out infringing on the rule, or interfering with the decision we have just made, because that decision was nothing more nor less than that the main question should not be put now. It seemed to him, that common sense if nothing else, would bring us to this conclusion. He hoped, therefore, that the committee might not now rise, but that we would proceed to the consideration of the amendments to this section.

Mr. STERIGERE, would only say, that if this doctrine which it was attempted to have established here was adopted, it would be the first time it ever had been adopted in any deliberative body. It is the doctrine of Jefferson, in his manual, that when the previous question is moved and not sustained, the subject is put from before the House, and this doctrine had been affirmed by the repeated decisions of the House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States. The consequence of the previous question is that it not only precludes debate, but it precludes amendments, and if you cannot go on and propose amendments, it removes all proceedings from before the House for the day. This then has shown the Convention the folly of adopting a rule permiting any less number than a majority to order the previous question. He had proposed an amendment at the commencement of the session when the rules were under consideration, that not less than a majority of the members present should second the previous question, but the Convention determined that eighteen were sufficient. It was now seen, however, that the rule was useless. The previous question had been moved and seconde, and the main question not being ordered, all the consequences attendant upon such a state of things in any deliberative body must be felt here; and whatever the consequences would be in Convention, must be in Committee. The first section then must be removed from before the Committee, but because that was the case, there is no necessity for the Committee to rise, because we have two other sections in the third article undisposed of, and we can proceed to the consideration of these sections. The operation of the previous question was only applied to the first section, and could not remove the whole article from before the Committee. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would proceed to the consideration of the second section, and not rise and pass over the whole article. It would, perhaps, consume the remainder of the day on the two sections yet remaining, and to-morrow we can take up and dispose of the first section.

Mr. BELL hoped the Committee would now rise, it being nearly the usual hour for rising, and this question could be discussed and determined upon this afternoon.

Mr. EARLE hoped we would not discuss this question of the Committee rising all morning, but trusted that it might be withdrawn, or voted down, so that the Chairman would have an opportunity of deciding the question, and if that decision was, that it did put the subject from before the House, and this was the deliberate opinion of the Convention that it was to be put from before the House by the rules, he had no doubt but two-thirds could be found to dispense with this rule, so that we might go on with our business in the afternoon, without any more consumption of time.

The Committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again this afternoon,

The Convention adjourned.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON-4 O'CLOCK.

THIRD ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into committee of the whole on the third article of the Constitution, Mr. KERR, of Washington, in the Chair.

The question pending, being on the amendment of Mr. PORTER, as amended by Mr. STEVENS.

The CHAIR stated, that he was well aware that the decision on the question, "shall the main question be now put"? being in the negative, it must have the effect of postponing the subject for the day. But, it was a novel situation in which we were placed. An adjournment had taken place, and the convention has, by its own act, gone into committee of the whole again. The whole matter, therefore, would stand as it did before the main question was called.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, moved to amend the amendment as amended, by adding thereto the following;" Provided also, that no citizen having resided in the State six months as aforesaid, and ten days thereof in the district where he offers his vote, shall be deprived of his vote, although he has not paid any tax or taxes".

Mr. B. said, he offered this amendment for the purpose of testing the tax qualification. It presented the plain question, and, they who are willing to accept it as an amendment, would shew that they are willing that the freemen of the State should vote as freemen, and not because they paid six cents or twenty cents for public taxes. He did not regard the payment of a five-penny bit as giving to a man a title to vote, which he did not possess as a matter of right. Every man, it was said, should contribute to the support of the Government, for the protection he enjoys. Right. He had no hesitation to say, that the man who possessed property should contribute, whether much or little. This amendment would not prevent such taxation. Whosoever possessed property would be taxed as hitherto; but, they who had no property, and who had fulfilled their other obligations to the Constitution, would be allowed to vote, as if they were possessed of property, and contributed to the support of the Government. Every gentleman would understand the amendment, and would vote as his conscience would say was right to himself, and his fellow freemen of the Commonwealth.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver: The gentleman has introduced six months instead of one year.

