JUDGE STORY of Salem said that the explanation which had just been given by the gentleman from Boston, showed very forcibly that there could be no advantage in choosing the committee in the mode proposed in the motion. The inconvenience of this mode had been strongly pointed out. Yet if he had any apprehensions that the interests, feelings, and opinions of every member would not be as fairly represented, by the usual mode of nomination, he would be willing to go through the labor of balloting for a whole week, if it were necessary. But for himself he had not the means of knowing what gentlemen were best qualified to serve on these committees. Perhaps nineteen in twenty, of those who ought to be appointed, were wholly unknown to him. Many of them he had never seen, and probably he was in this respect in the same situation with ninety-nine out of a hundred in the Convention. The propriety of appointing one man depended on the question who was to be his associate. It would be necessary to select persons from different parts of the State, and persons in different situations, and supposed to entertain different opinions on the subjects referred to their consideration. Each member would vote, without knowing who would be voted for by others, and must act according to his own opinion, which of course could not be expected to prevail with respect to all. He thought that besides the inconveniences with which this method would be attended, it was calculated to produce the very evil the mover proposed to guard against. But, said he, when I consider the character of the gentleman from whom, by the rules of the House, the nomination will proceed, his station in the Commonwealth, his station here, with all the responsibility that belongs to it, we have a pledge which it is impossible should ever be violated, that no private motive should mingle with considerations. of duty in the selection of the committee. The eyes of every member of the Convention are upon him, and it would be impossible, if he were disposed, and that is not for a moment to be imagined, to swerve from the line of strict impartiality. In the character of the presiding officer, we have a pledge that the feelings and interests of all will be consulted. He will make the most careful examination, and act upon the best information which gentlemen can give him. Even if it be possible, that from inadvertence or any other cause, there should be any improper nomination, the check belonging to this body is not to be forgotten. It is complete in all its parts. We can negative any nomination, or can add to the committee if it is not satisfactory to the House. We are not bound to accept, and can make any amendments to the reports which they shall make. The Convention is composed of so much talent and character, that it is impossible to smuggle anything through the House. Every report must be deliberated upon and adopted only upon conviction of its propriety. He had these reasons for thinking that the gentleman's proposition was calculated to defeat the object he had in view. In the nomination, different men should be selected for different objects. Some members had great experience in certain parts of the

duty which would be required, and none in others. It was not in his power-perhaps it was in the power of few individuals in the House to judge who were qualified to serve most acceptably on the different committees.

The motion was decided in the negative, without a division; few members voting in favor of it.

The President said that he should require a little delay, and that he would make the nomination tomorrow morning.

Mr. FISHER of Westborough moved that when the House adjourned, it should adjourn to nine o'clock in the morning instead of the hour now fixed.

Mr. DEARBORN of Roxbury said he thought that ten o'clock would be most convenient to the generality of the members, and particularly to such as lived in some of the neighboring towns. Another member observed that committees would want time in the morning, and that ten o'clock was quite early enough. The question was then taken for altering the hour to nine o'clock, and was determined in the negative, 271 to 127.

Mr. BEACH of Gloucester moved for a reconsideration of the vote establishing the compensation of the members at two dollars per day, for the purpose of fixing it at one dollar per day.

Mr. DANA moved that this subject be assigned for tomorrow at 11 o'clock. Negatived. Mr. Beach's motion was then put and negatived, the mover and one other member voting in the affirmative. The House then adjourned.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18.

The Convention being called to order, the journal of yesterday was read.

The President then informed the House that he was ready to nominate the several committees on the Resolutions passed yesterday. The nominations were confirmed by a single vote upon each committee.

The following gentlemen compose the several committees, viz.* 1st RESOLVE-Messrs. Bliss of Springfield; Varnum of Dracut; Baldwin of Boston; Heard of Ipswich; Wingate of Haverhill; Hoar of Concord; Sibley of Sutton; Estabrook of Athol; Hinckley of Northampton; Blake of Boston; Fowler of Westfield; Mason of Northfield; Childs of Pittsfield; Woodbridge of Stockbridge; Storrs of Braintree; Endicott of Dedham; Allyne of Duxbury; Turner of Scituate ; Morton of Freetown; Leach of Easton; Freeman of Sandwich.

2d RESOLVE-Messrs. Dana of Groton; Starkweather of Worthington; Keyes of Concord; Fiske of Weston; Willard of Fitchburg; S. Porter of Hadley; Hoyt of Deerfield; Trask of Brimfield; Hazard of Hancock; Whitton of Lee; Greenleaf of Quincy; Weston of Middleborough; Godfrey of Taunton; Cobb of Brewster; Hussey of Nantucket.

