« ПредишнаНапред »
than that of Massachusetts, and chosen in a different manner. There was a slight difference in the basis of representation ; for, while one representative was, as in Massachusetts, allowed to one hundred and fifty ratable polls, an additional three hundred was required for every additional representative, the Massachusetts constitution requiring in a similar case but two hundred and twenty-five polls. The declaration of religious belief, and of possession of property, required by the Massachusetts constitution, was omitted by the New Hampshire instrument. There were some other variations of minor importance, such as dates, due probably to convenience and local conditions. Many explanatory clauses present in the Massachusetts constitution were relegated to the address to the people by the New Hampshire convention, and consequently the New Hampshire constitution is more simple and direct in its mode of expression.
Authorship of Constitution and Comparison of its Three Drafts. Associate-Justice William M. Chase, in the interesting and valuable address previously cited, referring to the authorship of this constitution, and comparing its three successive drafts, said :
The first draft of the constitution of 1783, which was the basis of the other two, was modeled after the constitution adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780. In fact, the most of its provisions were copied from that constitution almost word for word. The authorship of the Massachusetts constitution is therefore a matter of special interest to us.
The original draft of that constitution was prepared by John Adams, and but few changes were made in it prior to its adoption by the people. Governor Bullock?, in an address before the American Antiquarian Society, in 1881, said concerning Mr. Adams's qualifications for this work: “ As constitutionalist and publicist, all other men of his day came at long interval behind him. Madison and Hamilton were a development of the ten years which followed the full manifestations of his powers. Beyond all his associates in mastery of the whole subject of government, grasping and applying the lessons of historical studies with a prehensile power at that time unprecedented on this continent, and adding to them the original conceptions of a mind of the highest order, he proved of all his contemporaries fittest for constitutional architecture. Having discerned, five years before, in advance of everybody, the solution of independence in directing the colonies to establish local governments, he became doctrinaire to the delegates at Philadelphia. In the confusion and chaos of thought relating to these subjects which brooded over their minds his counsel was sought by delegates from North Carolina, from Virginia, from New Jersey, to each of whose delegations he furnished formulas of state government; and when he came to the front in the preparation of a constitution for his own state, his mind was already stored for the emergency. His share in framing our own government, and his subsequent writings in defense of the general system adopted by the American states, in refutation of the theories of M. Turgot - this defense being published just in time to bear upon the question of the adoption of the constitution of the United States — furnish sufficient excuse, if, indeed, excuse were needed, for his boastful declaration, found in the Warren correspondence *
• I made a constitution for Massachusetts which finally made the constitution of the United States.'"
It certainly is not discreditable to the New Hampshire convention that they availed themselves of the fruits of this masterly mind.
The first part of each constitution prepared by this convention consisted of a bill of rights containing 38 articles and was substantially the same in the three drafts. The rights and principles declared in it are the fruitage of history. It would be unnecessary to assert many of them at the present day in a plan of government, for they would be recognized and respected without such assertion.
1 Bullock's Addresses, pp. 310-11.
It was probably unnecessary to declare some of them at that time; but, suffering as the people of the state and their ancestors had from the denial of rights which were natural and inherent, they thought it prudent to guard them explicitly from future encroachment. They founded their government in the consent of the governed. They recognized the fact that in giving consent and entering into government the people must surrender some of the rights they might otherwise enjoy, in order to protect others' rights; but they attempted to limit the surrender to the absolute requirements of the change. Some of the rights declared are traceable to the great charter of King John, granted in 1215. Articles 14 and 15 correspond with articles 39 and 40 of that charter, which were as follows:
39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or dismissed, or outlawed, or banished, or any ways destroyed, nor will we pass upon him, nor will send upon him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. 40.
We will sell to no man, we will not deny to any man, either justice or right.
