Council, and so on, until we have exhausted our appropriation and we have perhaps not agreed upon several amendments. You have got to limit this proposition here or you open the door justly, if this amendment is admitted, to the admission of other questions upon which we are not even agreed as to the form in which they shall be submitted.

Mr. Brennan of Peterborough. — I am in sympathy, Mr. President, with the idea that it would be expedient for this State to adopt some mode other than the one we now have to amend the Constitution, and that the initiative step, in my opinion, should be in the Legislature, where most States have it; hence I am not in opposition to the idea formulated so hastily by the gentlemen from Concord and Jaffrey; but I am opposed to having it presented in the way it is, not because it would more conveniently open the door for amendment. A convenient and wellconsidered mode should be adopted. There are many changes for which the door should be open, and while changes should be made in our Constitution and ought to receive our careful consideration, it is very evident that the delegates and voters are in no frame of mind during this war to give the important questions such consideration; hence we must cut the business off somewhere, and 1 believe it should be just where this resolution cuts it off, and I believe further that this hurriedly writ ten, haphazard amendment to this carefully prepared resolution would leave it in a very poor, if not ludicrous form. I am not able to determine at the present moment whether this suggested amendment would entirely abolish the Constitutional Convention feature or make the introduction of proposed changes in the Constitution really emanate from both a new kind of a Convention and the Legislature. My friend, the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Metcalf, unfortunately lost his glasses and was not prepared to put it in form, and my friend, the gentleman from Jaffrey, Mr. Duncan, has come to the rescue and helped out; but the form does not satisfy me. My choice on the whole would be to extend the legislative power relative to taxing growing timber and adopting an income tax, and then adjourn until after the war; but if that cannot be, then I must be content to see adjournment without action on any measure.

Mr. Metcalf of Concord.—I was not proposing at this time to draft the amendment to the Constitution which I proposed should be considered by this Convention. I was simply offering an amendment to Mr. Lyford's resolution, so that this Convention could proceed to consider the three amendments instead of two. He says his amendments are all ready to be submitted. The amendment which I suggested is not ready to be submitted, but

I want to assure the gentleman from Peterborough that the intention which I have in mind is to get rid of the farce of a Constitutional Convention absolutely, and have amendments submitted hereafter by the Legislature, either by a two-thirds or three-fourths vote, as may be deemed expedient on consideration; but I hope instead that this business of voting every seven years by the people of New Hampshire upon the question, “Is it expedient to call a Convention to revise the Constitution?" where not more than one fourth of the voters ever consider that question at all, will be got rid of; and I believe that is the sentiment of three fourths of the members of this Convention here today, that this work should be abolished for the future. Now, in reference to the admission of any number of amendments if we admit this, you don't preclude the admission of other amendments any more by submitting two than you do by submitting three, and Brother Lyford is a man of sense and he knows it. Now, if we adopt a resolution in this Convention in which we consider an amendment providing for the abolishment of Constitutional Conventions and the submission in future of all proposed amendments by proper vote of the Legislature, we get rid of this farcical calling of Conventions, and we get rid of this Convention right away after these three amendments are disposed of; and we don't have to come together again at large expense to the State, but the Legislature which is in session next winter can consider any amendments that may be deemed necessary and submit them to the people if they see fit.

Mr. Brennan of Peterborough. — Will the gentleman permit a question?

Mr. Metcalf of Concord. — Certainly.

Mr. Brennan of Peterborough. — Is he in favor of this amendment, and if he is in favor of this amendment, does he understand this amendment abolishes Constitutional Conventions or makes the introduction of proposed amendments concurrent in the Legislature and in the House of Representatives?

Mr. Metcalf of Concord.—I would have it absolutely abolish Constitutional Conventions.

Mr. Brennan of Peterborough. Are you in favor of this amendment?

Mr. Metcalf of Concord. — That amendment is really in amendment of the proposed resolution by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford.

Mr. Varney of Rochester. - Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, I believe there exists among the members of this Convention a very strong sentiment, as well as among the people of the State, that this Convention should adjourn without taking

any definite action, and I want to say that I am one of that number. At the time the people voted for a Constitutional Convention this country was at peace. No one ever thought or could foresee at that time that when this Convention was to be held conditions would be so uncertain that the people themselves could not focus attention on the changes or proposed changes in the Constitution or could foreese what conditions the result of the war would bring to the people. Therefore, at this time it seems to me it would be well for this Convention to express its feeling as to whether it is in favor of adjourning the Convention or whether it proposes to stay here and either consider one or two proposed amendments, or several; and I would ask the privilege to offer an amendment to the motion of Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey to amend the resolution of Mr. Lyford of Concord.

