INDEX OF NAMES OF PLACES.
INDEX OF NAMES OF PLACES.
Acworth 15, 202, 376, 431
Albany 9
Alexandria 15
Allenstown 9, 377, 430
Alstead 14
Alton 8, 201, 376, 430
Amherst 11
Andover 9, 21, 84, 125, 195, 200, 275, 304
318, 319, 321, 377, 404, 430, 491
Antrim 11
Ashland 15
Atkinson 6
Auburn 6
Bamstead 8, 201, 376, 432
Barrington 7, 201, 376, 430
Bartlett 9, 201, 376, 430
Bath 15, 337
Bedford il
Belmont 8, 21, 84, 127, 200, 377, 414, 430
Bennington 11, 85, 432
Benton 15, 85, 201, 378, 433
Berlin 17, 20, 51, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 177, 202, 203
241, 299, 324, 334, 348, 375, 377, 379, 386, 392, 394
397, 431, 433, 459, 460, 476, 490, 524, 531, 538, 539
Betlehem 15, 273
Boscawen 9, 83, 94, 409
Bow 9, 36, 37
Bradford 9
Brentwood 6
Bristol •. 15
Brookfield 9
Brookline 11, 83
Campton 15
663
664 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Canaan 15, 21, 77, 85, 135, 378, 424, 433
Candia 6, 377, 431
Canterbury 9, 20, 200, 377, 432
Carroll 17
Centre Harbor 8, 377, 430, 432
Charlestown 15, 85, 202, 337, 379, 421, 431, 476, 539
Chatham 9
Chester 6
Chesterfield 14
Chichester 9, 85, 200, 377, 432
Claremont 15, 19, 21, 65, 66, 75, 76, 83, 84, 86, 87, 93, 94, 98, 99
107, 108, 109, 114, 178, 202, 203, 376, 379, 390
391, 398, 400, 401, 407, 430, 431, 475, 480, 545
Clarksville 17
Colebrook 17, 21, 84, 201, 378, 400, 433, 460, 461, 466, 495
Columbia 17
Concord 3, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32
33, 36, 37, 45, 52, 59, 60, 61, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74
78, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 97, 106, 114, 115, 116
118, 151, 165, 175, 176, 178, 193, 194, 195, 197
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 211, 213, 216, 222
224, 225, 226, 267, 270, 271, 272, 273, 277, 278
279, 287, 300, 307, 311, 312, 313, 315, 320, 323
335, 336, 338, 339, 341, 345, 352, 364, 375, 376
377, 382, 388, 389, 390, 408, 415, 418, 419, 427
430, 432, 433, 435, 436, 437, 453, 456, 457, 458
459, 460, 474, 480, 481, 485, 492, 493, 494, 495
497, 508, 511, 513, 515, 519, 533, 534, 539, 540
541, 542, 549, 550, 551, 553, 556, 557
Conway 9, 21, 83, 334
Cornish 15, 111
Croydon 15, 200, 378, 432
Dalton 17, 202, 377
Danbury. . . .10, 125, 197, 203, 259, 278, 398, 400, 407, 411, 471, 475, 489
Danville 6, 201, 377
Deerfield 6, 201, 205, 430
Deering 11
Derry 6, 85
Dorchester 15
Dover 3, 4, 7, 20, 21, 67, 72, 83, 84, 85
151,152, 199, 200, 225, 226, 311, 314, 377
430, 431, 433, 437, 438, 443, 455, 462, 479
Dublin 14, 202, 378, 432
Index. 665
Dummer 17, 85
Dunbarton 9, 138, 262, 441
Durham 7, 18, 83
East Kingston 6
Easton 15, 84, 378, 433
Eaton 9
Effingham 9
Ellsworth 15
Enfield 15
Epping 6, 81, 83, 378
Epsom 10, 84
Errol 17
Exeter 3, 6, 18, 20, 21, 44, 58, 65, 69, 83, 84, 99, 106
199, 202, 216, 231, 300, 322, 326, 338, 340, 341, 377
378, 384, 409, 410, 430, 431, 450, 482, 485, 536, 539
Farmington 7, 8, 201, 377, 430
Fitzwilliam 5, 14, 44, 83
Francestown 11, 85
Franconia 16
Franklin 4, 10, 34, 37, 81, 84, 118, 144, 151
197, 201, 273, 278, 312, 375, 376, 383
408, 430, 432, 436, 442, 477, 495, 499
Freedom 9
Fremont 4, 6, 22, 85, 203, 539
Gilford 8, 85, 200, 377, 432
Gilmanton 8, 85
Gilsum 14
Goffstown 11, 64, 83, 292, 470, 543
Gorham 17, 20, 83, 379
Goshen 15, 330
Grafton 16, 201, 378, 431
Grantham 15
Greenfield 11
Greenland f>
Greenville 11, 201, 432
Groton 16, 201, 378, 433
Hampstead 6
Hampton 6
Hampton Falls 6
Hancock 11
666 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Hanover 16, 66, 109, 110, 273, 502
Harrisville 14, 20
Hart's Location 9
Haverhill 3, 16, 20, 21, 25, 37, 53, 54, 60, 61, 64, 85, 118
144, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 224, 270, 274
276, 277, 313, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 328, 330
338, 358, 376, 389, 391, 403, 404, 410, 411, 430
431, 444, 481, 506, 522, 527, 539, 542
Hebron 16, 201, 378
Henniker 10, 85
Hill 10, 433
Hillsborough 11, 85, 535
Hinsdale 5, 14, 21, 200, 378
Holderness 16
Hollis 11, 85, 224, 273, 476
Hooksett 10, 201, 376, 431
Hopkinton 10, 85
Hudson 11, 200, 377, 432
Jackson '. 9
Jaffrey 14, 27, 30, 50, 151, 152, 165, 169, 171, 173, 174, 179
194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 238, 328, 342, 343, 351
367, 370, 375, 378, 395, 406, 432, 461, 472, 528, 543
Jefferson 17, 202, 378, 433
Keene 5, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 57, 83, 84, 176
200, 277, 319, 320, 321, 323, 327, 330, 331, 332
333, 336, 378, 386, 432, 443, 447, 452, 477, 539
Kensington 6, 84, 105, 165, '262, 321, 327, 350, 553
Kingston 6, 199, 377, 431
Laconia 4, 8, 20, 21, 22, 36, 37, 83, 84, 128, 142, 200
221, 244, 360, 377, 430, 432, 440, 443, 505, 511
Lancaster 5, 17, 21, 39, 40, 83, 84, 218, 274, 276, 341, 342
375, 379, 460, 470, 471, 496, 522, 527, 535
Landaff 16, 54, 83, 91, 92, 143, 182, 202, 217, 224, 226
227, 267, 279, 290, 371, 376, 391, 425, 431, 453, 460
467, 470, 471, 473, 475, 481, 482, 487, 489, 498, 532
Langdon 15, 42, 43, 121, 124, 167, 331
Lebanon 5, 16, 55, 83, 124, 273, 453, 461, 532
Lee 8
Lempster 4, 15, 202, 376, 431
Lincoln 16
Lisbon 16, 84, 179, 205', 272, 489, 537
Index. 667
Litchfield 11, 201
Littleton 5, 16, 20, 21, 84, 202, 376, 378, 433, 477
Loudon 10
Londonderry 6, 84, 193, 199, 201, 309, 314
480, 490, 545, 550, 551, 552
Lynian 16, 201, 378, 431
Lyme 16, 202, 378, 433
Lyndeborough 11, 85
Madbury 8, 201, 376, 431
Madison 9, 201, 334, 376, 430, 539
Manchester 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37
38, 39, 40, 41, 56, 58, 60, 63, 65, 70, 72, 73, 74
80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90 ,98, 102, 114, 116, 117
136, 197, 200, 201, 202, 216, 218, 220, 221, 222
223, 224, 225, 227, 231, 267, 268, 272, 274, 275
276, 277, 278, 283, 311, 312, 315, 316, 320, 331
336, 375, 376, 377, 378, 386, 389, 392, 395, 401
402, 406, 407, 408, 431, 432, 433, 439, 442, 444
445, 446, 449, 452, 457, 475, 476, 477, 491, 495
500, 509, 511, 519, 529, 530, 531, 538, 539, 552
