Amount transfered to the fund, 1st April, 1837, 206,139 35 72,840 30 278,979 65 1,529,646 33 Fund, 31st March, 1838, Probable amount to be transfered, 1st April, 1838, 60,000 00' Fund, 31st March, 1839, Probable amount to be transfered, 1st April, 1839, 50,000 00 Fund, 31st March, 1840, 79,482 32 139,482 32 1,669,128 65 85,956 43 135,956 43 1,805,085 08 92,754 25 142,754 25 1,947,839 33 100,000 00 152,160 67 2,100,000 00 Probable amount to be transfered, 1st April, 1840, 50,000 00 Probable amount to be transfered, 1st April, 1841, 52,160 67 Fund 31st March, 1841, Interest on the whole, one year, Fund, 31st March, 1842, Respectfully submited, NATH. P. HOBART, AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, JUNE 20, 1837. Auditor General STATEMENT Of the adjusted valuation of the real and personal property, persons, trades, and occupations, in the several counties of this Commonwealth; also, the valuation of the personal estate, bonds, notes, stocks, &c., together with the tax of one mill upon every dollar of the value thereof, for the use of the Commonwealth, as returned to the Auditor General, by the County Commissioners, for the year 1835. COUNTIES. Valuation of Real Pro-Tax of one mill on Real Valuation of Personal Tax of one mill on Per. perty, &c, Property, &c. Property, &c. sonal Property, &c. COUNTIES. Valuation of Real Pro-Tax of one mill on Real Valuation of Personal Tax of one mill on Perperty, &c. Property, &c. Property, &c. sonal Property, ecc. THIRD ARTICLE. The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the third article of the Constitution, Mr. KERR, of Washington, in the Chair. The CHAIR said there had occured some difficulty yesterday as to the rule of order. On examination the CHAIR found that he had been mistaken. The next question ought to have been to agree to the amendment as amended. Then the other amendments would have been in order. The first question here is on agreeing to the amendment as amended. Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said of course that question could not be taken until all the amendments had been offered. He then moved to amend the amendment by striking out all after the word "months", and inserting in lieu thereof, the words following: "except idiots, habitual drunkards, and inmates of alms-houses, lunatic asylums, penitentiaries and prisons, shall be entitled to vote in the district in which he shall reside". The CHAIR decided that the motion was not in order, because it proposed to strike out words which had been inserted by a vote of the committee. Mr. READ appealed from that decision. The CHAIR propounded the question. An amendment was offered by the gentleman from Chester on the right (Mr. BELL); and an amendment to that amendment was offered by the gentleman from Chester on the left (Mr. DARLINGTON). The amendment to the amendment covered the whole ground of the first amendment, and having been agreed to, the CHAIR decides that a motion to strike out what is just ordered to be inserted, cannot be in order. Mr. READ said it might be thought that he was taking too much on himself to take this appeal, after the opinions which had been given yesterday to the contrary, by the gentlemen from Adams, Franklin, and Montgomery, as well as by other gentlemen of experience. After the opinions delivered by these gentlemen, he should not have offered his present proposition, knowing the CHAIR would reject it, had he not believed that the opinions of the gentlemen to whom he had alluded were given on the spur of the moment. This was a question of vital importance. He hoped all these gentlemen, together with the President of the Convention, would reflect on the consequences to which this decision would lead. Our amendment, and the amendment of our neighbours can never be heard. All of us will be cut out of our rights, if this decision should be sustained. Why? The authority read yesterday by the gentleman from Montgomery was good, but it had not the slightest relation to the question before the committee. As the gentleman from Philadelphia said, it was very good, but it was not to the point. It has no application to the question-and why? Because it does not apply to an amendment to an amendment. What is an amendment? It is a modification, or insertion of something into the original proposition, against the will of the mover. If the gentleman from Chester now asked to modify his proposition in any way, would it not be in order for him to strike out any part, or to prefix, or insert in the middle any other words? How else could he effect his purpose? The error of gentlemen consisted in regarding this as an original proposition which is, by the rule, to be made as perfect as |