of organizing has decided advantages. A Constitution, acceptable to all political parties in a State, must be free from partisan legislation; must contain, as it ought, only measures whose policy or expediency had been thoroughly settled in the public mind.

§ 271. By a very remarkable exhibition of moderation, what, in Minnesota, resulted from disagreement, was in New Jersey, in 1844, substantially effected by amicable arrangement between political parties. Those parties did not separate after assembling in Convention, but, by an arrangement recommended by the members of the legislature, in concurrence with influential persons throughout the State, delegates were elected to the Convention from all the districts, save one, by each of the parties.1 It is impossible to commend too highly an example which must have sprung solely from a view to the public good. Where all parties were, in point of numbers, on a par, it could be only by combinations, not reasonably to be expected, that measures having a party bearing could be carried in Convention. Although it is not so stated, the inference is, that the delegates elected sat together in a single chamber.

§ 272. I pass now to consider the internal organization of Conventions.

The call under which a Convention assembles, may contain specific directions in reference to its organization, in which case, it will be the duty of the body to follow those directions to the letter. As the case has never occurred in which it has been attempted to prescribe more than a few of the most important particulars, and as no attempt is likely to be made to hamper such a body by minute regulations, the subject will be dismissed without further comment. The alternative is, that the Act calling the Convention should be silent as to the points indicated. This case embraces most of the Conventions thus far held in the United States, the call generally confining itself to the time and mode of electing the delegates, the qualifications of the electors, the time of assembling of the Convention, and such other particulars as either fall more naturally within the scope of legislative authority, or as require to be definitely settled before the body meets. Such, on the other hand, as are incidental to the exercise of the functions of the Convention, as such, are commonly left to the discretion of the body itself.

1 Mulford, Hist. N. J., pp. 495, 496.

§ 273. The usual mode of initiating the organization of a Convention, is for some member elect to call the body to order and move the election of a presiding officer pro tempore. In nearly all the Conventions whose proceedings have been published, such has been the course pursued.1 In a few instances, the body has been called to order by some person who was at once a member of the Convention and an officer of the existing government. Thus, in Massachusetts, in 1820, the Convention was called to order by the Lieutenant-Governor, William Phillips, who was also member for the town of Boston. The California Convention, held in 1849, and that formed by the Democratic members of the Minnesota Convention of 1857, were respectively called to order by the Secretaries of the Territorial governments, sitting as members of the Conventions. Except in the case last named, in which there was a split in the Convention, no stress, so far as I am aware, has ever been laid on the fact, that the Convention had or had not been called to order by an official person. In that case, there was a strife to establish for the several fragments into which the body was divided, a character as the legitimate Convention. The Democratic members, who had receded from the hall where the Convention was to assemble, on finding it occupied by the Republicans, by whom an organization had been, as was charged, prematurely effected, claimed for their Convention, subsequently organized in another place, a higher legitimacy, because opened by the Secretary of the Territory. The Act under which the Convention met, howéver, contained no directions requiring the Secretary, as such, to attend the Convention. Being a member, his action, therefore, must be presumed to have been in that capacity, and not in that of Territorial officer.2

1 This was the course in Illinois, in 1847 and 1862; in Kentucky, in 1849; in Ohio, in 1850; in the Republican Convention of Minnesota, in 1857; in Virginia, in 1829 and 1850; in Wisconsin, in 1847; in Massachusetts, in 1853; in Pennsylvania, in 1837; in Iowa, in 1857; and in Louisiana, in 1844 and 1852. Some Convention Acts prescribe, that the Secretary of State shall attend the Convention to furnish a list of the members elect. Such was the case in New York, in 1821 and 1846; in Michigan, in 1850; and in Illinois, in 1847. In New York and Michigan, the Secretary read the list of members, and then some member moved the election of officers pro tem., after which the body was called to order.

2 The disruption of this Convention was occasioned by the fact that the enabling Act had named no hour at which the Convention was to assemble. Moved

of organizing has decided advantages. A Constitution, acceptable to all political parties in a State, must be free from partisan legislation; must contain, as it ought, only measures whose policy or expediency had been thoroughly settled in the public mind.

§ 271. By a very remarkable exhibition of moderation, what, in Minnesota, resulted from disagreement, was in New Jersey, in 1844, substantially effected by amicable arrangement between political parties. Those parties did not separate after assembling in Convention, but, by an arrangement recommended by the members of the legislature, in concurrence with influential persons throughout the State, delegates were elected to the Convention from all the districts, save one, by each of the parties.1 It is impossible to commend too highly an example which must have sprung solely from a view to the public good. Where all parties were, in point of numbers, on a par, it could be only by combinations, not reasonably to be expected, that measures having a party bearing could be carried in Convention. Although it is not so stated, the inference is, that the delegates elected sat together in a single chamber.

§ 272. I pass now to consider the internal organization of Conventions.