553, 554, 557
Marlborough 14, 84, 200, 378, 432
Marlow 14, 84, 430
Mason 13
Meredith 8,37
Merrimack 13, 200, 378, 432
Middleton 8, 65
Milan 17
Milford 5, 13, 43, 44, 49, 52, 64, 78, 79, 84, 85, 178
197, 198, 199, 202, 273, 332, 376, 431
446, 447, 456, 457, 477, 499, 508, 510
Milton 8
Monroe 16,21
Mont Vernon 13, 376, 432
Moultonborough 9, 20, 83, 200, 37-7, 430, 432, 476
Nashua 5, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 34, 45, 56, 61, 64, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 97, 136, 148, 150, 191, 192
194, 196, 200, 202, 274, 275, 277, 318, 319
328, 330, 331, 367, 375, 376, 378, 379, 385
385, 387, 400, 404, 408, 428, 430, 431, 43^
433, 454, 474, 477, 481, 520, 542
668 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Nelson 14
New Boston 13, 200, 431
Newbury 10, 85, 337, 411, 413
Newcastle 6
New Durham 8, 200, 377, 431
Newfields 6, 143, 151, 197, 203, 300, 337, 555
New Hampton 9
Newington 6, 106
New Ipswich 13, 48, 54, 72, 135, 180, 202, 287, 363, 376, 431
New London 10, 85, 348, 376, 431
Newmarket 6, 20, 58, 76, 84, 104, 105, 170, 171, 174, 194
202, 296, 32.1, 322, 323, 330, 431, 523, 534
Newport 4, 6, 15, 20, 21, 22, 51, 53, 72, 80, 83, 141, 142
184, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 283, 294, 325, 335
336, 373, 375, 378, 379, 390, 391, 392, 407, 430
432, 484, 485, 518, 519, 530, 533, 534, 538, 540
Newton 6
Northfield 10, 200, 377, 432, 477
North Hampton 6
Northumberland 17
Northwood 7, 85, 134, 322, 330, 331, 336, 529
Nottingham 7, 201, 376, 431
Orange 16
Orf ord 16
Ossipee 4, 9, 84, 200
Pelham 13, 197, 200, 203, 378, 431, 457, 554
Pembroke 4, 10, 21, 83, 88, 200, ^31, 337, 377
401, 432, 477, 478, 479, 499, 509
Peterborough 13, 84, 140, 172, 174, 200, 202, 242
296, 369, 375, 378, 431, 463
Piermont 16, 277
Pittsburg 17
Pittsfield 10, 188, 191, 192, 200, 201, 284, 296
358, 376, 377, 431, 432, 471, 494
Plainfield 15, 150, 151, 274
Plaistow 7, 377, 431
Plymouth 16, 378
Portsmouth 4, 7, 83, 84, 95, 97, 101, 106, 116, 202, 203
204, 213, 216, 218, 220, 313, 314, 315, 320, 321, 323
330, 331, 375, 376, 377, 384, 430, 431, 457, 474, 495
■Randolph 17
Index. 669
Raymond 7, 201, 377, 431
Richmond 14
Rindge 14
Rochester 4, 8, 83, 237, 273, 377, 432
Rollinsford 8, 376, 430
Roxbury 14, 200, 378, 432
Rumney 16, 22, 136, 174
Rye 7, 201, 431
Salem 7, 84, 431
Salisbury 11, 84, 201, 378, 431
Sanbornton 9, 433, 476
Sandown 7, 22
Sandwich 4, 9, 21, 84, 310
Seabrook 7
Sharon 13, 202, 376, 431
Shelburne 17
Somersworth 8, 20, 21, 84, 376, 432
South Hampton 7, 199, 377, 431
Spring-field 15
Stark 17, 85
Stewartstown 17
Stoddard 14, 85, 378, 430, 432
Strafford 8
Stratford 17, 84, 201, 373
Stratham 7
Sullivan 14
Sunapee 15, 202, 376, 431
Surry 14, 41, 43, 58, 84, 87, 99, 327, 332, 379, 499
Sutton 11, 86, 200, 377, 432
Swanzey 14, 200, 258, 378, 432
I
Tamworth 9
Temple 13
Thornton 16, 201, 433
Tilton 4, 5, 9, 32, 33, 34, 45, 50, 52, 53, 67, 69, SO
83, 95, 115, 225, 280, 283, 460, 463, 466, 550
Troy 14, 85, 378, 432
Tuftonborough 9, 76, 84, 103, 527
Unity 15, 20, 84
Wakefield 9, 200, 4^2
Walpole 5, 14, 21, 45, 200, 378, 432
670 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Warner 11, 83
Warren 16, 83, 95, 171, 293, 333, 359, 401, 402
Washington 15
Waterville 16, 201, 378, 431
Weare 13, 200, 432
Webster 11
Wentworth 16, 20, 84, 136, 201, 378, 433
Westmoreland 14, 200, 378, 431
Whitefield 5, 17, 83, 437
Wilmot 11
Wilton ; 13, 83
Winchester 14
Windham 7, 151
Windsor 13
Wolfeboro 9, 20, 52, 78, 79, 84, 85, 108, 139, 145
146, 147, 196, 201, 221, 260, 272, 300
305, 322, 353, 368, 376, 430, 522, 544
Woodstock 16, 202, 203, 376, 431
II.
INDEX OF NAMES OF PEESONS.
INDEX OF NAMES OF PEESONS.
Abbott, Sewall W 9, 84, 200, 368, 377, 430
Ames, Samuel H 16, 202, 277
Anderson, Henry W 6, 20, 202, 377, 430
Andrews, Charles 13, 200, 378, 431
Andrews, Ralza E 9, 201, 376, 430
Avery, Vernie H 15, 433
Bailey, James H 5, 16, 21, 84, 202, 376, 433
Bailey, Murvin A 15, 202, 376, 431
Baker, Henry M 9, 36, 37
Baldwin, George W 17, 202, 377
Bales, George E 13, 83, 200, 378, 432
Ball, John P 14, 202, 376, 431
Bancroft, Charles P 10, 83, 200, 377, 430
Barney, Charles 15. 21, 77, 85, 135, 378, 424, 433
Barney, George S 16, 201, 378, 431
Bartlett, John F 22, 510
Barton, Jesse M v 4, 6, 15, 20, 51, 53, 72, 80, 83
141, 142, 184, 197, 198, 199, 202, 283, 294, 325
335, 336, 373, 375, 378, 390, 391, 394, 407, 430
432, 484, 485, 518, 519, 530, 533, 534, 538, 540
Batehelder, Charles H 7, 84, 101, 331, 377, 384, 430
Batchelder, Jonathan H 6, 201, 203, 430
Batehelder, Perley B 7, 201, 376, 431
Bean, Charles H 10, 81, 201, 376, 408, 432, 442
Bean, Edwin C 8, 21, 84, 127, 200, 377, 414, 430
Beaudoin, Aurelle 8, 376
Bennett, Arthur E 17, 202, 431
Benson, William H 6, 201, 376, 430
Berry, William W 9, 200, 377, 432
Berry, Zanello D 8, 200, 377, 431
Beverstock, Oscar D 22, 510
Biron, Theophile G 12, 85, 200, 378, 432
Blake, Amos J 5, 14, 44, 83, 200, 378, 431
Booth, Burk 15, 200, 330, 378, 432
)
673
674 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Boutwell, Arthur J 10, 85, 201, 338, 376, 431
Bowker, Mitehell H 5, 17, 83, 202, 378, 433, 437
Boynton, Harry E 7, 95, 97, 201, 204, 213, 216, 218
220, 313, 314, 315, 320, 321, 323
330, 375, 377, 431, 457, 474, 495
Broderiek, James A 5, 12, 21, 63, 201, 202, 223, 224, 283
376, 402, 406, 431, 457, 495, 552
Brooks,. Hartley L 15, 82, 202, 378, 431
Brown, Charles B 11, 200, 377, 432
Brown, Daniel J 11, 201, 432
Brown, Elisha R 7
Brown, Fred H 8, 20, 84, 376
Brown, Henry C 11, 200, 377, 432
Brown, William G 7, 201, 377, 431
Brummer, George Conrad 16, 202, 376, 431
Burkett, Ray E 22, 25, 510, 511
Burnham, Bradford 10, 138, 200, 262, 377, 432, 441
Busiel, John T 8, 128, 142, 200, 244, 360, 377, 432
Buxton, Willis G 9, 83, 94, 201, 376, 409, 433
Cain, Orville E 14, 20, 83, 378, 386, 477
Carey, Bernard W 22, 510
Carlton, Thomas J 15, 201, 378, 431
Carr, Robert 16, 201, 378, 433
