MASSACHUSETTS. 



457 



an expression of disapprobation at the course 

 pursued by the Governor. He had, the report 

 says,' " sent the bill out to the public, whose 

 obedience to it, he, as executive, is required to 

 enforce, with the stigma, not only of his de- 

 clared disapproval, but of his severest official 

 and personal denunciations." To this commu- 

 nication the Governor made a reply, defending 

 his own action as strictly constitutional as well 

 as justifiable, and characterizing the course of 

 the House of Representatives in returning his 

 message as without precedent and " destructive 

 of the courtesy which ought to prevail between 

 the diiferent departments of the government." 

 The chairman of the committee which had 

 waited on the Governor, to communicate the 

 action of the House, declined to carry back 

 any reply, saying that the committee had been 

 charged with the " single duty of returning to 

 your Excellency your message, with the docu- 

 ment accompanying the same," and could 

 make no other report than that they had per- 

 formed that duty. 



Very soon after the passage of the license 

 law and the occurrences narrated above, a 

 Temperance Convention was held in Boston, 

 in response to a call addressed to " the citizens 

 of Massachusetts who are legal voters, and are 

 opposed to the sale of intoxicating liquors as a 

 beverage under the authority and sanction of 

 the Commonwealth." The sentiments of the 

 body of citizens represented in this conven-. 

 tion were expressed in a series of resolutions, 

 in which they oppose the principle and policy 

 of licensing a traffic in liquors in any way, 

 which has, they say, " always and everywhere 

 proved disastrous." With regard to the politi- 

 cal aspect of the question, the convention re- 

 solved, " that the relation of the State to the 

 liquor-traffic is eminently a political question ; 

 that it is inseparable from the ordinary objects 

 of government, the security of person and 

 property, and the suppression of pauperism 

 and crime. It touches the foundations of gov- 

 ernment, the character of the citizen, and the 

 purity of the ballot, and that, from its relation 

 to all these objects, the issue between license 

 and prohibition becomes greatly more impor- 

 tant than ordinary party issues." 



The subject was entirely ignored as a politi- 

 cal issue by the Republicans in the canvass 

 of the year, but the Democrats incorporated a 

 resolution into their party platform, in which, 

 while they "deny all responsibility for the 

 form of the present license law," they say they 

 are "fully persuaded of the wisdom of some 

 system of regulating the sale of liquors, as dis- 

 tinguished from the principle of total prohibi- 

 tion." 



With regard to the practical working of the 

 law, Governor Claflin, in his message to the 

 Legislature of 1869, says: "The increase of 

 drunkenness and crime during the last six 

 months, as compared with the same period in 

 1867, is very marked and decisive as to the 

 operation of the law. The State prison, jails, 



and houses of correction are being rapidly 

 filled, and will soon require enlarged accom- 

 modations, if the commitments continue to in- 

 crease as they have done since the present law 

 went into force." The conclusion at which 

 the new State Executive arrives is that it is 

 " essential for the public good that the present 

 system should be abandoned and that one 

 should be adopted more in accordance with 

 the habits and experience of the people." 



In 1865 a law had been passed, establishing 

 a State police, providing that a constable of 

 the Commonwealth should be appointed by the 

 Governor with power to name as many depu- 

 ties as the Governor and Council should direct. 

 This law had come into considerable odium 

 throughout the State, owing in great measure 

 to the vigor with which the constabulary force 

 had been used in 1867 to enforce the obnoxious 

 prohibitory liquor law. In the reaction against 

 these rigid enactments in the last Legislature, a 

 bill was introduced providing for the repeal of 

 the constabulary act. This passed both Houses 

 of the General Court, but was arrested by the 

 veto of the Governor. In giving his reasons 

 for not approving of this repeal, Governor Bui- 

 lack declared h,is belief in the increasing need 

 of efficient police regulations, and his convic- 

 tion of the superiority of a State constabulary 

 over any local arrangements which could be 

 made for the preservation of public order. This 

 repeal failing, another bill was framed later in 

 the session, which was intended to supersede 

 the constabulary law by provisions entirely dif- 

 ferent. Admitting the necessity of a stronger 

 force to carry the laws into eifect and to prevent 

 disorders, than was provided by the police au- 

 thorities of towns and cities, this new act pro- 

 posed to give the sheriffs the authority to appoint 

 additional officers in each county, the number 

 only to be designated by the Governor and 

 Council, which was in no case to exceed ten 

 for a single county. No provision was made 

 for any officer corresponding to the State con- 

 stable, to be at the head of this new force, and 

 the only control over it given to the Chief Ma- 

 gistrate was, the power to " assume command 

 of the whole or any of the municipal force of 

 any place, and to authorize the sheriffs of the 

 Commonwealth to command their assistance 

 in the execution of criminal process, in the 

 suppressing of riots and preserving the peace." 

 This measure met with the same fate as the 

 act to repeal the State constabulary law, and 

 an attempt to make it a law notwithstanding 

 the Governor's objection failed to receive the 

 sanction of a two-thirds vote. 



The question of suffrage for women was 

 brought before the Legislature by a petition 

 from several prominent female agitators of that 

 subject, and a motion in the House to refer the 

 petition to the Judiciary Committee, with in- 

 structions to report a bill granting the right 

 asked for, failed by a vote of 119 nays to 74 

 yeas. 



Resolutions were introduced, condemning 



