Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1853-05-30

SSgH There is good sense in the following article
from the Boston Post
HIS EXCELLENCY AND HIS HoNoR - The
committees on the subjects of Governor and Lieu
tenant Governor, have not reported in favor of
abolishing the titles of ellis Excellency' and
his Honor, as at present attached to these Of
fees. 1t would be simpler, better, more in ac-
cordance with the genius of our institutions and
real reform, to commence the chapter on exec
utlve power in some such words as these 1.-The
chief executive power shall be vested in chief
magistrate, who shall be STYLED the Governor of
the State of Massachusetts. The article now
reads-"Ihere shall be supreme executive mag
lstrate, who shall be styled the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and whose IT,
tie shall be His EXcellency." If constitution
be closely examined, there will be found along
with its large sum Of good, no little rerbiage and
surplusage.
The expedieney of retaining titles of honor, as
attaches of certain dignities and stations is very
questionable, and is really not exactly the thing
to accord with the tmes-at least with well set
tied American notions. Those fond of them
however, come rightly enough by the feeling, for
it has always been largely seen in this Common
wealth. One of the earliest marks of punish
ment done by our infant magstracy, was for some
offence to dispossess an inhabitant of his title of
MIA prefix that meant much in those days
1t curious all through, to see how scrupulous
secretaries of public bodies, of the general court
and county courts, and town clerks, always were
to note the title-whether it were "Mr., . "Es-
quire, =" Honorable" "Worshipful," or "Most
Worshipful J" whether Corporal or "Ser-
geant," or Colonel" or General" A form
got to be in use, that seemed rather to taper dig
nifty down than to carry it up; thus, "Honorable
Colonel John Smith, Esquire
The subject came up in the first session of Con-
gress, as to what title should be given ito the
President. The Senate Committee reported in
favor OF styling "His Highness the President of
the United States of America and Protector nj
their Liberties;" and when the Representatives
had, in reply to his inaugural, addressed him sim
ply as president of the United States" the
Senate, in agreeing for the sake of harmony to
conform to 1t on that occasion, did it with an ex-
preston that ga respectable title" would be prop
err. No action, however, was ever taken defining
what this respectable title should be. The SUBJ
ject was much discussed in the journals, and
some of them termed the President ellis High
ness the President General !" but this gradually
fell into disuse. Who now would think of be.
slowing any other title to the President? What
could be more simple and appropriate than the
manner in which he is addressed
Now, 10 keep up the titles Of Ills Excellency'
and His Honor would be Just as bad as to pro
pose new titles on the President. They confer
no real honor. They are but a piece of vanity
while they serve, 10 fact, 10 detract from The sim
pllclly, and diminish the true dignity OF the office
and the man. 1t were to be wished that the love
for these gewgaws were not SO prevalent among
us, for they are certainly incompatible with the
genius of onr polity, and with what ought to be
the habits, feelings, and every. day bearing of the
people. There is nothing more justly offensive
than 10 in the gait Of an official the sign that
he is dressed in ga little brief authority" Let
not the people, by retaining empty tile, Justify
him in his assumed consequence. Rather let
them avoid il altogether