The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1822-01-23

W
that all vote together. and that the voices If
all VINO vote are to be taken together: and
that the election must be determined by the
joint result.
The a0rater above quoted concurs with as in
the opinion, that, 6 at any rate, the foacn of
Boston cannot compose more than one Die.
trict," but leaves it undecided whether the
new authority to grant city charters alters the
question. We are persuaded that if he had
pursued the inquiry, he would have come to
the result that it does not.
There IS, it is trne, In the amendment. giv.
ing the authority to grant city charters pro-
vision authorizing the General Court TO pre-
scribe the manner of sholding pubHck meet.
lngs OF the inhabitants, in wards or otherwise.
for the election of officers under the Constitn,
ton, and the manner of returning the votes
gwen at such meetings" This alteration, it
IS very certain, was not made for tie purpose
OF removing the restriction which, before the
amendment, was unquestionably placed upon
making more than one district from any one
town. The requisition for the choice of Sena-
tors IN town-naeeting, is quoted to how that
the trainers of the Constitution couldnot have
intended that any part of the inhabitants of a
town should be authorized to male such a
choice. The amendment, is well known.
was not adopted for the purpose OF granting
that authority, and therefore has nothing TO do
with the question.
z. But the acriter thinks that the clause
which provides that g no district be so large as
10 entltle the same to choose more than six
senators," presents an inapera6le difficulty.
IL appears to us that there ino such difficulty.
we admit that in the present. circumstances
OF the Commonwealth, thf provision cannot be
tetefauy carried into effect consistently with
the other provisions; but we maintain that.
according 10 ats interest intent Il and object, it
can be carried into effect as completely as
when 1t was first framed. The language is.
provided THAT no district be so largs'' as to
entltle 1t to more than SIX. But district has
groom so large, that It's proportion of taxes
would give it more thar six, and this the Leg
islature cannot help; yet they can prohibit its
h0uang more than sac Senator's, and thas' is the
o1.ty material part Of The provision. The town
OF Boston, which, in conformity with the 9TH
er parts OF the Constitution, cannot form but
one district, having become so large aoifhom
me tGN Of The Legislature, the clause must be
considered as providing that &c no district, how-
ecer large, shall be entitled to choose mere than
SIX Senator'S" This, we insist, is no violent
construction, but natural and obvious one
ana one that secures the object intended.
Wflch must have been to guard against the
too great influence of any one district in the
Senate.
8. II this be sound construction of the
parts ofthe Constitution in question, the reasons
assigned by the aeriter* for an amendment are
fully answered. If it will not admit this con-
struction, we agree with him that it is time the
Constitution should be amended. We agree
with him In entirely approving the basis OF the
organization of the Senate, and in the opinion
that, whatever the basis, there should be such
a limitation of the number of Senators to be
chosen by any one district, that no one town.
under any circumstances, should obtain an I'M
due ascendancy in that body.
We are persuaded, also, that almost every
person IN the town of Boston. who has duly re-
hected on this subject, is satisfied that, although
the general principle of apportioning the Sena-
tors according to the taxes paid by the several
districts, is sound one, dictated by profound
WISDOM, 1t is yet reasonable that the principle
should be so limited as to restrict the town of
Boston to the choice of six Senator'S
The first position of the Editor of the Ad-
vertiser comedies with our own article. He
would have also inferred, had he marked our
phraseology, that we do not disagree with him
as to the effect of city charter. Whether the
provision of the Constitution could, thereby,
= be eraded," was our language.
His second remark must have been made
under misapprehension. We certainly never
supposed the clause of the Constitution re-
ierred to, " presented an inSaperuble difficult
ty." So far from it, we aimed to establish
the position, that it created no difficulty in the
way of apportioning TO Boston thirteen Sena-
tors. The truth is, both according to his con-
struction and to ours, there is no di6fcuiv.-
We only differ as to what is 6 the material
part of the provision''---he contendins that the
restriction to six Senators is the " o1,Iy materi-
al part,' while to us it seems to be the princi-
pie OF apportiening the Senators according to
taration. He argues that, as the District of
Boston has. become 6 so large without the
faultof the LegGslature,' the constitutional
provision is to be Construed as a limitation of
the number of SENATOR in that District we
urge, on the other hand that, as the District
has become SO large Without the fault' of
the people of that District and without the
possibility of preventing it, the constitutional
provision has become imperative, and the peo-
pie of the District are still possessed of the
right to which they are entitled" by the
Constitution, of having apportioIed to it
number OF Senators IN proportion to the "pub-
lick taxes paid'' by them.