While the war excitement was still high, and partisan feeling upon issues growing out of the war as intense as ever, other matters occupied the attention of the Legislature to a considerable extent, one of these and decidedly the most exciting, being the question of a new state house, and the location of the same. There was a hot fight between Manchester and Concord, with the result that the latter triumphed, retaining the capital upon condition of furnishing a new building, free of cost to the state, in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the Legislature. The test vote had come on the Manchester proposition which was defeated-92 to 190. Mr. Bingham took no active part in this controversy, though his vote is recorded with the affirmative, in favor of Manchester, only two other members from Grafton County voting with him - Messrs. Sinclair of Bethlehem and Dean of Danbury.

Another matter which commanded a good deal of attention at the time was a bill introduced at this session authorizing the governor and council to commute the sentence of one Thomas Wier who had been tried, convicted and sentenced, in the Graf

*Thomas Weir, an Enfield shoemaker of intemperate habits, then about 45 years of age, enlisted in the Fifth New Hampshire Volunteers in August, 1861. Before departing for the front he placed his two youngest daughters with the Shaker Society at Enfield, agreeing never to take or attempt to take them away so long as they were contented to remain. In May, 1862, he was discharged from the army for disability, and finally made his way back to Enfield. After a time he wanted his daughters, and sought to get them back from the Shakers, but was refused. Angered by repeated refusals, he procured a revolver, and, on the 18th of July, met Caleb M. Dyer, trustee of the society, in the highway near the Shaker home, again demanding the children and, being again refused, he deliberately shot Dyer through the abdomen, inflicting a wound from which he died in about forty-eight hours. Weir was arrested, confined in the jail at Haverhill, indicted, tried at the September term of court following, convicted of murder and sentenced. Justices Sargent and Doe presided at the trial, the prosecution was conducted by Attorney General William C. Clarke, assisted by County Solicitor Alonzo P. Carpenter, and C. W. and E. D. Rand were counsel for the respondent. A good deal of maudlin sympathy had been aroused in Weir's behalf from the fact that he had been a Union soldier, which in those days of war excitement was sufficient "to cover a multitude of sins," and the result was the presentation of petitions to the Legislature, and the inauguration of a strong movement in that body for commutation, which finally culminated in the passage of the bill in question. Weir remained in prison though several attempts were made to secure a pardon, till in July, 1880, he was pardoned by Gov. Natt Head and set at liberty. He returned to Enfield, and lived quietly in that and the adjoining town of Lebanon for many years, dying at East Lebanon in 1898.

ton County Court, for the murder of Caleb M. Dyer, at Enfield. Petitions were presented asking for the commutation of Wier's sentence and the same were referred to a special committee, appointed on the 9th of June, Samuel M. Wheeler* of Dover being chairman. This committee, after a good deal of deliberation, reported an act authorizing the governor, with advice and consent of the council, to commute Wier's sentence. It was read and came up for consideration as a special order on the afternoon of July 8, when it was debated at some length, Mr. Bingham speaking in opposition to the measure. He declared that the crime of which this man, Wier, was convicted after a full, fair and impartial trial, was a cold-blooded murder of the most atrocious kind, as was admitted in all quarters. He questioned the ground upon which the measure was predicated; and the constitutional warrant of the Legislature to do anything with the matter, under any circumstances. The constitutional principle was that each department of the government should act independently of the others. It was the business of the Legislature to make laws and those laws were to be applied by the Judiciary to the offences committed in the community. The Judiciary is not to interfere with the business of the Legislature; nor is the Legislature to interfere with the judgment of the Judiciary when rendered. The pardoning power is vested in the Executive, and if there are any circumstances in this case calling for the exercise of this power, the matter should be left to the Executive untrammeled or uninfluenced by any legislative action.

The measure remained undisposed of at this time and its further consideration was made a special order for the following

*Samuel M. Wheeler, son of Albira and Melita (Metcalf) Wheeler, was born in Newport, May 11, 1823, and died in Dover, January 21, 1886. He was educated in the academies at Claremont and at Newbury, Vt., and in the military academy at Windsor. He studied law with Tracy & Converse at Woodstock, Vt., and Ralph Metcalf of Newport and commenced practice in the latter town, removing to Fisherville, now Penacook, a year later, and to Dover in 1853, where he continued through life, attaining high rank in his profession, especially as a jury lawyer. He was for a time in partnership with Hon. Joshua G. Hall, subsequently a member of Congress. He served in the Legislature in 1864 and 1865; also in 1868, 1869 and 1870, the last two years occupying the speaker's chair. He was a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1876. Dartmouth College bestowed upon him the honorary degree of Master of Arts in 1866.

