Charlestown
Charlestown
Opinion of the Court
The election of Timothy Thompson, Jun., Philemon R. Russell, Peter Tufts, Thomas Harris, John H. Brown, and Richard Devens, members returned from the town of Charles-town, was controverted by Benjamin Swift and three hundred
“ After an examination of many witnesses, adduced by the petitioners, and by the sitting members, and other evidence in the case, the committee find the following facts : that a meeting of the town of Charlestown was duly and legally warned, to be holden on the third day of May now last past, for the purpose of choosing one or more representatives to the present general court; that when the legal voters of the town, in the choice of representatives, were assembled for the purpose, the meeting was duly opened by reading the warrant for the same, and the chairman of the board of selectmen, Timothy Thompson, Jun., Escp, stated, officially, that the town was constitutionally entitled to send six representatives, and the number it would send would be the first question for consideration; that, immediately, a motion was regularly made and seconded, that the town should send two representatives, and immediately after, another motion was regularly made and seconded, that the town should send six representatives. The chairman then said, that it was his duty to put the question for the highest number first; and while he was proposing the question, Gen. Nathaniel Austin, a legal voter of said town in the choice of representatives, addressed the chairman, saying, before the question was taken, he wished to submit a few observations, and would detain the meeting but a short time; and then proceeded to offer reasons against the town’s being represented by six, and in favor of its being represented by two. He had not uttered more than two or three sentences, when he was interrupted by Mr. Timothy Thompson, Senior, who said he understood it to be against the constitution and the laws to have debate on questions of that nature, and asked emphatically, if it was not against the constitution and the laws to debate such questions, and appealed to the two lawyers on the board of selectmen, meaning Leonard M. Parker and Elias Phinney, Esqrs., if it were not so, neither of whom re
The committee further find, that not five minutes elapsed from the time Gen. Austin addressed the chairman, until the chairman put the question, and that no one of the selectmen dissented from the opinion expressed by the chairman against permitting debate, and that the voters were attentive to the observations of Gen. Austin, until he was interrupted by Mr. Thompson, Senior, and the declaration of the chairman, consequent thereon, against debate, when there was considerable clamor for the question.
The committee further find, that previous to the town-meeting consultation was had, and an arrangement made between some of the legal voters, for discussing the question of the number of representatives to be sent, and that they intended to offer their arguments in favor of sending two; and that Dr. Abraham R. Thompson, and Gamaliel Bradford, Esq., considering Gen. Austin ‘ to have been put down ’ by the decision of the chairman, and themselves, thereby, precluded from debate, did not attempt to offer any remarks on this subject.
When the chairman had, as aforesaid, declared the vote of the town to be in favor of sending six representatives, it was doubted, and a poll of the meeting demanded. Thereupon, the chairman directed those in favor of six to form on his right, and those in favor of two, to form on his left. The attempt to decide the question in this manner was unsuccessful; some supposing they were to take the right or left as they faced
The numbers counted and the other circumstances were communicated to the chairman, and there were frequent and loud calls of the voters for a declaration of the result. The chairman answered, that, as there was no satisfactory result, there could be no declaration, and some other method must be resorted to, for a decision of the question. He then directed the voters in favor of six, to arrange themselves on one side of
The committee are satisfied of the purity of intention of the chairman, in the decision he made against debate, and which was not dissented from by either of the other selectmen. But the committee are unanimously of opinion, that it was an error of judgment on the part of the chairman, to prevent debate on a question regularly before the town, and in which the corporate rights of the town were involved. It is further the unanimous opinion of the committee, that the declaration of the chairman against debate, as aforesaid, not having been, dissented from by either of the other selectmen, must be considered to have been the decision of the whole board.
And inasmuch as it hath been repeatedly decided by former houses of representatives, and by the judges of the supreme judicial court, that the right to send representatives to the general court is a corporate right, vested in the towns, and to be exercised by them at their discretion within the limits prescribed by the constitution, and it being evident, that this right cannot be fairly and freely exercised without reasonable debate, and fair discussion of the question, to what extent a town will choose to be represented, provided such debate and
This report was agreed to,
Ordered, that the committee on the pay roll be directed to make up the pay of the members returned from Charlestown, to that day inclusive.
40 J. H. 7.
Same, 133, 152.
40 J. H. 160.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CHARLESTOWN
- Status
- Published