proposition, to suggest to them that if they are in doubt after such a vote as we have had three times, including the vote yesterday, they may reasonably feel that now at least it is fair for them to allow this measure to go on to its final vote and to be submitted to the judgment of the people.

As I recall the arguments that were offered last year in this room, I want to repeat one of them. Is there any question, gentlemen, upon which it is fairer to take the opinion of the people, more reasonable to take the opinion of the people, than upon this question? The issue is clear. Men have thought about it for years. In my opinion they are very much interested in the matter. Is there any question which we, if we have any doubt whatever as to its wisdom or unwisdom, ought to be more prepared to submit to the opinion of the people for their decision? I trust that this Convention will not reconsider this vote, but will take a final vote upon submission under the best possible circumstances.

Mr. GATES of Westborough: I will take up just one or two minutes. All I ask for is a fair deal and fair play. This subject has been debated in this hall four days, or parts of four days. We had an expression of 225 members yesterday, and those in favor of biennials succeeded in obtaining a majority. I do not think it is fair play for those who were beaten after a debate of this question for four days to allow a small Convention to decide on this matter. The reason I believe it is not fair play is that the country members believe in biennials, but that the city members as a whole believe in annual elections, and it is not a fair expression of opinion to spring this on the Convention without giving fair notice to those who come from a distance. I ask those who voted against biennials yesterday to give us a square deal. The leader in this Convention, one of the leaders in this Convention, in the third division (Mr. Lomasney), said when he was beaten, he acknowledged being beaten and did not cry baby, and I hope there is no one in this chamber who will cry baby because he was beaten on a fair deal.

Mr. Ross of New Bedford: I have taken thus far very little time of the Convention, and I am going to take but little more. I want to say with regard to this matter that I would have been willing to have let matters go according to the vote, but I am not willing to play a game with a man and have him win always regardless of the results of the game. I believe that some of the delegates who have spoken this morning against reconsideration and asked that it be defeated because of the fact that a decisive vote has been taken, voted for reconsideration on some other matters. Within a week or two I remember a matter having been passed with a much larger vote, twice the majority this matter had, and having been reconsidered the next day, advantage being taken of the men who could not be here on the last day of the week, and the matter having been brought up again on reconsideration after having been killed the day before. Now, all I have to say on this matter is this: It is a very important matter. As to its reference to the people, I would be willing, again, to have all matters referred to the people; but I am not willing to have referred to the people matters that I believe in and have the matters my opponent believes in not referred to the people. Let us play the game fair if we are going to play the game. As to being

beaten, I never am beaten, and if this matter is defeated to-day I am ready to take up the fight again next week. I do not admit that I am beaten, on this or any other matter. I have got to be beaten before I am beaten. I have got to be squelched to be got rid of. I trust that this matter will be reconsidered. It will take very little time, and I do not believe that this Convention will be lengthened a day, or half a day, or an hour, by the reconsideration of this matter.

Mr. SMITH of Provincetown: I will take but a minute of the time of the Convention, but there has been a great deal said about fair play. Do you not know there are some members of our Convention who will lay great stress on fair play and giving them a square deal? Now, that is what this proposition is, to give the people of this Commonwealth a square deal. We have got along so far, and the people wanted it, and if they agree to O. K. it, accept it, and if it comes back, it is all right, and if it does not that is all right. That is all. I have made this fight so that the people might be used right. I want to just read a few lines of an article that was sent here by Raymond L. Bridgman. I am just going to read a line or two:

In a democracy the final reliance must be on the intelligence and patriotism of the mass of the voters. Few voters seem to realize the extent and the danger of the present popular ignorance and indifference to public affairs.

In God's name, where did that come from, annual elections or biennial elections? This man has had an experience of forty years on Beacon Hill, and now he tells you that future reliance must be not on the ignorance and indifference of the voters of this Commonwealth, all of which has been brought about and has grown up through annual elections. Is it not time that the people should have an opportunity to say? Well, now, this whole pamphlet is built upon the same proposition. A man can take a text of any six lines in it and talk for days and days in reply to the argument that has been put up in opposition to allowing the people, not to have biennial elections; but to allowing the people

I do not know that we will have them,

to say whether or not they want biennial elections.