Carroll, Edward H 11, 83, 200, 377, 432
Carter, William S 5, 16, 55, 83, 124, 201, 273
378, 433, 454, 461, 532
C^vanaugh, John B 12, 37, 38, 39, 58, 74, 83, 200
275, 276, 277, 331, 378, 395, 407
408, 431, 444, 445, 449, 529, 540
Chandler, Hazen 9, 200, 377, 432
Chatel, Joseph P 12, 85, 201, 378, 432
Chevrette, Joseph 12, 202, 376, 432
Clancy, Frank B 13, 202, 376, 431
Clark, Allan Chester 19, 510, 557
Clark, Edward Everett 10, 200, 377, 432
Clark, Edward M 16, 20, 85, 201, 376, 430, 431
Clark, Frank H 7, 201, 376, 430
Clark, Martin V. B 14, 200, 378, 432
Cleaveland, Fred C 5, 17, 21, 84, 202, 377, 431
Clement, Frank C 16, 83, 95, 171, 202, 293, 333
359, 376, 401, 402, 431
Clifford, Thomas F 4, 10, 20, 34, 84, 118, 144, 151, 197, 200, 273
278, 312, 375, 377, 383, 432, 436, 477, 495, 499
Index. 675
Clough, Don C 17, 202, 378, 433
Clough, Henry L 9, 20, 200, 377, 43^
Cochran, John E 7, 151, 377, 431
Colburn, Willie W 13, 200, 378, 431
Collins, Clarence M 6, 201, 377, 431
Collins, Leonard W 6, 199, 377, 431
Comings, Fenno B 15, 111, 202, 376, 431
Conner, Frank J 13, 376, 432
Connor, John J 12, 85, 116, 376
Connor, Martin 12, 201, 376, 432
Connors, Daniel W 5, 14, 21, 45, 202, 376
Corning, Charles K 10, 17, 31, 32, 69, 84, 86, 200, 377, 430
Cote, Louis P 8, 376, 432
Craig, Rockwell F 14, 84, 200, ST5, 430, 431
Crawford, John G 11, 32, 33, 35, 36, 56, 60, 70, 84, 85, 98
102, 117, 201, -216, 220, 222, 377, 442, 491
Curry, Eobert P 16, 202, 376, 431
Davis, Albert P 22,510
Davis, Edgar W 15, 200, 378, 432
Davis, William E 13, 48, 54, 72, 135, 180, 202, 287, 363, 376, 431
Dean, Harry G 10, 125, 197, 201, 203, 259, 278, 376
398, 400, 407, 411, 430, 471, 475, 4S9
DeGross, John H 15, 202, 337, 431
DeMerritt, Albert 7, 18, 83, 377
Demers, Odilon 12, 85, 378, 432
Dionne, Charles, Jr 13, 202, 376, 432
Donigan, Joseph A 10, 85, 200, 337, 377, 411, 413, 432
Donnelly, John J 12, 202, 376, 433
Dow, James R 6, 199, 377, 431
Drake, Albert H 7, 201, 377, 431
Drake, Benjamin F 4, 8, 21, 200, 377, 430
Drake, Nathaniel S 10, 188, 191, 192, 201, 284
296, 358, 376, 431, 471, 494
Drew, Irving W 17, 375, 378, 433
Ducharme, Joseph 13, 202, 376, 431
Dudley, Jason H 17, 21, 84, 201
Duncan, George H 14, 27, 30, 50, 151, 152, 165, 169, 171
173, 174, 179, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199
202, 238, 328, 342, 343, 367, 370, 375
376, 395, 406, 431, 461, 472, 528, .543
Durgin, Woodbury W 8, 201, 377. 430
Dutton, Edwin F , 11, 376, 432
Eagan, William B 12, 201, 37C, 431
676 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Eastman, Edwin G 3, 6, 18, 58, 65, 69, 84, 199
300, 322, 326, 338, 340, 341
377, 384, 430, 431, 450, 536
Eastman, Eugene B 7
Eastman, Richard T 16, 201, 378, 433
Eaton, Albert B 13, 202, 376, 431
Eldredge, Hiram W. . ^ 11,376
Emerson, Frank W 6, 199, 377, 431
Entwistle, William T 7, 84, 116, 202, 377, 431
Estes, Simeon M 8, 377, 430
Evans, Alfred E 17, 20, 83, 201, 379, 433
Fairbanks, Henry B 12, 200, 378, 433
Farrand, George E .9, 19, 85, 201, 376, 430
Faulkner, Robert' E 14, 84, 202, 376, 43,1
Fellows, William B 5, 9, 32 33, 34, 45, 50, 52, 53, 67
69, 80, 83, 95, 115, 200, 225, 280
283, 377, 432, 460, 463, 466, 550
Fessenden, Orville D 11, 83, 201, 342, 376, 431, 518
Fifield, Holmes B 9, 200, 334, 376, 432
Fisher, David 14, 376, 431
Flanagan, Michael P 8, 376, 432
Flanders, Charles S 11, 200, 377, 432, 535
Fletcher, Charles W 14, 200, 378, 432
Flint, William W 10, 25, 26, 27, 197, 200, 203, 432
Folsom, Ernest B 7, 84, 201, 376, 433, 437, 443, 462
Foote, Charles D 7, 201, 376, 431
Ford, Charles H 16, 201, 378, 431
Foss, Alonzo Melvin 7, 84, 200, 377, 431
JFowler, George W 4, 10, 20, 83, 88, 200, 231, 377
401, 432, 477, 478, 479, 499, 509
Fowler, Henry T 10, 377, 432
French, James E 9, 20, 83, 200, 377, 430, 432, 476
French, Robert A 13, 81, 82, 200, 378, 431, 477
Fuller, Arthur O 6, 21, 44, 83, 199, 216,231
409, 410, 430, 482, 485, 540
Fuller, Levi A. 14, 84, 200, 378, 432
Gaffney, Frederick J 1"', 148, 376, 477
Gagne, Francois X 12, 378
Gagnon, Joseph O H
Gallagher, Edward J 10, 201, 376, 430
Gammons, Ellis G 15, 201, 378
Gardner, Rufiis P 10, 200, 377, 430
Index. 677
Garland, Benjamin C 17, 202, 37G, 431
G-arland, Rev. Charles C 22, 37, 80, 86, 203, 273, 277
408, 477, 510, 544, 533
Garmon, William G 12, 200, 378
Geoffrion, Euclide F 12, 202, 376, 431
Gibson, James L 9, 21, 83, 200
Gilchrist, Daniel R 16, 21, 201, 378, 433
Gilmore, James A 13, 202, 432
Glynn, James L 12, 201, 431
Goodhue, Fred E 11, 201, 376, 432
Goodhue, George 22, 510
Goodnow, Leslie H 14, 200, 378, 432
Gordon, George C 7, 199, 377, 431
Goss, Herbert 1 17, 51, 84, 87, 201, 334, 378
392, 394, 397, 433, 476, 524
Gowen, George E 7, 201, 376, 430
Grant, David A 16, 202, 378, 433
Grant, Gardner 8, 376, 430
Greeley, Harry P 13, 83, 200, 378, 384, 387, 432
Green, Clarence H 16, 201, 378, 431
Green, George H 16, 202, 203, 376, 431
Griffin, Edward C 6, 201, 377, 431
Griffin, Patrick E 5, 21, 44
Guptill, Ernest L 7, 84, 106, 199, 377, 431
Haarvei, Johannes J 17, 202, 377, 657
Hadley, George P 11, 64, 83, 200, 292, 377, 431, 470, 543
Haines, John N 8, 21, 84, 200, 377, 432
Hall, Daniel 3, 7, 67, 72, 83, 151, 200, 377, 430, 438, 443, 479
Hall, Lester Wallace 7, 84, 431
Hamblett, Charles J 13, 84, 378, 433
Hancock, Frank M 17, 202, 377, 431
Hanson, W^liam F 8, 65, 200, 377, 431
Hardy, Willis D 11, 377, 432
Harriman, Willis A ; 17, 378
Harvell, Horace T 11, 200, 377, 432
Haselton, George I 12, 84, 378, 432
Haslet, George W 11, 85, 377, 432
Hatch, Edward J 10, 201, 376, 432
Hatton, William H 16, 201, 37S, 433
Hayden, Daniel W.. 11, 85, 201, 224, 273, 376, 432, 476
Hayes, Henry H 17, 302
Hayford, John E ■ 6, 201, 377, 431
Hazeltine, Frank L 16, 201, 433
678 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Healey, George C 6, 199, 377, 430
Hebert, Winfred D 12, 431
Henneberry, John 10, 201, 225, 270, 376, 43a
Henry, George E 16
Herbert, Henry W 16, 136, 174, 201, 378, 433
