a position among the nations of the earth, at once became an object of general attention. That New York would not readily acquiesce in her pretensions was certain, and it was very doubtful whether the Congress would recognize her independent character, much less admit her into the Union. At this juncture, a citizen of Philadelphia, Thomas Young, a prominent Democrat, and an experienced Constitution-maker,1 published an address, urging the people of Vermont to maintain the ground they had taken, assuring them that he had taken the minds of the leading members of Congress, and that all they had to do was to "send attested copies of the recommendation" of the Congress, "to take up government, to every township . . . and invite all freeholders and inhabitants to meet in their respective townships and choose members for a general Convention, to meet at an early day, to choose delegates for the general Congress, a Committee of Safety, and to form a Constitution."2 This address was dated the 11th of April, 1777. At the adjourned session of the Convention, therefore, in June, 1777, in pursuance of this advice and of the recommendation of the Congress, that body appointed a committee to draft a Constitution, and then, by resolution, recommended the people to elect delegates, in their several towns, to meet in convention, at Windsor, on the 2d of July following, to pass upon the draft prepared by the committee. Delegates were accordingly elected, who met on the day named, and afterwards adjourning, and coming together in December, adopted and put in operation the first Vermont Constitution.

§ 154. For a Convention called by a people in a condition so thoroughly revolutionary as that of Vermont, it is doubtful whether more of the elements of regularity could be expected than are here exhibited. Still, it was a Revolutionary Convention, that is, one exercising, beside the special function of a Constitutional Convention, the high powers of a Council of Safety, which were thoroughly despotic and of every variety wielded by any government whatever, so far as deemed by itself to be necessary. Moreover, the Constitution framed by the Convention was not submitted to the people for ratification. Though

1 The marked similarity of the first Vermont Constitution to the first Constitution of Pennsylvania, was doubtless owing to him.

2 Williams' Hist. Vt., p. 75.

3 Id. p. 79.

the necessity of submitting it for that purpose was not denied, it was deemed unsafe to do so, on account of the perils then surrounding the State, as well from foreign as domestic enemies. But the failure to base the new government on the people, awakened a general distrust as to its validity. Objection was made to it, that the credentials of the delegates to the Convention authorized them to form a Constitution, but were silent as to its ratification by them, and that it never was submitted to the people for ratification or rejection.1 Attempts were made, on several occasions, to remedy this defect, and the mode in which this was sought to be done, marks the immaturity of the views prevalent at that time in regard to the proper method of effecting constitutional changes. The legislature of the State, at its session in February, 1779, passed an Act declaring, that the Constitution, "as established by general Convention, held at Windsor in July and December, 1777, together with and agreeable to such alterations and additions," as should be made in pursuance of its provisions, should "be forever considered, held, and maintained, as part of the laws of the State."2 Not content with this, the same body, at a subsequent session, held in 1782, passed another Act in similar terms, for the same purpose, which, by the preamble, was declared to be "to prevent disputes respecting the legal force of the Constitution of this State." 3

§ 155. In 1786, a revision was made of the first Vermont Constitution, by a Convention called for that express and only purpose. By the 44th section of that instrument, provision had been made for the appointment, in 1785, and at the end of every seven years thereafter, of a Council of Censors, whose duty it should be, with other things, to call, by a vote of two-thirds of its members, a Convention to amend the Constitution, "if there should appear to them an absolute necessity of so doing." By a subsequent clause, all amendments were to be proposed by the Council of Censors, and the Convention were merely to pass upon them; and, to make it certain that the changes, if any, should be substantially the work of the people, the Council were required to publish the articles to be amended, and the proposed amendments thereto, at least six months before the

1 Slade's State Papers, p. 240, note, referring to Allen's Hist. Vt.

2 Act of February 11, 1779. See Slade's State Papers, p. 288, note. See Slade's State Papers, p. 449.

3 Act passed in June, 1782.

day appointed for the election of the Convention, "for the consideration of the people, that they may have an opportunity of instructing their delegates on the subject."

Under this system, copied from that of Pennsylvania, Councils of Censors have been chosen every seven years down to the present time. That Council which held its session in 1785-86, called a Convention, to meet in June of the latter year, by which the Constitution was revised and published as the Constitution of 1786. Though differing from the Conventions of any other State in the Union, as to the extent and nature of their functions, those of Vermont, excepting her first, must be conceded to be, in their origin, at least, legitimate. Whether the facts, that they have received the amendments, upon which they have deliberated, from the Councils which called them, and that they have been required by the Constitution to pass upon those amendments definitively, distinguish them essentially from Constitutional Conventions, may be the subject of some doubt. Probably, the correct view to take of them is to regard them as Constitutional Conventions, exercising extraordinary powers, not by usurpation, as did their prototype, the Revolutionary Convention of 1777, but by virtue of special constitutional provision -in which view it would be impossible to deny to them regularity and legality.1