I hope that this matter will not be reconsidered.

The motion to reconsider was negatived, by a vote of 24 to 100.

The Convention voted, Tuesday, August 20, by a vote of 132 to 104, taken by a call of the yeas and nays, to submit the resolution to the people.

It was ratified and adopted by the people Tuesday, November 5, 1918, by a vote of 142,868 to 108,588.

XXII.

BIENNIAL SESSIONS OF GENERAL COURT.

Mr. J. Warren Bailey of Somerville presented the following resolution (No. 40): Resolved, That it is expedient to alter the Constitution of the Commonwealth by the adoption of the subjoined

ARTICLE OF AMENDMENT.

The General Court shall assemble biennially on the first Wednesday of January succeeding its election, and shall proceed at that session to make all the elections, and do all the other acts which are by the Constitution required to be made and done at the annual session which has heretofore met on the first Wednesday of January in each year. And the General Court shall be dissolved on the day next preceding the first Wednesday of January in the second year next succeeding its first assembling, without proclamation or other act of the Governor. But nothing herein contained shall prevent the General Court from assembling at such other times as it shall judge necessary, or when called together by the Governor. The Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Councillors, Secretary, Treasurer and Receiver-General, Auditor, Attorney-General, Senators and Representatives shall hold their respective offices or places for two years next following the first Wednesday of January after their election, and until others are chosen and qualified in their stead. The meeting for the choice of Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Councillors, Secretary, Treasurer and Receiver-General, Auditor, Attorney-General, Senators and Representatives shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, biennially. The Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Councillors, Secretary, Treasurer and Receiver-General, Auditor, Attorney-General, Senators and Representatives, who shall be chosen at the election at which this article shall be adopted, shall hold their respective offices or places for the term provided by the existing Constitution, and no longer; and thereafter the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Councillors, Secretary, Treasurer and Receiver-General, Auditor, Attorney-General, Senators and Representatives shall be elected and hold their respective offices or places comformably to the provisions of this article. No persons shall be eligible as Treasurer and ReceiverGeneral for more than three terms successively. All provisions of the existing Constitution, inconsistent with the provisions herein contained, are hereby annulled.

The committee on Suffrage reported that the resolution ought NOT to be adopted.

It was considered by the Convention Friday, July 12, 1918; and it was rejected the same day.

THE DEBATE.

Mr. BROWN of Brockton: It is useless, of course, to argue this matter in view of the vote already passed, but I cannot refrain from the philosophy of extracting a little sunshine from a cucumber and feeling somewhat rejoiced in the vote just taken. There is one thing in my opinion that labor wants that it has not got, and that is a political issue so plain as this one. It is all very well here, I suppose, on some great matters like woman suffrage and prohibition, and certain other things, because some people did not want to go on record as they would like to have it. I know it is said here there was no politics in getting rid of it. Perhaps there was not. Those who think otherwise have a right to their opinion, and they have a right to the underground current that they have set running. But I am undertaking to say this: In the very nature and order of events, how is this going to turn out? How about the people who we are claiming are for the initiative and ref

erendum; that they are for the initiative and referendum because they want to take a larger share in government? Will they stultify themselves by in one breath voting for a larger share, and in the next minute voting to divide their share in halves by exercising it only once in two years?

Then what next? Men running for office will be asked to go on record on this great matter. It will be a big political question. Some one says: "I am ready to send this thing down, though I am going to vote against it." Why do you not do the same on all measures? You have not; therefore it is upon you to decide whether or not the liberties of the people are served better by annual elections than they are by biennial elections.

I am sorry that there was a roll-call. Every man, after he is put down in black and white, does not like to change his mind; but he might have had a different opinion with a different argument.