Hett, John August 7, 377, 431
Hill, Fred P 7, 377, 431
Hill, Howard F 10, 19, 85, 200, 377, 408, 419, 432
Hixson, Melvin E 15, 378, 432
Hobbs, Charles W 13, 197, 200, 203, 378, 431, 457, 554
Hobbs, Frank P 9, 20, 52, 78, 80, 85, 108, 139, 145
146, 147, 196, 201, 221, 260, 272, 300
305, 322, 338, 353, 376, 430, 522, 544
Holden, Charles A 22, 510
HoUis, Abijah 10, 84, 201, 376, 430-
Hollis, Allen 10, 48, 84, 90, 201, 203, 263
267, 271, 272, 278, 279, 300, 307, 311
313, 315, 336, 338, 339, 352, 376, 497
Holmes, Harrie A 6, 201, 376, 431
Home, Augustus P 22, 510
Howard, William H 15, 200, 37S, 432:
Howe, Gardner S 5, 14, 21, 200, 378
Howe, Thomas F 12, 201, 376, 431
Hoyt, Edward E 9, 201, 334, 376, 430, 539
Hoyt, Orrin A 8, 200, 377, 432
Hubbard, Osmon H 14, 202, 378, 431
Huckins, George F 9, 200, 377, 432'
Hurd, Clarence 1 7, 21, 84, 200, 377, 431
Hurd, Henry N 15, 19, 21, 65, 66, 75, 84, 93, 94, 99 109, 114
178, 202, 203, 379, 390, 401, 407, 431, 545
Ingalls, William D 6, 199, 376, 431
Jewell, Charlie D 16, 201, 378, 433
Jewell, Frank M 7, 199, 377, 431
Johnson, John W 15, 21, 200, 378, 432
Johnson, Thomas F 17, 84, 201, 378, 400, 433, 460, 461, 466, 495
Jones, Eben W 13, 202, 378, 431
Jones, Edwin F 11, 18, 19, 74, 116, 200, 218, 221, 222, 225
226, 227, 231, 267, 268, 272, 278, 279
300, 311, 312, 377, 432, 452, 500, 509
Jones, Seth W 10, 201, 376, 432
Keniston, Bavis B 16, 201, 378, 433
Index. 679
Keyes, Arthur L 5, 13, 84, 200, 378, 431
Kimball, Henry A 10, 151, 200, 377, 432
Kittredge, Everett 9, 200, 377, 432
Knapp, Perley 17, 201, 378, 433
Knights, John J 6, 199, 377, 431
Knox, Ulysses S 7, 200, 377, 431
Lake, Harry F li>
Lambert, Elliot C 11, 19, 74, 83, 200, 336, 375, 377, 433, 475, 476
Lamprey, Robert 9, 76, 84, 103, 201, 376, 430, 527
Lampron, John P 13, 432, 657
Lane, Horace M 6, 199, 377, 431
Lang, Prank P 17, 201, 378
Lawrence, William E 16, 201, 277, 433
Leclerc, Frank J 12, 202, 376, 432, 530, 53S
Leclerc, Treffle 8, 376, 432
Leddy, John 6, 81, 83, 201, 378, 430
Leighton, George E 6, 143, 151, 197, 199, 203
300, 337, 377, 430, 555
Letourneau, George 8, 376, 43^
Lewis, Fred D 15, 201, 273
Libbey, Eugene G 11, 201, 378, 432
Lindquist, Ludwig 12, 201, 376, 431
Little, Ellon S 10, 200, 377, 433
Loverlng, John W 7, 199, 377, 430
Lyford, James O, 10, 18, 19, 21, 25, 33, 36, 45, 52, 59, 60, 61
65, 67, 71, 73, 83, 97, 98, 99, 106, 118
165, 193, 194, 195, 197, 200, 202, 211
213, 222, 224, 226, 279, 311, 312, 313
320, 323, 335, 336, 341, 345, 375, 377
382, 389, 390, 391, 418, 430, 433, 435
436, 437, 453, 456, 457, 459, 474, 480
481, 508, 511, 513, 515, 519, 533, 534
539, 540, 541, 549, 550, 551, 556, 557
Madden, Joseph 5, 14, 18, 21, 57, 83, 319
320, 321, 323, 327, 330, 331, 332
333, 336, 378, 432, 447, 452, 539
Madigan, Thomas H., Jr 19
Magan, Peter J 12, 201, 376, 431
Main, John 7, 85, 376, 430
Marcotte, Isidore P 8, 273, 377, 432
Marden, John E 10, 201, 376, 430
Marden, Samuel L 13, 200, 431
680 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Marston, Cyrus F 6, 199, 377
Martel, Horace 12, 202, 432
Martin, Nathaniel E 3, 10, 83, 175, 176, 178, 200, 377, 388
389, 427, 432, 458, 460, 485, 539
Mathews, Ned A 15, 201, 378, 433, 477
McDonough, Joseph M 12, 83, 201, 431
McDuff ee, Charles H 8, 201, 376, 430
McDuffee, George H 6, 377, 431
McLane, Clinton A 13, 85, 378, 431, 477, 510
Meader, Walter S 4, 8, 200, 237, 377, 430
Merrill, Henry M 15, 378, 433
Mitchell, Fred N 10, 201, 376, 431
Mitchell, John L 4, 7, 83, 201, 377, 431
Mitchell, John M 3, 10, 74, 78, 84, 114, 115, 116, 200, 204
205, 213, 216, 277, 387, 364, 377, 415, 432
492, 493, 494, 495, 498, 541, 542, 551, 553
Moore, Albert E 16, 201, 378
Moore, Frank H 8, 201, 376, 432
Moquin, Arthur J 12, 202, 432
Moran, Thomas F 13, 84, 376, 431
Moran, William H 7, 376, 431
Morey, Charles H 9, 377, 432
Morrill, Arthur P 10, 85, 200, 377, 430
Morrill, James R 8, 85, 200, 377, 432
Morrill, Leonard B 8, 377, 430, 432
Morris, George F 17, 39, 40, 83, 201, 218, 274, 276, 341, 342, 373
379, 431, 460, 470, 471, 496, 525, 527, 535
Morse, Almus W 12, 202, 376, 432
Morse, Byron L 13, 200, 432
Morse, Charles A 6, 20, 58, 76, 84, 104, 105, 106
170, 171, 174, 194, 196, 202, 297
321, 322, 323, 330, 431, 523, 534
Moulton, Darius 15, 202, 433
Mower, Will J 14, 200, 351, 378, 432
Neal, George G 7, 85, 200, 377, 431
Neal, Guy S 15, 202, 376, 431
Nelson, Joseph E 13, 202, 376, 431
Newell, Hiram F 14, 41, 42, 59, 84, 87, 99
202, 327, 332, 379, 431, 499
Newton, Charles A 15, 20, 84, 202, 376, 431
Nims, David B 14, 200, 378, 432
Nims, Elmer T 14, 200, 378, 431
Norwood, Charles M 14, 19, 83, 200, 277, 378, 431
Index. 681
I^oyes, John B IT, 202, 431
Oakes, Eri C 16, 20, 84, 179, 201, 205, 272, 378, 431, 489, 537
Otis, Herbert K 7
Parker, Edward E 13, 84, 202, 376, 431
Parker, Everett E 13, 200, 378, 432, 657
Parker, Hiram 4, 15, 202, 376, 431
Parker, Lebina H 15, 85, 201, 378, 433
Parsons, George C 8, 85, 200, 338, 377, 430
Patch, Edson H 11, 85, 200, 377, 431
Pattee, Jesse B 11, 72, 73, 83, 200, 377, 431, 531
Pattee, John C 17, 84, 201, 378, 431
Phaneuf , Horace H 13, 202, 378, 432
Philbrick, Carl B 15, 202, 378, 431
Pickering, Frederick 6, 106, 107, 657
Pierce, Arthur J 11, 85, 432
Pierce, Willard H 14, 202, 378, 432, 657
Pike, William T 17, 85, 202, 377, 433
Pillsbury, Hobart 12, 40, 41, 201, 315, 316
320, 378, 432, 519,r539
Pillsbury, Rosecrans W 6, 84, 193, 199, 201, 309, 314
480, 490, 545, 550, 551, 552
Pollard, Edward S 9, 201, 377, 432
Potter, Judson A 17, 202, 377, 431
Povall, James T 9, 201, 432
Prescott, True E 8, 20, 84, 377, 432
Prentiss, John W 14, 37S
Pressey, Charles 1 6, 377
Pressler, Adolf W 14, 84, 378, 432, 443
Preston, Frank B 4, 8, 201, 376, 430
Pridham, James W 6, 430
Quimby, Emerson A. 15, f^"86, 87, 202, 376, 390, 391, 398, 400
<3uimby, Frank P 10, 19, 20, 22, 200, 224, 377, 432, 540
Eainville, Joseph A 10, 337, 377
Eancour, Frank 13, 202, 376
Bichards, Albert L 8, 200, 377, 430
