I

greatest good, and not to provide for particular cases? I think not. hope that the provision in the constitution of 1790 will be suffered to remain as it is.

Mr. FORWARD said that he should vote in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Crawford, (Mr. Farrelly) because he preferred it to that adopted by the committee of the whole. He did not exactly like the phraseology of the former, though that might be corrected at a future time.

The provision of the constitution of 1790, said Mr. F., requires " that no person shall be a representative who shall not have been a citizen and inhabitant of the state, three years next preceding his election." The amendment of the gentleman from Crawford, if I correctly understand its import, recognizes the principle, that where a person has been a resident for the period of three years, and has thereby become eligible-if he is absent from the state, he may on his return, re-acquire his eligibility, by a residence of one year. If my understanding of this amendment is correct, I prefer the principle of it, to that reported from the committee of the whole.

And, the question on the amendment of Mr. FARRELLY, was then taken, and decided in the affirmative; ayes 53; noes 26.

So the amendment to the section, as reported from the committee of the whole, was agreed to.

The question then recurred on agreeing to the said section, as amended.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said, that when this question was up in committee of the whole, he had voted in favor of the amendment. But, as it appears that only one case of hardship has occurred within the long period of forty-seven years, I think it would be better to go back to the provision of the old constitution. If a man expatirates himself, of course he knows the consequences of his own conduct. There is, at all times, an abundance of good men and true, ready to enter the lists as the representatives of the people.

The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Earle) seems to think it hard, that the citizens have not the right to make their own choice. This might probably be a good argument, if applied to a county officer, but does not bear on men elected to the legislature. I think it well that there should be a period of probation; and for this reason, as well as for others which have suggested themselves to my mind, I shall vote against any amendment, and in favor of the retention of the provision in the constitution of 1790.

A motion was made by Mr. CLINE, of Bedford,

To amend the said section, by inserting in the eighth line, after the word "residence," the words "in the city or county in which he shall be chosen."

Mr. C. said, he had offered this amendment, because it appeared to him, that by the amendment adopted in committee of the whole, a person might go out of the state, having previously resided there for three years,

and after being absent for a long period of time, might come into a district only a day or two before the election took place; or, in other words, a man might reside in Pittsburg, and by going to Philadelphia a day or two before the election took place might become eligible in Philadelphia. He did not suppose that this was the object of the convention.

Mr. MARTIN said, that he liked the amendment of the gentleman from Bedford, (Mr. Cline) and should himself have offered one of a similar tenor, if that gentleman had not anticipated him. It was no uncommon thing for gentlemen to do them the favor of coming from the city and remaining in the county, a few days before the election was held, for the purpose of being elected members of the legislature. I do not know, said Mr. M., whether this has been the case elsewhere. We have been subject to such interferences, and we are desirous to get rid of them for the time to come. The proposition of the gentleman from Bedford, in my opinion, points out the remedy. I shall, therefore, vote in favor of it, and hope it may succeed.

And, the question on the amendment of Mr. CLINE, was then taken, and decided in the negative-ayes 35; noes, not counted.

So the amendment was rejected.

A motion was made by Mr. CURLL,
That the convention do now adjourn;

Which said motion was not agreed to.

A motion was then made by Mr. HIESTER,

To amend the said section, by inserting in the seventh line, after the word "state," the words, "and shall heretofore have been a resident of one of the other states or territories of this Union."

Mr. HIESTER said, that according to the view which he now took of the matter, he felt disposed to vote against the entire amendment of the committee of the whole; but that, if it was to be retained at all, there certainly ought to be appended to it, such a provision as he had now proposed.

-The gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, had pointed out the disadvantage which would result from the adoption of the amendment of the committee of the whole, under which persons, who choose to expatiate themselves-who went to Canada, or Texas, or any other part of the world--might return to this country, and, after a residence of one year, might become eligible. This he, Mr. H., did think was desirable; and the amendment which he had proposed, would obviate all difficulty arising from this source. It would also obviate the difficulty and hardship arising out of such cases, as that which had been alluded to by the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. Stevens.)

Mr. MARTIN said, he did not feel exactly prepared to come to a vote at this time. Several ideas had been thrown out, which induced him to think that various alterations in this section might yet be required. He did not, therefore, wish to vote on this question, until he had examined its bearing further. He asked leave to make a motion.

Leave not having been granted,

Mr. M. said, as he could not make the motion which he desired, he would content himself with moving that the convention do now adjourn. Which motion having been agreed to, The Convention adjourned.

MONDAY, JANUARY 1, 1838

[Previous to the regular business, some discussion took place on a motion made by Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, for a correction of the journal; but as it was merely a question of phraseology, the motion was not agreed to.]

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, presented a remonstrance from citizens of Chester County, against any change in the constitution making the right of citizenship and suffrage dependant upon the complexion of the individual.

Which was laid on the table.

Mr. THOMAS, of Chester, presented a remonstrance of like import, from citizens of Chester county.