3d RESOLVE-Messrs. Prescott of Boston; L. Lincoln of Worcester; Saltonstall of Salem; Pearce of Gloucester; Lawrence of Groton; D. Webster of Boston; Knowles of Charlestown; Russell of Mendon; Lyman of Northampton; Story of

(These committees were somewhat modified at the session of the 20th.)

Salem; Smith of Hatfield; Freeman of Boston; Alvord of Greenfield; Dwight of Springfield; Hyde of Lenox; Stowell of Peru; Dearborn of Roxbury; Sullivan of Brookline; Hedge of Plymouth; Spooner of Fairhaven; Hodges of Taunton; Reed of Yarmouth; Sullivan of Boston; Rantoul of Beverly; Blood of Sterling; Locke of Billerica; Foote of Southwick; Nye of Sandwich; Newell of Attleborough.

4th RESOLVE-Messrs. Varnum of Dracut; Mattoon of Amherst; Sullivan of Boston; Dearborn of Roxbury; Bartlett of Haverhill; Pickman of Salem; Spurr of Charlton; Willis of Pittsfield; Fay of Cambridge; Howard of Bridgewater; Russell of Boston; Fearing of Hingham; Doane of Yarmouth; Lincoln of Taunton; Abbott of Westford.

5th RESOLVE-Messrs. Pickman of Salem; Apthorp of Boston; S. A. Welles of Boston; Bartlett of Newburyport; White of Salem; Whitman of West Cambridge; Flint of Reading; Taft of Uxbridge; Bangs of Worcester; Lawrence of Leominster; Hale of Westhampton; Hunt of Northampton; Hamilton of Palmer; Smith of Sunderland; Hill of West Stockbridge; Ellis of Dedham; Richardson of Hingham; N. M. Davis of Plymouth; Mitchell of Bridgewater; J. A. Parker of New Bedford; Crocker of Barnstable.

6th RESOLVE-Messrs. Ward of Boston; Bannister of Newburyport; Parrot of Gloucester; Wade of Ipswich; Josiah Little of Newbury; Sanger of Sherburne; Fisher of Lancaster; Thurbur of Mendon; Dickenson of Belchertown; Morris of Springfield; Bassett of Ashfield; Dewey of Sheffield; Draper of Roxbury; Russell of New Bedford; Draper of Brookfield.

7th RESOLVE-Messrs. Story of Salem; J. Phillips of Boston; Morton of Dorchester; Cummings of Salem; L. Lincoln of Worcester; Andrews of Newburyport; Holmes of Rochester; Willis of Pittsfield; Austin of Charlestown; Leland of Roxbury; Kent of West Springfield; Shaw of Boston; Marston of Barnstable; Austin of Boston; Bartlett of Medford.

8th Resolve-Messrs. Welles of Boston; Nichols of South Reading; Gardner of Dorchester; Picket of Otis; Dean of Taunton.

9th RESOLVE-Messrs. Quincy of Boston; Fay of Cambridge; Saunders of Medfield; Austin of Charlestown; Kendall of Leominster; Tuckerman of Chelsea; Bailey of Pelham; Thomas of Plymouth; Hubbard of Middleton; Sullivan of Brookline; Ware of Boston; Boylston of Princeton; Smith of Milton; Saunderson of Whately; Hooper of Marblehead; Savage of Boston; Locke of Ashby; Freeman of Sandwich; Noyes of Newburyport; Stebbins of Granville; Adams of Framingham.

10th RESOLVE-Messrs. D. Webster and Prince of Boston; Williams of Beverly; Foster of Littleton; Parker of Charlestown; Seaver of Roxbury; A. Lincoln of Worcester; Leonard of Sturbridge; Sampson of Harvard; King of Salem; Parris of Marblehead; Shepley of Fitchburg; Hubbard of Boston; Fiske of Weston; Dean of Boston; Hull of Sandisfield; Baylies of Wellington; Jethro Mitchell of Nantucket; Mack of Middlefield; S. A. Welles of Boston; Walker of Templeton.

Mr. DANA of Groton moved that the Secretary be ordered to furnish each of the members of the Convention daily during the session with two newspapers such as each member should choose. He observed that it was usual for members of deliberative bodies to be furnished with newspapers. In the present instance it would tend not only to their own instruction and gratification, but would enable them to furnish their constituents at a distance with a full account of their proceedings here, by transmitting the journals of the day which contained a regular report of their doings. He concluded by offering a resolution.