Richardson, Edward M 8, 201, 377, 432
Richer, Narcisse 11, 200, 377, 432
Roberts, Fred B 8, 201, 376, 430
Robertson, Henry H 9, 201, 376, 432
Robinson, Ernest A 15, 379, 432
682 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Rod«lsperger, Herman 12, 85, 202, 376, 431
Rossiter, George P 15, 84, 200, 378, 430, 432
Rowe, Stewart E 6, 84, 105, 165, 199, 262
321, 327, 350, 377, 431, 553
Ruffle, James E 14, 202, 378, 432
Runnells, Frederick D 13, 84, 200, 378, 433
Rushlow, Fred 37, 510
Ryan, Patrick J 12, 201, 376, 432
Saltmarsh, George H 8, 83, 511
Sanborn, Eugene D 22, 510
Sanborn, Joseph B 4, 6, 85, 199, 203, 338, 377, 430, 539
Sanborn, Lizzie H 22, 37, 510
Sanders, Charles G 8, 201, 376, 431
Sargent, Albert B 10, 376, 432
Saunders, Amos 11, 201
Sawyer, Harvey C 11, 201, 376, 431
Sayers, James A 11, 200, 377
Scammon, John 6, 21, 83, 99, 106, 199, 378, 431
Schiller, Rudolph 12, 85, 202, 376, 431
Seeton, Alvin P 11, 200, 377, 431
Shaw, John 11, 84, 201, 378, 431
Shaw, John L. T 9, 85, 200, 377, 432
Sheehan, Thomas F 12, 201, 376
Sheehe, Edward M 17, 202, 377, 433
Shea, John F 13, 202, 376, 431
Shepard, Frederick J 6, 85, 199, 377, 431
Sherry, George H 4, 7, 376, 430
Shirley, Arthur F 9, 200, 377, 432
Shirley, John M 37, 511
Shontell, Frederick W 12, 84, 201, 376, 431, 554, 557
Shute, Arthur N 16, 201, 378, 431
Shute, Calvin T 16, 20, 84, 136, 201, 378, 433
Simpson, James 17, 201, 378, 431
Sise, Frederick M 7, 203, 377, 431
Slade, David W 14, 202, 376, 431
Smith, Charles H 9, 377, 430
Smith, Ezra M 13, 84, 140, 172, 174, 200, 242
296, 369, 375, 378, 431, 463
Smith, George M 13, 202, 376, 431
Smith, Henry A 17, 89, 90, 202, 377, 431. 539
Smith, Morris P ^'^^ ^'^^
Smyth, Patrick J 17, 202, 203, 324, 379, 433, 531
Snell, Louis H 8, 377, 431
Index. 683
Soper, George D 11, 200, 377, 432
Spalding-, Henry E 14, 85, 378, 430, 432
Spaulding, Frank A 14, 200, 378, 432
Spooner, Henry 16, 201, 376, 433
Stevens, Raymond B 16, 55, 83, 91, 92, 143, 182, 202, 217, 224
226, 227, 267, 279, 290, 342, 371, 376
391, 425, 431, 453, 460, 467, 470, 471
473, 474, 475, 481, 582, 487, 489, 498, 533
Stevens, Robert 1 12, 200, 378, 431
Stewart, John T 17, 377, 433
Stone, George W 9, 21, 84, 125, 195, 200, 275, 304
318, 319, 321, 377, 404, 430, 491
Stone, Melvin T 14, 85, 378, 43?
Storrs, Edward P 16, 201, 273, 378, 435
Sturtevant, Charles C. 14, 176, 202, 376
Sullivan, Edmund 17, 20, 84, 202, 241, 377, 433, 459, 460, 490
Tait, Joseph 11, 200, 377, 431
Tarbell, Walter S 11, 85, 201, 376, 432
Temple, Edalbert J 14, 202, 376, 431
Theriault, George 13, 202, 376
Thyng, Herbert M 9, 200, 377, 432
Tibbetts, Clarence 1 10, 200, 377, 432
Tilton, Charles E 4, 9, 200, 377, 432
Tinkham, Charles C 12, 202, 376, 431
Tolles, Willard C .' 13, 20, 202, 376, 432
Towle, William H 7, 85, 134, 201, 322, 330, 331, 336, 376, 431, 529
Tracy, Charles A 15, 150, 151, 202, 274, 431
Trickey, Nelson 1 9, 200, 377, 432
Tripp, Warren 10, 84, 377, 432
True, Reuben C 16, 201, 273, 378, 433
Turcotte, Armelle 12, 202, 376, 431
Twitchell, Almon 14, 208, 376, 431
Updyke, Frank A. 16, 66, 109, 110, 202, 376, 433, 502
Upham, James Duncan 15, 83, 98, 107, 108, 202
376, 390, 400, 431, 475, 480
Van Vliet, Henry J 12, 21, 202, 376, 431
Veazey, William D 8, 21, 84, 200, 377, 432
Veazie, George A 16, 201, 378, 433, 477
Wadleigh, Fred T .13, 43, 44, 49, 52, 64, 78, 79, 85
178, 197, 198, 199, 202, 273, 332, 33S
376, 431, 446, 447, 456, 457, 499, 508
684 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Wadleigh, Milton B 11, 86, 200, 377, 432
Wallace, Albert 8, 83, 200, 377, 432
Ware, Clarence H 11, 201, 376, 432
Warren, George H 11, 20, 83, 200, 377, 390, 401, 432
Wason, Edward H 5, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 34, 35, 56
61, 64, 80, 82, 83, 85, 97, 136, 150, 151
191, 192, 194, 200, 274, 275, 277, 318, 319, 328
330, 331, 367, 375, 378, 379, 382, 385, 400, 404
408, 428, 430, 431, 454, 474, 481, 518, 520, 542
Waterman, Thomas P 16, 201, 273, 378, 431
Watson, Arthur L 17, 201, 378, 433
Webster, John E 6, 199, 377, 431
Weeks, Frank 4, 9, 84, 200, 377, 432
Weeks, Frederick P 16, 378
Wellman, Jerry P 14, 200, 378, 432
Wellman, Justin 10, 85, 348, 376, 43]
Wells, Eugene A 15, 201, 378, 433
Wentworth, Paul 4, 9, 21, 84, 200, 310, 377, 432
Wesley, John H 7, 85
Whipple, Henry C 15, 202, 378, 433
Whitcher, William F 3, 16, 21, 25, 37, 53, 54, 60, 61, 64, SiS
118, 144, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 201
224, 270, 274, 276, 313, 314, 321, 322
323, 324, 326, 328, 330, 338, 358, 378
389, 391, 403, 404, 406, 410, 411, 430
431, 444, 481, 506, 522, 527, 539, 542
Whitcomb, George E 14, 200, 258, 378, 432
Whitcomb, Henry F 17, 202, 377
Whittemore, Arthur G .7, 20, 67, 83, 152, 199, 200, 225
226, 311, 314, 377, 430, 455, 518
Wiggin, George A 9, 200, 377, 432
Wight, Adam W 17, 85, 202, 338, 377, 431
Wilkins, Charles A 10, 85, 201, 376, 432
Willey, George H 6, 199, 377, 431
Willson, Charles W. T 8, 201, 377, 430
Wilson, Allan M 11, 84, 200, 377, 433
Winch, Charles 15, 42, 43, 121, 124, 167, 200, 331, 378, 432
Winn, Thomas J. 14, 20, 376, 431
Wolf, Robert B 17, 85, 177, 202, 299, 348
375, 377, 386, 431, 531, 538
Woodbury, Arthur K 13, 200, 378, 432
Woodbury, Edward B 12, 84, 200, 378, 432
Woodbury, Frank E 10, 376, 430
Wormwood, James L 9, 201, 377, 432
Index. 686
Wright, Robert M 9, 201, 377, 433, 476
Young-, Charles A 15, 84, 378, 433
Young, Edwin J 10, 200, 377, 432, 477
Young, Harrie M 4, 12, 25, 37, 65, 80, 83, 84, 86, 90, 114
116, 136, 197, 200, 274, 277, 378, 386
389, 433, 439, 446, 477, 510, 511, 553
Young, Oscar C 15, 85, 202, 337, 338, 379, 421, 431, 476, 539
Young, Oscar L 8, 20, 21, 36, 84, 200, 221, 377, 432, 440, 443, 505
111.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Absence, leave of 65, 81, 86, 151, 203, 273, 277, 337, 408, 476
Adjournment 475, 553, 557
Amendments submitted 545
Appropriation bills, approval of.
(See index to Resolution No. 31.)