Mr. Varney of Rochester offered the following amendment to the motion of Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey, to amend the resolution of Mr. Lyford of Concord:

Strike out all of said resolution beginning with the work "Therefore" and substitute therefor the following:

Therefore, in view of these conditions, be it

Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns today, it adjourn to the call of a ocimmittee consisting of the President of this Convention and a delegate from each county, to be appointed by the Chair, a majority of whom are hereby empowered to issue such a call for the Convention to reassemble.

Question being on the motion of Mr. Varney of Rochester to amend the motion of Mr Duncan of Jaffrey, to amend the resolution offered by Mr. Lyford of Concord,

On motion of Mr. Hutchins of Stratford, the Convention took a recess of one hour.

AFTER RECESS.

Mr. Varney of Rochester withdrew his motion.

Question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Duncan of Jaffrey to the resolution of Mr Lyford of Concord,

On a viva voce vote, the amendment was not adopted. Question being on the resolution of Mr. Lyford of Concord,

Mr. Tyng of Ashland. - - It seems to me that this resolution is both presumptuous and time-wasting. It is presumptuous because of the implication that it contains everything that is worth while for this Convention to pass upon immediately; time-wasting because we have been forced to talk about the resolution instead of the work we have to do. There is time enough, it seems to me, for this Convention to receive any amendments that are offered, to have them printed, then go on and act upon whatever may be immediately necessary, and adjourn after providing that the members of the Convention may know what they are to deal with when they come together again.

Mr. Doyle of Nashua. — I dislike to trespass on sacred ground, Mr. President,

The President. The gentleman from Nashua, Mr. Doyle, is never a trespasser.

Mr. Doyle of Nashua.- Gentlemen of the Convention, I will take but very little of your time. I am against the adoption of the resolution submitted to you by the gentleman from Concord, Mr. Lyford. I think that if there is anything to do here we ought to start in and do the whole of it; start in with the program and finish it, or do what was intimated by the resolution withdrawn by Mr. Varney, adjourn here and now. I believe there is no time for dickering with legislation or anything else. Our time should be used to do what we can, both Democrats and Republicans alike, for our country and our boys and save them and our country. I guess the old pine trees up north and the moneyed men who have invested in the growing pines can stand it a little longer, but we can't stand this terrible slaughter forever. I say, gentlemen, let's determine here and now that we will adjourn, and when this terrible situation is over, and when

victory is ours, which it will be, then let's meet like men and legislate in the interests of our State; and we will have one mind then, and it will not be distracted with this terrible conflict across the waters, and the trying to save a few miserable dollars for the pine growers of New Hampshire

Mr. Varney of Rochester offered the following amendment to the resolution:

Strike out all after the third preamble and insert the following:

Therefore, in view of these conditions, be it

Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns today, it adjourn to the call of a committee consisting of the President of this Convention and a delegate from each county, to be appointed by the Chair, a majority of whom are hereby empowered to issue such a call for the Convention to reassemble.

Question being on the amendment of Mr. Varney of Roches

Mr. Abbe of Dublin. A few days ago I received this letter from a friend of mine: "The rate here a year ago was $17.50 a thousand, and the list claimed all my property as taxable. It was $6,000, including a second mortgage for $1,400 on Melrose property and two life insurance policies for $2,000 each and a note for $600. I suppose by Vermont laws all this was taxable, but it involved a tax of $105, which was a large portion of my $380 income "-twenty-seven per cent. "All who knew about it agreed it was enormous,' 'outrageous' and 'unjust.' I consulted a lawyer at Bellows Falls, and he told me not to pay the tax until I heard from him. This was in the summer, and although I wrote twice to him about the matter, requesting him to answer, I never heard a single word. I paid him a dollar, expecting, of course, to pay more if he accomplished anything. I think he didn't want to do anything for fear of making himself unpopular, but he should have told me so. When tax day came 1 was very anxious, and at first refused to pay, but when the constable made me a call one evening and gave me palpitation of the heart by his threats of imprisonment, I couldn't hold out.