Mr. AUSTIN of Boston hoped that if the resolution was adopted there would be an addition made to it, requiring that they should be read out of the House and not by members in their seats. He said it had been a pleasant sight to observe the members of the

House attentively engaged in the business for which they were convened. He should be extremely sorry to see the example which had been set departed from by the introduction of the daily journals. He said that the members had not the power of franking to enable them to send papers to a distance free of expense, and instead of being of any benefit to their constituents, that they would remain as waste paper on the table of the members.

Mr. DANA replied, that the gentleman from Boston, living in the capital and always near the sources of information, might have a different feeling from those who had come there from remote parts of the State. He thought it would be a great convenience to be furnished with this means of informing their constituents of their course of proceedings here. On the ground of its interference with the duties of the House, he thought that no rule would be necessary to govern the conduct of members. A sense of decorum would be a sufficient restraint. It would be a convenience to be furnished the means which the papers afford of reviewing every morning the doings of the preceding day. The expense would be small and he would suggest that the papers should be delivered to the members

at their respective lodgings.

Mr. PICKMAN of Salem was opposed to the resolution because each member might supply himself at a trifling expense, and he thought it unnecessary that the House should take any order on the subject.

Mr. BLISS of Springfield said he hoped the motion would prevail with an amendment, that the members should be furnished with but one paper daily instead of two, and that the motion should extend only to newspapers printed in Boston. He said that it would be convenient for the members to refer to the papers for the proceedings of the House-to know who were on committees, &c. That he thought this a sufficient ground for the motion, and that no other reason would justify their incurring this public expense. Mr. DANA consented to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Springfield.

Mr. Horт of Deerfield proposed that the order should relate back to the beginning of the session.

Mr. TILLINGHAST of Wrentham said he had no objection to the proposition of the gentleman who spoke last, if it could be carried into effect; but he was apprehensive that the printers would not have newspapers on hand of the past days of the session sufficient to furnish the members.

Mr. DWIGHT of Springfield moved that the subject in debate be assigned for Monday at 11 o'clock.

Mr. SALTONSTALL of Salem hoped that it would not be assigned, and that the motion of the gentleman from Groton would not pass in any shape. He said the members had better be attending to what was going on before them in the House. That every one who had frequented the two houses of our Legislature must have witnessed the inconveniences arising from newspapers being furnished to the

members. It was an unpleasant sight he observed, to see legislators reading advertisements and the news of the day, to the neglect of the duties they were chosen to perform. He said it would look odd to make a rule to prohibit members from reading newspapers. He thought the members might furnish themselves with papers if they wanted them, and he hoped the motion would not prevail.

Mr. JOHN WELLES of Boston was sorry to differ from the gentleman from Salem. He thought that members would not be disposed to violate the rules of propriety. He said it was of great importance that the proceedings of the Convention should be published, to enable the members to give information to their constituents; which he thought could not be done in a better or more easy mode.

Mr. BOND of Boston moved that the subject be committed, in order that the committee might consider the expediency of substituting for newspapers the volume which he understood was preparing, containing the proceedings of the Convention. He observed that most of our towns had Social Libraries in which the book might be usefully deposited, for the convenience of every man, who would not otherwise have the means of information.

Mr. KNEELAND of Andover hoped the motion to furnish newspapers would not prevail. He said the members might read them at their lodgings, without any expense.

Mr. APTHORP of Boston thought it would be proper that the members should be furnished with the papers for their own information. Mr. WEBSTER said that it was a standing rule of all the legislative bodies that he had any acquaintance with, that no member should be employed in reading in his place either newspapers or any printed paper except the printed journal of the house or some other paper printed by order of the house, and he should consider it the duty of any one who saw this rule infringed, to call to order the member who violated it.

Mr. DANA was opposed to the commitment and to a postponement, for reasons which he stated. The motion to commit was put and decided in the negative.

Mr. QUINCY of Boston said he thought that it was an act of comity due from gentlemen residing here who were already provided with the daily papers, to furnish others with the same privilege. He was in favor of the resolution. The question was taken and decided in the affirmative by a large majority.

Mr. SHAW of Boston, from the committee to whom was committed the rule of the House on the subject of reconsideration of questions, reported as a substitute for the article in the original report, the following rule:

No motion for the reconsideration of any vote shall be sustained, unless made on the day on which such vote passes and a return of the Convention be then made and entered on the journal, when the question was not taken by yeas and nays; every such motion shall lie on the table one day before it shall be taken up for consideration, and shall not be taken up, unless as many members are present in convention as were present when such vote passed; and not more than one motion for the reconsideration of any one question, shall be sustained.