The sixth article, recognizing the dependence of the government's safety upon the morality and piety of its citizens, empowered the legislature to authorize towns, parishes and religious societies to select and maintain Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, with the limitation that no person should be compelled to contribute to the support of the teacher of a denomination or sect to which he did not belong, and that all denominations and sects should stand on the same footing before the law. This article differed from the corre sponding article in the Massachusetts bill of rights in this : that by the latter, the legislature was empowered to require towns, etc., to select and maintain such teachers, and to enjoin upon all the subjects of the state an attendance upon their instructions. Evidently, Puritanism did not have quite so strong a hold upon the people of this state as it did in the state it had so great a part in settling and founding. With the exception of this article, and the articles (7, 18 and 21) declaring the right of the people to govern themselves, the correspondence that should exist between the punishment and the nature of the crime to which it is affixed, and the care that should be taken in selecting jurors, the bill of rights was substantially the same as that of the Massachusetts constitution, although the phraseology and the order of arrangement were in some parts slightly changed. It included all the declarations of the bill of rights in the constitution prepared by the prior convention.
The principle on which the plan of government is constructed in the three drafts is the division of the functions of government into three distinct departments, each independent of the others,—the legislative, the executive and the judicial. The details of the plan are like those of the Massachusetts constitution except in a few particulars, mostly attributable to the differences in the population and other circumstances of the two states. The Massachusetts constitution empowers the legislature to impose and levy reasonable duties and excises. This power was never delegated to the legislature in this state. Nor did any of the convention's drafts provide for a lieutenantgovernor, an officer required by the Massachusetts constitution.
In all three drafts the supreme legislative power within the state was vested in a senate consisting of twelve members, and a house of representatives, each of which had a negative upon the other, and both of which were to assemble on the first Wednesday of June in each year. The principal difference in the provisions of the three on this subject related to the number of members in the house of representatives. By the first draft the number was fixed at 50, to be chosen by county conventions composed of delegates elected by the towns, they being entitled to one delegate for every 50 ratable polls in the town. By the other two, towns were entitled to one representative if they had 150 ratable polls, two representatives if they had 450, and one additional representative for each additional number of 300 polls. If they had less than 150 ratable polls, they were to be classed. This made the number of members variable, increasing as the population increased.
The supreme executive power was lodged in an officer entitled “governor” in the first two drafts, and “president” in the last. The veto power was conferred upon him in the first two drafts, but was withheld in the last. The following curious provision appears in the second draft : « To prevent an undue influence in this state, ich the first magistrate thereof may acquire by the long possession of the important powers and trusts of that office, as also to stimulate others to qualify themselves for the service of the public in the highest stations, no man shall be eligible as governor of this state more than three years in any seven.” The necessity for a stimulus of this kind has long since ceased, if indeed it was then required. By the last draft, the governor, or, as the officer was then named, the president, was to preside in the senate, and had the same right to vote therein as the senators had. Appointments to office were made by the president and council instead of by the president, with the advice of the council. The members of the council were chosen by the legislature by joint ballot, two of them from members of the senate, and three from members of the house.
The judicial powers and duties were alike in the three drafts. The tenure of office of judicial officers was during good behavior, but they were subject to removal by the governor and council upon address by both houses of the legislature.
Among the other provisions were the requirement in the first one of a property qualification to entitle one to vote, — the having of an estate of £100,- and the requirement in all that persons to be eligible to the offices of governor, senator and representative must be of the Protestant religion, and must be seized of an estate of a certain value. In the first draft the value was £1,000 for the office of governor, £400 for the office of senator, and £200 for the office of representative ; and in the other two, the values were one half these sums. All three drafts provided that the senate and house of representatives should elect delegates to congress to serve for one year. They also contained a provision making it the duty of legislators and magistrates to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences and all seminaries and public schools, to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and economy, honesty and punctuality in dealings, sincerity, sobriety, and all social affections and generous sentiments among the people.
The last draft submitted by this convention was approved by the people in 1783, and went into effect on the first Wednesday of June, 1784. It has been amended from time to time in certain particulars,