— 1853. 
The Question 
(Written for the North Shore Breeze) 
(The question of a Constitutional Convention has 
assumed such prominence in the minds of the people, or 
at least in the minds of some of the people, and so much 
inquiry has been made as to the nature of such a con- 
vention, that we print the following article in regard to 
the history of conventions for amending the constitu- 
tion, with a brief account of the present discussion in 
the legislature, and the probable purposes and results 
sought by the advocates of this idea. Rept. McCleary, 
from Maynard, who writes the article for the Breeze, 
was formerly connected with this publication —Eprror. ) 
THE first constitutional convention completed its work 
in 1780, this being the convention which framed 
the original Massachusetts constitution. That conven- 
tion provided that another convention should be held 
fifteen years later to revise the work which they had 
then done, if changing conditions showed a need of 
revision, 
The second convention met, accordingly, in 1795, 
but found things so satisfactory under the existing frame 
of government that no changes were adopted. 
In the original constitution no method whatever 
‘was provided for revision in any way except for the 
calling of the convention in 1795, When, therefore, the 
convention- of 1795 adjourned without making any 
changes and with no provision for a subsequent conven- 
tion we had a constitution with no method or means 
specified in it for altering or amending it. However, 
inasmuch as under our theory of government, the peo- 
ple have a right to make their own laws and frame of 
government, they had by virtue of this inherent right, 
the right to amend their constitution in any way they 
saw fit. In 1820, therefore, they called another conven- 
tion, at which time a number of amendments were 
adopted including the ninth, which was drafted by Dan- 
iel Webster and provides for the making of specific 
amendments to our constitution, which method still 
exists. 
Since that time there has been grave doubt in the 
_ minds of many constitutional lawyers as to whether a con- 
vention called for the purpose of altering or amending 
the constitution was legal. And in 1833 the legislature 
asked the Supreme Judicial Court that question. 
While the court gave no definite and final answer, 
they did say that the court was of the opinion that 
under the existing constitution, there was no authority 
given by any reasonable construction or necessary im- 
plication by which any specific and particular amend- 
ment or amendments of the constitution could be made 
in any other manner than that prescribed in the ninth 
article of amendment. 
Nevertheless the legislature called a convention in 
However, this convention, instead of submitting 
specific and particular amendments to the people, sub- 
mitted all amendments en bloc as a new constitution, 
probably to avoid this opinion of the court. As a 
result, the people, not being able to pick the good and re- 
ject the bad features of the new constitution, rejected it 
all. No new constitution being adopted, there has, of 
course, been no test of the legality of this method of 
procedure and it is still in doubt whether or not the 
action of such a convention would bind the people. 
of a Constitutional Convention 
By Rept. Alfred E. McCleary 
NORTH SHORE BREEZE 5 
The first great question for the legislature, then, 
to consider, before calling a convention for the purpose 
of altering our fundamental law, is this:—Is a constitu- 
tional convention permissible under our present consti- 
tution? If not, it would be foolish for the state to ex- 
pend a half million dollars or more for this purpose 
which could have no legal standing. Before going fur- 
ther, the legislature should certainly have an opinion 
from the Supreme court, for otherwise the result may be 
disastrous. But even an opinion of the court given at 
the request of the legislature is not final, for in such 
cases the court always reserves the right to change. ‘The 
only final determination of such a question could come 
upon a controversy between interested parties whose 
right depended upon the constitution thus adopted. 
Some actual test case would have to be tried out before 
its legality could be definitely and finally established. 
Under these facts, is it fair to put up this question to 
the people, with its cost of half a million or more dollars. 
Even if a convention would be advisable, provided 
it were legal, is it wise to take this chance, or would it 
not be wiser and better, if we believe in conventions, 
to amend the constitution in the regular way first, so 
as to permit the calling of the convention at such inter- 
vals as might be deemed best? 
But if a convention to revise the constitution should 
be held to be legal, is it advisable to call one at this time? 
The history of political conventions in recent years has 
not been such as to induce any great confidence in their 
purity. of motive or their judgment. The Springfield 
Democratic convention of a few years ago, of red label 
fame, and the last Republican presidential convention 
certainly do not lend themselves to that implicit con- 
fidence and trust that the advocates of a constitutional 
convention would seem to have. And in this state so 
sinister were the influences surrounding conventions that 
the people finally and after a determined effort, dis- 
carded them and substituted in their stead, the direct pri- 
mary, which faulty as it may. be, is yet so far superior 
to the convention system of other days, that none now 
desires to go back to the former system. And yet those 
conventions dealt merely with matters of nominating 
officers who were to serve us for a year or two, where 
if a mistake were made it could be corrected easily. 
And yet those who so loudly clamored for the abolition 
of the old party conventions are the ones who now in- 
sist upon a constitutional convention, not to make ordin- 
ary laws, but to make the fundamental law of the State 
which is to govern us, our children and our children’s 
children, 
It is a strange coincidence, to say the least, that the 
demand for a constitutional convention arises at this 
time, as it did in 1853, when the political conditions are 
in a state bordering upon chaos. In 1853 the Whig 
party, so long dominant, was fast declining; the first 
seeds of the Republican party were being sown; the 
Free Soilers were of considerable prominence and the 
Democracy was in the ascendancy, To-day we have a 
number of minor parties, the remnants of the Repub- 
lican party struggling to regain its former prestige, the 
Progressive party making itself felt, and the Democracy 
in the saddle. Before we embark upon the sea of a 
constitutional convention in these troublous days of poli- 