Tuesday, July 12, at 2 o'clock, p. m., when it was again taken up and discussed at some length, Mr. Bingham making the principal speech in opposition. He took the ground in the first instance, that the proposed act involves a principle that would render the labors of the court useless, however impartial and painstaking they might be, and open the door of escape for criminals, thus striking at the very foundation of society. He contended that the power to commute did not rest in the Legislature, whose powers were limited to those given by the express terms of the Constitution. The pardoning power was vested in the Governor and Council, and, the less being included in the greater, the power to commute was in their hands alone, and the Legislature had no control over it. He referred to the Common Law and the Statutes of Great Britain and the colonies to show that the power of pardon included commutation, or conditional pardon as well as absolute pardon, and cited various authorities to show that the framers of the Constitution accepted the doctrine of the Common Law in this regard.

Having considered the question in its legal aspects, Mr. Bingham went on to inquire why the House should be called upon to interfere in this case in this obnoxious manner. Why not pass a general law empowering the Governor and Council to commute all sentences of a like character? What special claim, he asked, had this particular criminal over every other who had been visited with the sentence of the law? He regarded it as extremely dangerous for the House to interfere in the matter in this way, and thought the probable mischief that would follow should lead members to hesitate about giving the measure their sanction. He deprecated the manifest sympathy flowing out toward the murderer, on the part of the advocates of the bill, who seemed to have lost sight of the victim a peaceable, exemplary and worthy man, severely criticised the action of the committee having the matter in charge in receiving ex-parte testimony, not given under oath, and sharply exposed the inconsistency of the arguments presented by the supporters of the measure, some of whom held the prisoner to be insane, and yet contended that the evidence showed him guilty of murder in the second degree, or manslaughter, which would be impossible if he

were insane. For his own part he characterized the crime of Wier as a murder as cold-blooded as was ever committed by

man.

In conclusion Mr. Bingham referred to the fact that no application had been made to the court for a new trial, which would be the proper course to pursue if new evidence had been obtained, or if the verdict was considered as against the evidence. He did not know but a law repealing the death penalty would be wise at this time; but he objected to an effort being made to attain this end in this case, evidently, on the part of the opponents of capital punishment, through the passage of a bill like that before the House.

After a somewhat protracted discussion, in which the bill was earnestly supported by Chairman Wheeler and other members of the special committee by which it was reported, it again went over until the following forenoon, when it was ultimately passed, but not without material amendment. Mr. Cate of Northfield offered an amendment so changing the measure as to authorize the governor and council to commute any capital sentence, and accepted an amendment to this amendment providing that the bill should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the part of the Legislature that the Wier sentence should be commuted. This amendment was adopted, and the bill then passed by a vote of 193 to 82, Mr. Bingham demanding the yeas and nays and himself voting against the bill.

At this session the Legislature passed a resolution calling upon the New Hampshire representatives in the National House to concur with the Senate in the adoption of a resolution that had already passed the latter body, submitting the then proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, abolishing slavery, to the legislatures of the several states for ratification. This resolution was introduced by Stephen G. Clarke of Manchester, June 3, and referred to a special committee of five, consisting of Messrs. Clarke, Downs of Lebanon, Swett of Andover, Bickford of Dover and Cate of Northfield. The majority of the committee, Messrs. Clarke, Downs and Bickford, Republicans, reported the resolution favorably, June 9, and on the following day, Messrs. Swett and Cate, the Democratic minority, presented

a report recommending indefinite postponement, for reasons succinctly set forth. The two reports were made a special order for the following day, but did not come up for consideration till June 15, when a motion to indefinitely postpone, made by Smith of Wentworth, was defeated—yeas, 99; nays, 180. Mr. Bingham did not discuss the resolutions, but spoke briefly against a motion to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution at that time. The matter went over another day and the resolution was adopted by a vote of 160 to 103, the yeas and nays being demanded by Mr. Smith of Wentworth.

The Legislature of 1864 not having completed its work to the satisfaction of the Governor, at the regular session, or exigencies having arisen which, to his mind, warranted such action, soon after adjournment he issued a proclamation summoning it to meet in extra session on August 9. The first bill introduced at this session (though not in line with any purpose of the Governor in calling the same) was a new soldiers voting bill, presented by Mr. Dodge of Londonderry, August 10. It was entitled "An Act to Enable the qualified voters of the State, engaged in the military service of the country to vote for electors of President and Vice President of the United States and for Representatives in Congress." The proxy voting plan had been abandoned, and the measure provided for voting directly by the soldiers in the field. The bill was referred to the judiciary committee and on the day following a majority of the committee, through Mr. Wheeler of Dover, reported the same, favorably without amendment. The following minority report, signed by Mr. Bingham and John G. Sinclair, and evidently written by Mr. Bingham, was also submitted:

MINORITY REPORT.

The undersigned, a minority of the committee to whom was referred the bill to enable persons in the military service to vote, cannot concur in the report of the majority of said committee, in favor of the passage of said bill, for the following

reasons:

Because the most important provisions of the bill are in violation of the letter and spirit of our federal and state constitutions.

Because the bill opens the door to the grossest frauds in the