The call under which a Convention assembles, may contain specific directions in reference to its organization, in which case, it will be the duty of the body to follow those directions to the letter. As the case has never occurred in which it has been attempted to prescribe more than a few of the most important particulars, and as no attempt is likely to be made to hamper such a body by minute regulations, the subject will be dismissed without further comment. The alternative is, that the Act calling the Convention should be silent as to the points indicated. This case embraces most of the Conventions thus far held in the United States, the call generally confining itself to the time and mode of electing the delegates, the qualifications of the electors, the time of assembling of the Convention, and such other particulars as either fall more naturally within the scope of legislative authority, or as require to be definitely settled before the body meets. Such, on the other hand, as are incidental to the exercise of the functions of the Convention, as such, are commonly left to the discretion of the body itself.

1 Mulford, Hist. N. J., pp. 495, 496.

§ 273. The usual mode of initiating the organization of a Convention, is for some member elect to call the body to order and move the election of a presiding officer pro tempore. In nearly all the Conventions whose proceedings have been published, such has been the course pursued.1 In a few instances, the body has been called to order by some person who was at once a member of the Convention and an officer of the existing government. Thus, in Massachusetts, in 1820, the Convention was called to order by the Lieutenant-Governor, William Phillips, who was also member for the town of Boston. The California Convention, held in 1849, and that formed by the Democratic members of the Minnesota Convention of 1857, were respectively called to order by the Secretaries of the Territorial governments, sitting as members of the Conventions. Except in the case last named, in which there was a split in the Convention, no stress, so far as I am aware, has ever been laid on the fact, that the Convention had or had not been called to order by an official person. In that case, there was a strife to establish for the several fragments into which the body was divided, a character as the legitimate Convention. The Democratic members, who had receded from the hall where the Convention was to assemble, on finding it occupied by the Republicans, by whom an organization had been, as was charged, prematurely effected, claimed for their Convention, subsequently organized in another place, a higher legitimacy, because opened by the Secretary of the Territory. The Act under which the Convention met, howéver, contained no directions requiring the Secretary, as such, to attend the Convention. Being a member, his action, therefore, must be presumed to have been in that capacity, and not in that of Territorial officer.2

1 This was the course in Illinois, in 1847 and 1862; in Kentucky, in 1849; in Ohio, in 1850; in the Republican Convention of Minnesota, in 1857; in Virginia, in 1829 and 1850; in Wisconsin, in 1847; in Massachusetts, in 1853; in Pennsylvania, in 1837; in Iowa, in 1857; and in Louisiana, in 1844 and 1852. Some Convention Acts prescribe, that the Secretary of State shall attend the Convention to furnish a list of the members elect. Such was the case in New York, in 1821 and 1846; in Michigan, in 1850; and in Illinois, in 1847. In New York and Michigan, the Secretary read the list of members, and then some member moved the election of officers pro tem., after which the body was called to order.

2 The disruption of this Convention was occasioned by the fact that the enabling Act had named no hour at which the Convention was to assemble. Moved

their journals have been published. In a much smaller number, have been published full reports of their debates. In the latter cases, the Conventions have commonly elected official reporters among their regular officers, without any special authorization of the legislature calling them. In a considerable number, no official reporter has been appointed, but the reports published have been the work of private enterprise.2 In the case of the Indiana Convention of 1850, the Act calling it had required the Governor to engage the services of a stenographer for the Convention. This was done, and the Convention received and employed him; though not without questioning the right of the legislature to dictate to that body who should act as its officers. Of the Ohio Convention of 1850, the reporter was appointed, before the Convention assembled, by the State legislature. On his presenting himself to the Convention, however, a similar discussion arose, as to the right of appointment, but the Convention acquiesced in the action of the legislature. The Act calling the Pennsylvania Convention of 1837, specially authorized that body to engage the services of a competent stenographer, a course probably wiser than any other, as avoiding discussion.

§ 276. It is obvious that in a numerous assembly, convened as a result of popular elections, some system is necessary for determining who have been elected, and are consequently entitled to take part in its deliberations. In the various Conventions, the practice on this point has been far from uniform, though there is apparent in them, after all, a sort of regularity. In a considerable proportion of them, generally the same in whose organization the initial step had been the appointment of officers pro tempore, a list of the members, furnished by the Secretary of State or other officer of the existing government, to whom the official returns of the elections had been made, or drawn up by the officers of the Convention themselves, has been called over immediately after the temporary organization, and

1 This was the case in the following Conventions: Massachusetts, 1853; Wisconsin, 1847; Kentucky, 1849; Missouri, 1820; Michigan, 1850; Iowa and the two Minnesota Conventions, 1857; California, 1849; Louisiana, 1844 and 1852; and Illinois, 1862.

2 In this class are the Conventions of Massachusetts, 1820; New York, 1821 and 1846; Virginia, 1829; and Illinois, 1847.