§ 156. The latest of all the original States of the Union to frame a Constitution, was Massachusetts. We have seen, that as early as May, 1775, the Provincial Convention of that State, on the withdrawal of her charter, had applied to the Congress at Philadelphia, for advice respecting the proper exercise of the powers of government in that colony. In answer, the Congress had recommended the election of representatives by the several towns, to form a General Court, which was to meet and choose. councilors, and had added the wish that those bodies should exercise the powers of government until a governor of the King's appointment would consent to govern the colony according to its charter. The arrangement thus recommended, which was provisional and temporary, was made, but no written Constitution was drawn up. For reasons set forth in the cases of the other colonies, this establishment proving unsatisfactory, in September, 1776, the Massachusetts Assembly voted to take steps

1 See post, § 220, and note.

toward the framing of a form of government." Accordingly, on the 5th of May following, the same body recommended to the people to authorize their representatives to the General Assembly next to be chosen, to form a Constitution, to be submitted to them for adoption or rejection, and, if approved by a two-thirds vote of the people, to be put in force by the General Assembly. On the 28th of February, 1778, the succeeding General Assembly, sitting as a Convention, agreed upon a Constitution, in the preamble to which, referring to the resolution of the 5th of May preceding, they recited that their constituents had instructed them "in one body with the Council," to form such a Constitution as they should judge best calculated to promote the happiness of the State. This Constitution, being submitted to the people at town-meetings held throughout the State, was, by the large majority of five to one, rejected. The reasons for this rejection were twofold: first, what were thought to be defects in the instrument itself; and, secondly, dissatisfaction on account of "the anomalous nature of the body by which it had been framed." The anomaly, doubtless, consisted in its double character of Assembly and Convention, which the people had the good sense to recognize as of dangerous tendency. It must, moreover, have been doubtful whether it was the sense of the people that the Assembly should assume to meddle with the fundamental law, since it does not appear that a regular vote was taken throughout the State, by the returns of which it could have been determined, with certainty, on which side of the question was cast a majority of votes.

§ 157. The next attempt to frame a Constitution for the State was more successful. The General Court, as the legislature was called, on the 20th of February, 1779, directed the selectmen of the several towns to cause the freeholders and other inhabitants in their respective towns, duly qualified to vote for representatives, to be lawfully warned to meet together in some convenient place therein, on or before the last Wednesday of May following, to consider of and determine upon the following questions: first, whether they chose, at that time, to have a Constitution, or form of government made; secondly, whether they would empower their representatives for the next year to vote for the calling a State Convention, for the sole purpose 1 Proceedings of the Mass. Conv. of 1820, p. vi., note.

of forming a Constitution, provided it should appear to them, on examination, that a major part of the people, present and voting at the meetings called in the manner and for the purpose aforesaid, should have answered the first question in the affirmative.1

The people assented to both of these propositions by large majorities. Accordingly, the General Court, by a resolution passed June 17, 1779, provided for the election of delegates to a Convention, to meet on the first of September following.2 The delegates elected under this resolution, assembled on the day appointed, and chose a committee of thirty to prepare a Constitution and Declaration of Rights, and adjourned over to the 28th of October. The committee delegated to John Adams, one of their number, the task of preparing the Declaration of Rights, and to him, with James Bowdoin and Samuel Adams, that of drafting the Constitution. At the adjourned session commencing October 28th, the Committee presented their draft, which, aft full discussion, and several adjournments for the purpose of securing a full attendance of the members, was adopted by the Convention, March 2, 1780. The Convention then adjourned again to the first Wednesday of June, 1780, having first made provision for taking the sense of the people upon the Constitution, and adopted an address to them explaining the principles of that instrument. On the 7th of June, 1780, the Convention reassembled, and, it appearing that the whole Constitution had been approved by the people, by more than a two-thirds vote, declared, June 16, 1780, "the said form to be the Constitution established by and for the inhabitants of the State of Massachusetts Bay."

§ 158. Such was the jealousy exhibited by the people of Massachusetts, of the unauthorized interference of any body of men with their appropriate function of establishing the fundamental law. Being the latest of all the original thirteen States to engage in the work of Constitution-making, Massachusetts possessed the great advantage of being able to profit by the example of her sister-colonies, to adopt their improvements, and avoid their mistakes. She had also the benefit of the enlightened counsels of John and Samuel Adams, the former of whom is 1 Journal of the Mass. Conv. of 1779-80, Appendix, No. 1. 2 Proceedings of Mass. Conv. of 1820, p. vi., note.'