Mr. BANKS: The six months is in the amendment, as it has been adopted.

Mr. DICKEY: No, it is one year.

Mr. BANKS: Then certainly I go for a year, and modify my amendment accordingly.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, suggested an amendment to simplify the language..

Mr. BANKS thought the language sufficiently plain now.

Mr. DENNY, of Allegheny, asked if the amendment was in order, and whether it was not inconsistent with the main proposition which had been adopted by the committee,

The CHAIR said the motion was in order. It was for the committee to judge of the consistency of the proposition.

Mr. DENNY said, the Chair decided the same question on the other day, and the committee sustained his decision. The amendment changes what has already been adopted.

The CHAIR: If the committee think it inconsistent, they will reject the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams. said the Chair was undoubtedly right, unless the language had gone expressly to repeal what had been previously agreed to. If gentlemen were sincere in the desire to get through this article, they would refrain from offering amendments Should this be adopted, it would be impossible to get through. The amendment, as adopted, will be weighed down by amendments, as had been the case in another instance. The amendment, which had been adopted, made the thing most easy, while this proposition went to confound the honest poor man with the vagabond; since, it gave him the rights of a resident and respectable citizen, if he had lodged in a barn in the district for ten days, and washed his cravat in a mud hole. That was sufficient to give him a participation in the Government, without any character which ought to confer it. The word "freemen", in this amendment, did not mean the honest farmer, mechanic, or laborer, but the vile, the vagabond, the idle and dissipated this is the creature to be hugged and kissed and courted. It would be better to get rid of this, and go to another subject, before the plague reached the city.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said, that every means which the friends of universal suffrage had adopted to introduce that principle into the Constitution, had been defeated by ingenious amendments. When the amendment, offered by the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL) for the six months, was introduced, it was immediately proposed to be amended by the gentleman from Chester, on his right, (Mr. DARLINGTON.) These questions occupied the committee for the last nine days. He (Mr. D.) was in favor of extending the right of suffrage to all free citizens, because every man had an original right to it, and no one should attempt to take away the privilege of using it. If you exclude the base and worthless people, spoken of by the gentleman from Adams, by requiring the prerequisite of a tax, you will also prevent the exercise of the franchise by some respectable person, and every restriction will disqualify thousands. He believed there was a majority of the committee, if they could but get fairly before them, questions which had been so ingeniously trammeled by gentlemen on the other side, would vote that the citizen had a right to vote, whether he had property, or no property-or whether he had one dollar, or one hundred thousand dollars. After the determination of the principle, they could not disqualify those who had disqualified themselves. He would not disqualify the pauper in the Bucks county poor house, who had been a revolutionary soldier; he would not disqualify any poor man, because he could not pay a tax-poverty was not to be regarded as a crime.This was the only opportunity which had been offered to those who were against a property qualification; and, if we rejected the amendment, it would be because there was a combination against those who did not possess that qualification. It was the first opportunity which had been offered of testing the question, and he hoped it would be met fairly.—

Adopt this, (said Mr. D.) end my word for it, we will carry out the prin ciple afterwards. I regret that any appeal should have been made to gentlemen against this proposition. Let us meet the question. The gentlemen on the other side have already yielded the principle, when they said they only asked for the payment of a tax as an evidence of residence.We cannot do better than pass the amendment, and if, afterwards, we desire to disqualify any description of persons, we can do so. But, I would be indisposed to disqualify for poverty. I would disqualify none but those guilty of infamous crimes.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, stated, that the committee had reported against the tax qualification; the friends of the present Constitution had moved amendment after amendment, although, he trusted it was so amended, that it would be ultimately rejected. Whenever the question of a tax qualification had been up before the Convention, it was always sustained by a majority, yet the gentleman from Beaver complains that the question had not been taken. The committee reported one year's residence, and no tax qualification, and the report was amended on motion of the gentleman from Northampton. He hoped the question would be taken. A proviso was now desired to be added that there shall be no tax qualification, which would make the whole amendment so absurd, that no one would agree to it. He hoped the gentleman would permit the question to be taken, and that they might get to the end of this discussion.

Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, said, he wished to make a few remarks in favor of the amendment, but he was afraid he might be charged, by the gentleman from Adams, with lying in barns, washing his cravat in mud holes, and associating with the vagabonds he spoke of. As the gentleman had come all the way from Vermont, he might have been acquainted with such people, or he could never have given such a correct history of them. For his part, he had nothing to do with such characters; but, he believed that every white man that lived in Pennsylvania, who loved his country, and was willing to turn out and hazard his life in defence of its rights, had, or ought to have, the right to vote. Is a man to lose his vote, because, by mistake, he is left out of the tax list? Is a man, who has fought the battles of his country, to be deprived, by the laws of that country, from voting, because he is poor? The gentleman from Adams must be very confined in his notions, according to his own argument. He should be more reserved when he talked of dirty cravats. This amendment ought to pass, as it secured the rights of freemen, who, although they were called vagrants and vagabonds, were as good patriots as the gentleman from Adams. That gentleman has consumed the time of this Convention in long speeches, and offering amendments, when their only object was to embarrass the Convention, and pass away the time. He did not, he said, know where to find such vagabond customers as the gentleman had talked about. The amendment was right, and ought to be adopted. The language used by the gentleman from Adams was unbecoming the dignity of this Hall This was an assembly, second to none for talent and respectability, and he believed, that every member wished to do what was right, according to his judgment, except one who has no disposition to do any thing that is right. Why was he so troubled, because it is desired that the poor man should have a voice in the country? He hoped the deliberate voice of this body would say that the amendment

should pass, and that no freeman should lose his vote, because the assessor had neglected him, or not found him at home, when he called to make his assessment.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said that he had only to inform the gentleman from the city, (Mr. MEREDITH) who had observed that those who were opposed to the tax qualification, could vote against the amendment as amended, and in favor of the report of the committee, that the friends of universal suffrage first wished to amend the report itself. He desired to ask one question of the Chair, and that was, if it would be in order to move an amendment to the Constitution itself, after the vote was taken on the report of the committee.

The CHAIR said, that should the question on agreeing to the report of the committee, as amended, be negatived, it would be in order to move an amendment to the section of the committee.

Mr. CHAMBERS, of Franklin, said it appeared to him that if any principle had been settled by the committee, it was that of tax qualification. There had been decisive votes taken on several occasions, which went, in his opinion, to show that a majority of the committee were in favor of the payment of a tax. He would not occupy the time of the committee by going into a statement of the reasons which had been repeatedly expressed on that floor in support of a tax qualification, and why it should be required. This amendment was entirely inconsistent with that which had been adopted-went to reverse the decision of the committee, and therefore, ought not to be adopted. The CHAIR was right in its decision, inasmuch as there was no motion to strike out, and to refer it to the committee, to say whether or not, it was inconsistent. If it had been accompanied by a motion to strike out what was adopted, the Chair would, of course, have immediately decided the motion to be out of order. But, as the mover had not moved to strike it out, but had moved it as an amendment, it was for the committee to decide whether it was inconsistent with the amendment adopted by the committee at its last sitting. Was there, he would ask, any reason which could be shewn why they should reverse that decision? To enter into an argument to show that the adoption of the present amendment would be inconsistent with the previous action of the committee, would be entirely superfluous and unnecessary. The amendment, then, ought to be immediately rejected.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

Mr. RUSSELL, of Bedford, would like to know what the effect of the passage of the amendment would be upon the report of the committee as amended? Being inconsistent with it, it appeared to him that it would be nugatory and void. Therefore, it would be absurd to adopt propositions inconsistent with each other.

Mr. CLEAVINGER, of Greene, said he thought that the amendment was perfectly consistent with the report of the committee as amended. In his opinion, the tax was only an evidence of citizenship-a kind of register to furnish a list of the voters-and there was no better mode, because, by the act of the assessor, the person having a right to vote is identified. If citizenship could be proved in another way, then the tax qualification was useless. A tax should not be the only evidence of the right to vote. It might so happen, that no tax would be necessary. Would, then, the