Assistant secretary, compensation of 510
elected ' 22
bow^ chosen 19
thanks to 554
Assistant stenographer, compensation of 510
elected 22
qualifies 25
Assistant warden of coat room, compensation of 510
elected 22
Attorney General, election of
(See index to Resolution No. 8.)
Attorney General, opinion of on mileage of members 476
Auditor, election of
(See index to Resolution No. 8)
Betterment Laws.
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 32, 52)
Chaplain, compensation of 510
elected ■. 22
how chosen . 19
resolution of thanks to 553
Cities, charter of
(See index to Resolution No. 56)
Colby's Manual, secretary of state to procure 25
thanks to Prof. James F. Colby for 55.1
Commissioners, county, how chosen.
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 20, 40)
Committee on Bill of Rights, appointed 83
Contested Seat, appointed 21
report of 44
687
688 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Committee on Credentials, appointed 4
report of 6
roll of members reported by,
conclusive 152
Finance, appointed 85
how appointed 83
report of 510
Future Mode, appointed 84
Journal, appointed 477
how appointed 446
report of 511
Judicial Department, appointed 84
Legislative Department appointed 83
granted extension
of time 481
Mileage, appoint^ 85
how appointed 83
report of 476
Permanent Organiziation, appointed 20
how appointed 19
report of 22
Rules, appointed 20
how appointed 20
report of 22
Time and Mode, appointed 84
report of 545
Woman's Suffrage, appointed 85
how appointed 82
Committees, Standing and Special, appointed 83
Constitution, Secretary of State to procure copies of 58
Contested seat of Daniel W. Connors, petition 5
referred 21
report of committee
on 14
Corporation salaries arid dividends, legislature may fix
(See index to Resolution No. 38)
Council, to abolish Governor's
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 53, 57)
Councilor Districts, how formed.
(See index to Resolution No. 44)
Councilors, plurality election of
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 28, 34, 36)
Debate, limitation of 278
Index. 689
Dividends, corporation salaries and, legislature may fix
(See index to Resolution No. 38)
Doorkeepers, compensation of 510
elected 22
how chosen 19
"Evangelical," to be stricken from Constitution
(See index to Resolution No. 24)
Female Suffrage
(See index to Resolution No. 7)
Future (Mode of Amending Constitution
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 3, 4, 11, 16)
Gravel, presentation of to President 116
Governor, may veto separate appropriations
(See index to Resolution No. 31)
plurality election of
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 28, 34, 36, 54)
House of Representatives, representation in
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 1, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22, 26, 27, 35, 60)
Initiative and Referendum
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 4, 47)
Journal, committee on, appointed 477
how appointed 446
secretary to print 511
reading of, dispensed with 37, 80, 86, 151
203, 273, 277, 337, 408, 477
report of committee on 511
temporary secretary to furnish that of 1902 5
Mileage of members 476
Monitor, Concord Evening, Secretary of State to buy 20
National flag, custodian to raise, during Convention 272
New Hampshire Direct Legislation League, use of Repre-
sentatives' Hall 37
Official stenographer, compensation of 510
elected 22
how chosen 19
qualifies 37
Pages, appointed 37
compensation of 510
how appointed 20
Patriot, Concord Daily, Secretary of State to buy 20
F'ensions
(See index to Resolution No. 23)
Plurality vote
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 28, 34, 36, 55)
690 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Poll tax of female voters
(See index to Resolution No. 49)
Police Courts, jurisdiction of
(See index to Resolution No. 12)
Police Courts, justices of, tenure of office
(See index to Resolution No. 9)
President, chosen 18
presentation of gavel to IIG
punch bowl to 555
thanks to 542
to appoint pages 20
"Proportional and reasonable," to strike from part of Con-
stitution relating to taxation
(See index to Resolution No. 50)
"Proportional," to strike from part of Constitution relating
to taxation
(See index to Resolution No. 50)
"Protestant," to be stricken from Constitution
(See index to Resolution No. 24)
Recall of elective officers
(See index to Resolution No. 29)
Register of Deeds, how chosen
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 20, 30, 42)
Registers of Probate, how chosen
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 20, 30, 41)
Reporters, thanks to 554
Resolutions, to be printed 34
Roll-call In legislature
(See index to Resolution No. 48)
Roll of Convention 8
what conclusive 152
Secretary of State to procure copies of .'3
Rules of Convention 22
temporary 20
secretary to procure printed copies.. 2*
Seats, certain members to select 21
how drawn 21
drawing of 25
Secretary, compensation of 510
elected ^ 10
Governor and Council to audit account of 512
qualifies 19
thanks to 554
to procure printed rolls of Contention 58
Index. 691
Secretary, to procure printed rules 25
to request custodian to raise flag 272
to supervise publication of Journal 511
Secretary of State, election of
(See index to Kesolution No. 8)
to procure Colby's Manual 25
to procure daily papers 20
to procure copies of Constitution 58
Senate, compensation of officers and members
(See index to Resolution No. 27)
representation in
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 2, 17, 19, 25, 26, 43, 60, 61)
Senators, plurality election of
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 28, 34, 36, 55)
Sergeant-at-Arms, compensation of 510
elected 22
how chosen 19
thanks to 554
Sheriffs, how chosen
(See index to Resolutions No. 20, 30)
Solicitors, how chosen
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 21, 30)
Standing Committees, to report when 407
Taxation of incomes
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 33, 37, 39, 51, 58)
intangibles
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 5, 33, 39, 58)
inheritances
(See index to Resolution No. 6)
public service corporations
(See index to Resolution No. 59)
savings bank deposits
(See index to Resolution No. 58)
wild and forest lands •
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 5, 33, 39, 58)
Tellers appointed 203
Temporary chairman elected 3
Temporary secretary, compensation of 510
elected 4
to furnish copies Journal of 1902 5
Treasurer, County, how chosen
(See index to Resolutions Nos. 20, 30, 40)
Treasurer, State, election of
(See index to Resolution No. 8)
(592 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Union, Manchester, Secretary of State to buy 20
Veto power. Governor may veto separate appropriations
(See index to Kesolution No. 31)
Voters, disqualification of for treason, violation election
laws, etc.
(See index to Resolution No. 46)
poll tax of female
(See index to Resolution No. 49)
residence, qualification of
(See index to Resolution No. 45)
N'oting precincts
(See index to Resolution No. 37)
Warden of Coat Room, compensation of 510
elected 22
how chosen 19
Woinari's SuflPrage
(See index to Resolution No. 7)
committee on, how chosen 82
appointed 85
IV.
l^^DEX OF EESOLIJTIONS.
INDEX OF EESOLUTIONS.
Resolution No. 1, Relating to the House of Representatives.
Introduced, 25; referred, Committee of Whole, 26; considerC'l
in Committee of Whole, 97-106; report progress, 106; considered
in Committee of Whole, 118-144; report progress, 145; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 315-336; reported with Madden
resolution, 336; referred. Committee on Legislative Department,
336; report, inexpedient, 541; report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 2, Relating to the Senate.
Introduced, 26; referred. Committee of Whole, 26; considered
in Committee of Whole, 73-78; report progress, 78; considered
in Committee of Whole, 98-106; report progress, 106; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 118-144; report progress, 145; con-
sidered in Committee of Whole, 315-336; considered in Commit-
tee of Whole, 390-400; report, 401; referred. Committee on Leg-
islative Department, 401; report, inexpedient, 541; report
adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 3, Relating to Future Mode of Amending the Con-
stitution.
Introduced, 26; referred, Committee of Whole, 27; considered
In Committee of Whole, 446-452; report progress, 452; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 499-509; report, inexpedient, 509;
report adopted, 509.
Resolution No. Jf, Relating to the Initiative and Referendum and
Future Mode of Amending the Constitutimi.
Introduced, 27; referred. Committee of Whole, 30; considered
in Committee of Whole, 152-199; report, recommendation that
resolution be not agreed to, 199; yeas and nays, 199; recom-
mendation adopted, 202.
Resolution No. 5, Relating to Taxation of Wild and Forest Land
and Money at Interest.
Introduced, 32; referred, Committee of Whole, 34; considered
in Committee of Whole, 45-56; report progress, 56; considered
in Committee of Whole (Mitchell amendment introduced), 114-
116; amendment reported, ordered printed, 116; considered in
695
696 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Committee of Whole, 204-272; report progress, 272; considered
in Committee of Whole, 278-312; reported with Jones resolu-
tion, 312; referred Committee on Legislative Department, 312;
report, inexpedient, 509; report adopted, 510.
Resolution No. 6, Relating to Grading of Inlwritance Taxes an^
E.i'emptions.