It is the system that should be considered. The biennial election will perpetuate the system of corruption. The gentleman from Ware (Mr. Sawyer) has pointed out how it works in other States. A man gets in just once, and if he has got a yellow streak in him he will make the most of it. It has been said if you had an election of judges that a judge could not attend to his business because he continually would be wondering how it was going to affect his election. But a judge is different from a legislator. A legislator should have his ear to the ground to determine what the people think. Is not that what he is elected for? Should he not listen to the voice of the people, or do you want to fix it so that he is under no necessity of listening to the people once he gets power? Annual elections too frequent! At a time when you are complaining that your whole structure is in a condition that it ought not to be! Too frequent, at a time when the people have so many wrongs that there is not time enough to right them! The people, says the Constitution, have a right to a speedy redress of wrongs. They have got a right to try to redress them once a year. Now it is proposed that they shall wait two years before they shall have the chance to right them. The people are not asking for biennial elections.

Mr. UNDERHILL of Somerville: For the reasons which I gave to the Convention about forty-five minutes ago, I move the previous question on this matter.

Under this heading I may not be out of order if I give the Convention a little information which may be of interest. We have on our calendar of twelve pages thirty-nine matters, all of which probably will be debated. There are four matters that are analogous, and it consequently brings the number down to thirty-five. There are eleven working days for this Convention between now and the first of August. When the Convention reconvened this summer it was supposed we might get through by the first of August. But, sir, if you will remember, we have taken over four days discussing subjects for the benefit of some of our members who may be candidates for office this fall, and who wish to get their remarks in the record. We also discussed for one full day one matter which had just one vote in the Convention when it came to a vote.

Now, sir, some of these thirty-five matters will be debated, not only once but twice; and if we are going to carry out the policy of ad

journing anywhere from five to twenty-five minutes early each day, simply because we have worked hard or because we have discharged a number of matters from the calendar, and carry out a policy of extending debate, we are going to be here somewhere into November,

at least up to election time. Now, I am not averse to that if the members of the Convention wish to take that attitude. My objection this morning to extending the remarks of the gentleman in this division (Mr. Sawyer) was not because I opposed the gentleman, for I voted with him, but because the practice has crept into the Convention of extending the time of every man who is interesting.

Now, that is not right. We are the only parliamentary body which requires a quorum for debating a question, and any man can delay the Convention anywhere from fifteen minutes to three-quarters of an hour by questioning the presence of a quorum. I trust the Convention from now on will work the full four days a week, that it will devote what time is necessary to the intelligent discussion of the question, and that without fear or favor, "with malice toward none and charity to all," in the future I shall be "the goat" of the Convention and move the previous question whenever it seems that the Convention has all the information necessary.

Mr. KNOTTS of Somerville: This is a question of personal privilege. The delegate from Brockton (Mr. Brown) made a statement that I was a little surprised that he should make. If it was nothing more than a liquid flow of fluency heard by this Convention I would not rise; I would consider what he said in regard to this Convention having passed over the prohibition resolution and the woman suffrage resolution as one of those incidental and pestiferous things "like flies of latter spring that sing and sting, and lay their flimsy eggs and die." But since the proceedings are to take permanent form, and perhaps somebody one day may read some of these remarks, I rise to make this statement. Those questions over night became Federal issues. They shifted their base. There are men in this Convention who are bound together by cords of moral fiber and strength, and I am sure that none of these men, no one of these men, could be manipulated by political interests or by politicians, and they all would join together and say:

Come one, come all, this rock shall fly
From its firm base as soon as I.

Mr. LUCE of Waltham: The resolution under consideration, in view of our recent action in the matter of annual elections, now has importance simply in the matter of the sessions of the General Court. I would remind the Convention that the committee on The General Court, if I remember right, was unanimously opposed to the change from annual to biennial sessions, and that we are supported in this matter by an equally unanimous view of the committee on Suffrage. Therefore two committees of this Convention, containing thirty members, after study of the question, have expressed their belief that this change ought not to be made. Believing therefore, sir, that this judgment is likely to prevail, I do not desire to take the time of the Convention in presenting the reasons why the committee on The General Court, at any rate, took this position; but if by any chance I have misread the temper of the Convention I certainly, on some later occasion, shall present the views of the committee in this regard.