Introduced, 34; referred. Committee of Whole, 34; considered
in Committee of Whole, 67-72; agreed to, 72; referred, Commit-
tee on Time and Mode, 72; report Committee on Time and Mode,
545; question submitted (No. 4), 563; resolution as adopted by
Convention, 569; parts of Constitution altered and amended,
576; vote of people, 584; proclamation, 617.
Resolution No. 7, Relating to Female Suffrage.
Introduced, 34; tabled, 35; motion to take from table, 80; nega-
tive prevailed, 80; taken from table, referred. Special Committee
on Woman's Suffrage, 97; report, majority inexpedient, minor-
ity recommendation that amendment be agreed to, 337; made
Special order, 338; considered in Convention, 410-430; yeas and
nays, 430-433; minority report adopted, 433.
Resolution No. 8, Relating to Election of Certain Officers.
Introduced, 35; referred. Committee of Whole, 35; order va-
cated, referred. Committee on Bill of Rights, 407; report, in-
expedient, 443; report adopted, 444.
Resolution No. 9, Relating to Tenure of Office of Certain Officers.
Introduced, 35; referred. Committee of Whole, 36; order va-
cated, referred. Judicial Department, 85; report, inexpedient,
277; adopted, 278.
Resolution No. 10, Relating to Voting Precincts.
Introduced, 37; referred, Committee of Whole, 38; considered
in Committee of Whole, 58-65; agreed to, 65; referred, Commit-
tee on Time and Mode, 65; order vacated, 408; reconsidered, not
agreed to, 408.
Resolution No. 11, Relating to Ftiture Mode of Amending the Con-
stitution.
Introduced, 38; referred, Committee of Whole, 39; considered
in Committee of Whole, 446-452; report progress, 452; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 499-509; report, inexpedient, 509;
report adopted, 509.
Resolution No. 12, Relating to Jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace.
(Police Courts.)
Introduced, 39; referred. Committee of Whole, 40; order va-
Index. 697
cated, referred, Committee on Legislative Department, 274; re-
port, recommendation that resolution be agreed to, 379; con-
sidered in Convention, 379-388; report adopted, 388; referred,
Committee on Time and Mode, 388; report, Committee on Time
and Mode, 545; question submitted (No. 10), 564; resolution
as adopted by Convention, 571; parts of Constitution altered
and amended, 581; vote of people, 586; prcelamation, 617;
amended Constitution, 649.
Resolution No. 13, Relating to the House of Representatives.
Introduced, 40; referred. Committee of Whole, 41; considered
in Committee of Whole, 97-106; report progress, 106; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 118-144; report progress, 144; con-
siderea in Committee of Whole, 315-336; reported with Madden
resolution, 336; referred. Committee on Legislative Department,
336; report, inexpedient, 541; report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 14, Relating to the House of Representatives.
Introduced, 41; referred, Committee of Whole, 42; statistics
submitted, 42; considered in Committee of Whole, 97-106; re-
port progress, 106; considered in Committee of the Whole, 118-
144; report progress, 144; considered in Committee of Whole,
315-336; reported with Madden resolution, 336; referred, Com-
mittee on Legislative Department, 336; report, inexpedient, 541;
report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 15, Relating to the House of Representatives.
Introduced, 42; referred, Committee of Whole, 43; considered
in Committee of Whole, 97-106; report progress, 106; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 118-144; report progress, 144;
considered in Committee of Whole, 315-336; reported with Mad-
den resolution, 336; referred, Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 336; report, inexpedient, 541; report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 16, Relating to Future Mode of Amending the Con-
stitution. '
Introduced, 43; referred, Committee of Whole, 44; considered
in Committee of Whole, 446-452; report progress, 452; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 499-509; report, inexpedient, 509;
report adopted, 509.
Resolution No. 17, Relating to the Senate.
Introduced, 44; referred, Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 44; report, inexpedient, 541; report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 18, Relating to the House of Representatives.
Introduced, 57; referred. Committee of Whole. 57; statistics
submitted, 57: considered in Committee of Whole, 97-106: report
698 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
progress, 106; considered in Committee of Whole, 118-144; re-
port progress, 144; considered in Committee of Whole, :U5-336;
reported with Madden resolution, 336; referred. Committee on
Legislative Department, 336; report, inexpedient, 541; report
adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 19, Relating to tJie Senate.
Introduced, 65; referred. Committee of Whole, 66; considered
in Committee of Whole, 73-78; report progress, 78; considered
in Committee of Whole, 98-106; report, inexpedient, 106;
adopted, 106.
Resolution No. 20, Relating to the Election of County Officers.
Introduced, 66; referred, Committee on Future Mode, 67; re-
port, inexpedient, 337; report adopted, 339.
Resolution No. 21, Relating to Appointment of Solicitors.
Introduced, 67; referred. Committee on Future Mode, 67;
report, inexpedient, 338; adopted, 339.
Resolution No. 22, Relating to the House of Representatives.
Introduced, 72; referred. Committee of Whole, 73; statistics
introduced, 73; considered in Committee of Whole, 97-106; re-
port progress, 106; considered in Committee of Whole, 118-144;
report progress, 144; considered in Committee of Whole, 315-
336; reported with Madden resolution, 336; referred, Commit-
tee on Legislative Department, 336; report, inexpedient, 541;
report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 2S, Relating to Pensions.
Introduced, 81; referred. Bill of Rights, 81; report, recom-
mendation that amendment be not agreed to, 437; considered
in Convention, 437-443; recommendation not adopted, 443;
amendment agreed to, 443; referred. Committee on Time and
Mode, 443; report. Committee on Time and Mode, 545; question
submitted (No. 9), 563; resolution as adopted by Convention,
571; parts of Constitution altered and amended, 581; vote of
people, 586; proclamation, 617.
Resolution No. 2Jt, To Strike Out from the Bill of Rights the Words,
''Protestant" and "Evangelical."
Introduced, 81; referred. Committee of Whole, 82; considered
in Committee of Whole, 274-276; report, resolution be agreed
to, 276; adopted, 277; referred. Committee on Time and Mode,
277; report, Committee on Time and Mode, 545; question sub-
mitted (No. 6), 563; resolution as adopted by Convention, 569:
parts of Constitution altered and amended, 577; vote of people,
584; proclamation, 617.
Index. 699
Resolution No. 25, Relating to the Senate.
Introduced, 86; referred, Committee of Whole, 87; considered
in Committee of Whole, 97-106; report progress, 106; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 118-144; report progress, 144;
considered in Committee of Whole, 315-336; considered in Com-
mittee of Whole, 390-400; report, 401; referred. Committee on
Legislative Department, 401; report, inexpedient, 541; report
adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 26, Relating to the Election of Representatives in
Cities und Towns of Less Than 800 Inhabitants.
Introduced, 87; referred, Committee of Whole, 87; considered
in Committee of Whole, 97-106; report progress, 106; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 118-144; report progress, 144; con-
sidered in Committee of Whole, 315-336; reported with Madden
resolution, 336; referred. Committee on Legislative Department,
336; report, inexpedient, 541; report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 27, Relating to the Bouse of Representatives and Sen-
ate and the Compensation of Officers and Members Tliereof.
Introduced, 87; referred. Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 88; report, inexpedient, 509; report adopted, 509.
Resolution No. 28, Providing for Election by Plurality Vote of Gov-
ernor and Other Officials.
Introduced, 88; referred. Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 89; order vacated, referred. Committee on Bill of Eights,
401; report, recommendation that resolution be agreed to, 444;
considered in Convention, 444-445; report adopted, 445; referred,
Committee on Time and Mode, 445; report. Committee on Time
and Mode, 545; question submitted (No. 8), 563; resolution as
adopted by Convention, 571; parts of Constitution altered and
amenaed, 579; vote of people, 586; proclamation, 617; amended
Constitution, 638, 639, 641, 646.
Resolution No. 29, Relating to the Recall.
Introduced, 89; referred. Committee of Whole, 90; considered
in Committee of Whole, 389-390; report, inexpedient, 390; re-
port adopted, 390.
Resolution No. 30, Relating toi County Officers.
Introduced, 90; referred. Bill of Rights, 90; order vacated,
referred, Committee on Future Mode, 204; report, inexpedient,
338; considered in Convention, 339-341; report adopted, 341.
Resolution No. 31, Relating to Approval of Bills.
Introduced, 90; referred. Committee on Bill of Rights, 90;
reported in new draft, with recommendation the amendment
700 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
be agreed to, 479; report adopted, 480; referred, Committee on
Time and Mode, 480; report, Committee on Time and Mode, 545;
question submitted (No. 12), 564; resolution as adopted by Con-
vention, 571; parts of Constitution altered and amended, 582;
vote of people, 586; proclamation, 617.
Resolution No. 32, Amending Article 5, Section 2, of the Constitution^
Establishing Betterment Laws.
Introduced, 90; referred, Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 91; report, inexpedient, 389; report adopted, 389.
Resolution No. 33, Relating to Taxation.
Introduced, 91; referred, Committee of Whole, 92; consid-
ered in Committee of the Whole, 204-272; report progress, 272;
considered in Committee of Whole, 278-312; reported with
Jones resolution, 312; referred. Committee on Legislative De-
partment, 312; report, inexpedient, 477; report adopted, 477.
Resolution No. 34, Relating to Election of Officials by Plurality Vote.
Introduced, 93; referred, Committee of Whole, 93; order va-
cated, referred, Committee on Bill of Rights, 401; report, in-
expedient, 445; report adopted, 446.
Resolution No. 35, Relating to the House of Representatives.
Introduced, 93; referred. Committee of Whole, 94; considered
in Committee of Whole, 97-106; report progress, 106; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 118-144; report progress, 144; con-
sidered in Committee of Whole, 315-336; reported with Mad-
den resolution, 336; referred. Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 336; report, inexpedient, 541; report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 36, Relating to the Election of Officials by a Plurality
of Votes.
Introduced, 94; referred. Committee on Bill of Rights, 94;
report, inexpedient, 445; report adopted, 446.
Resolution No. 37, Relating to Income 'law.
Introduced, 95; referred. Committee of Whole, 95; considered
in Committee of Whole, 204-272; report progress, 272; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 278-312; reported with Jones reso-
lution, 312; referred. Committee on ^legislative Department, 312;
report, inexpedient, 478; report adopted, 478.
Resolution No. 38, Relating to Corporation Salaries and Dividends.
Introduced, 95; referred, Committee of Whole, 95; considered
in Committee of Whole, 401-406; report, inexpedient, 406; report
adopted, 407.
Index. 701
Resolution No. 39, Relating to Taxation of Wild Lands.
Introduced, 95; referred, Committee of Whole, 97; considered
in Committee of the Whole, 204-272; report progress, 272; con-
sidered in Committee of Whole, 278-312; reported with Jones
resolution, 312; referred, Committee on Legislative Department,
312; report, inexpedient, 478; report adopted, '478.
Resolution No. 40, Relating to County Commissioners.
Introduced, 97; referred. Committee of Whole, 97; order va-
cated, referred Committee on Future Mode, 204; report, inex-
I>edient, 338; report adopted, 339.
Resolution No. Jfl, Relating to the Registei^s of Prohate.
Introduced, 107; referred, Committee on Judicial Department,
108; order vacated, referred. Committee on Future Mode, 204;
report, inexpedient, 338; report adopted, 339.
Resolution No. 42, Relating to the Registers of Deeds.
Introduced, 108; referred. Committee on Judicial Department,
108; order vacated, referred. Committee on Future Mode, 204;
report, inexpedient, 338; report adopted, 339.
Resolution No. 4S, Relating to the Senate.
Introduced, 108; referred, Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 109; report, inexpedient, 541; report adopted, 541.
Resolution No. 4't, Relating to Couneilor Districts.
Introduced, 109; referred, Committee of Whole, 109; order va-
cated, referred Committee on Bill of Rights, 401; report, recom-
mendation that amendment be agreed to, adopted, 444; referred,
•Committee on Time and Mode, 444; report. Committee on Time
and Mode, 545; question submitted (No. 11), 564; resolution as
adopted by Convention, 571; parts of Constitution altered and
amended, 581; vote of people, 586; proclamation, 617; amended
Constitution, 647.
Resolution No. 45, Relating to Residence Qnalificafion of Voters.
Introduced, 109; referred, Committee on Bill of Rights, 110;
report, inexpedient, adopted,, 409.
Resolution No. JfG, Relating to the Qualification of Voters.
Introduced, 110; referred, Committee on Bill of Rights, 111;
reported in new draft, recommendation that amendment be
agreed to, 409; report adopted, 410; referred. Committee on
Time and Mode, 410; report, Committee on Time and Mode,
545; question submitted (No. 7), 563; resolution as adopted by
Convention, 570; parts of Constitution altered and amended,
578; vote of people, 586; proclamation, 617; amended Consti-
tution, 625.
702 Journal of Constitutional Convention.
Resolution No. 47, Relating to the Initiative and Referendum.
Introduced, 111; referred, Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 114; report, majority, inexpedient, minority, recommenda-
tion that resolution be agreed to, 341; considered in Convention,
342-375; yeas and nays, 376; majority report adopted, 379.
Resolution No. Jf8, Relating to Roll-Cull in the Legislature.
Introduced, 114; referred, Committee of Whole, 114; order va-
cated, referred, Committee on Legislative Department, 203;
report, inexpedient, 478; report adopted, 479.
Resolution No. 4^, Relating to Poll Tax of Female Voters.
Introduced, 116; referred. Special Committee on Woman's
Suffrage, 116; report, inexpedient, adopted, 274.
Resolution No. 50, Relating to Taxes.
Introduced, 145; referred. Committee of Whole, 145; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 204-272; report progress, 272;
considered in Committee of Whole, 278-312; reported with Jones
resolution, 312; referred, Committee on Legislative Department,
312; report, inexpedient, 479; report adopted, 479.
Resolution No. 51, Relating to Taxation of Incomes.
Introduced, 145; referred, Committee of Whole, 145; consid-
ered in Committee of Whole, 204-272; report progress, 272; con-
sidered in Committee of Whole, 278-312; reported with Jones
resolution, 312; referred, Committee on Legislative Department,
312; report, inexpedient, 479; report adopted, 479.
Resolution No. 52, Relating to Betterments.
Introduced, 145; referred. Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 146; report, inexpedient, 388; report adopted, 389.
Resolution No. 53, Relating to the Council.
Introduced, 146; referred, Committee on Bill of Rights, 146;
report, inexpedient, 475; report adopted, 475.
Resolution No. 54, Relating to Election of Governor hy Plurality Vote.
Introduced, 146; referred, Committee on Bill of Rights, 147;
report, inexpedient, 445; report adopted, 446.
Resolution No. 55, Relating to Election of Senators.
Introduced, 147; referred. Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 148; order vacated, referred Committee on Bill of Rights,
401; report, inexpedient, 446; report adopted, 446.
Resolution No. 56, Relating to the Charter of Cities.
Introduced, 148; referred, Committee on Legislative Depart-
ment, 150; report, inexpedient, 477; report adopted, 478.
Index. 703
Resolution No. 57, Relal'mg to the Crmncil.
Introduced, 150; referred, Committee of the Whole, 151; order
vacated, referred Committee on Bill of Rights, 401; report, in-
expedient, 475; report adopted, 475.
Resolution No. 58, Relating to Taxation.
Introduced, 433; made special order, 435; reconsidered, re-
ferred, Committee on Legislative Department, 436; report,
recommendation that amendment be agreed to, 453; consid-
ered in Convention, 453-472; agreed to, 472; referred. Committee
on Time and Mode, 472; recalled, 480; reconsidered, referred
Legislative Committee, 481; reported with amendment, 513;
amendment adopted, 515; resolution agreed to, 515; referred,
Committee on Time and Mode, 515; report, Committee on Time
and Mode, 545; question submitted (No. 3), 562; resolution as
adopted by Convention, 568; parts of Constitution altered and
amended, 574; vote of people, 584; proclamation, 617.
Resolution No. 59, Relating to Tawation of PuUic Service Oorpora-
tions.
Introduced, 473; considered in Convention, 473-475; made Spe-
cial Order, 475; considered in Convention, 481-498; agreed to,
499; referred, Committee on Time and Mode, 499; report, Com-
mittee on Time and Mode, 545; question submitted (No. 5),
563; resolution as adopted by Convention, 569; parts of Consti-
tution altered and amended, 576; vote of people, 584; proclama-
tion, 617.
Resolution No. 60, Relating to the Bouse of Representatives.
Introduced, 515; minority report, 517; considered in Con-
vention, 519-539; agreed to, 540; referred. Committee on Time
and Mode, 540; report Committee on Time and Mode, 545; ques-
tion submitted (No. 2), 562; resolution as adopted by Conven-
tion, 567; parts of Constitution altered and amended, 572; vote
of people, 584; proclamation, 617.
Resolution No. 61, Relating to the Senate.
Introduced, 540; agreed to, 541; referred. Committee on Time
and Mode, 541; report. Committee on Time and Mode, 545;
question submitted (No. 1), 562; resolution as adopted by Con-
vention, 567; parts of Constitution altered and amended, 572;
vote of people, 584; proclamation, 617.
' O JC3 i ^O