Which was laid on the table.

Mr. PENNYPACKER, of Lancaster, presented a remonstrance of like import, from citizens of Lancaster.

Which was laid on the table.

Mr. COATES, of Lancaster, presented a memorial from citizens of Laneaster county, praying that constitutional provision may be made to prevent mobs.

Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. KEIM, of Berks, presented two memorials from citizens of Bucks county, praying that a clause may be inserted in the constitution, expressly providing that no one of the negro race be permitted to vote for any public office whatsoever.

Which were also laid on the table.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, presented two memorials of like import, from the same county.

Which were also laid on the table.

Mr. STERIGERE presented a memorial from citizens of Lancaster county, praying that measures may be taken effectually to prevent all amalgamation between the white and coloured population, in regard to the government of this state.

A motion was made by Mr. BIDDLE, and read as follows, viz:

Resolved, That not more than one hour in any day shall be appropriated to the consideration of petitions, motions and resolutions.

On motion of Mr. BIDDLE,

The rule prohibiting resolutions for changing the rules of the convention from being twice read in the same day, was dispensed with, and the said resolution was read the second time.

And being under consideration,

Mr. STERIGERE moved to amend the resolution by striking out the word "one" and substituting the words "half an," so as to read "half an hour."

Mr. BIDDLE accepted the amendment as a modification of the original resolution.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, expressed his opinion that the operation of the resolution would be nugatory; and that this rule, if adopted, might be used injuriously by the minority. The majority could now control the action of the convention If this rule be adopted, it may have the effect of cutting off all resolutions. The usage in legislative bodies was, that the speaker might address the Chair on the subject of a resolution until the hour had expired; and thus, day after day, one speaker might consume the whole of the session, and prevent any resolution being brought forward before the time allowed by the rule, would, every day, have expired.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, said the modest gentleman from the county had himself offered a resolution to restrict every one from speaking more than one hour, without his consent or without the unanimous consent of this body, which was the same thing. What he has done, therefore, is a complete answer to what he says.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, was sorry that the mover of the resolution had adopted the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery. He was willing to go for a restriction of the time to one hour. He would ask for the yeas and nays on the resolution.

Mr. M'DowWELL, of Bucks, hoped the amended resolution would carry. It would be still better to prohibit any one from offering any resolution until after the first of February. The discussion of resolutions and rules consumed one-third of our time. It seemed to be a part of the wisdom of this body to offer resolutions; and it was a worm thrown into the water to minnows--the moment a resolution is offered, every one jumps at it. Much of the time of the convention would be saved if we could exclude all resolutions for the next two weeks. In his opinion a quarter of an hour would be sufficient time to allow for their consideration.

Mr. BIDDLE replied that it had been his desire to put the resolution in the form which would be most acceptable. At the early stages of the session, it was necessary to allow a wide latitude for the introduction of resolutions. But there was no reason for giving such a range now. All, or almost all, the propositions which could be acted on, had now been offered. To obviate all objections, he would so far change the phraseology of the resolution as to make it read "That not more than one hour shall be appropriated to the consideration of petitions, motions and resolutions."

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, asked if gentlemen were not involving themselves in some difficulty. Suppose a resolution should be introduced relative to the amendment of the constitution. We had nearly reached the end of the session. How is it to be discussed? Half a dozen of the amendments may not be disposed of, and it may be necessary to embrace all those which are required, and which cannot be reached, in a resolution to be afterwards passed upon. By the adoption of this rule, therefore, we may cut off some of the amendments. We still find numbers in a situation in which we must throw several amendments together, or we shall be compelled to leave some of them untouched.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, believed it might be found necessary, towards the close of the session, to occupy more than one hour in the consideration of resolutions. He moved that the further consideration of the resolution be postponed for the present.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, remarked that if, towards the close of the session, it should be found necessary to occupy more than one hour, the rule might be suspended. It might become necessary sometimes to suspend the rule.

Mr. FULLER said if the resolution was adopted, it would be half-past ten o'clock before the house would proceed to business. An hour was long enough for the consideration of resolutions.

Mr. EARLE said the gentleman from Montgomery had a dozen times repeated the assertion that he (Mr. Earle) had spoken four hours and a half on a subject, and then voted in favor of limiting speeches to one hour in length. The gentleman had better have that assertion placarded on the wall, and at the door of the hall. But he omitted to state that he (Mr. E.) had previously voted for adjournment on the 2d of February, which would have been impossible without such a limitation. Ile hoped the gentleman would publish the statement which he had so often made. The gentleman's constituents would, doubtless, be willing to limit his speeches to half an hour. He was opposed to the resolution. The limitation had had the effect in congress to prevent action on resolutions. One member from the southern part of this state consumed the morning hour for fifteen days in a speech on a resolution.

Mr. STURDEVANT moved the previous question.

The motion was sustained, and the main question was ordered to be put.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the resolution?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FULLER and Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crum, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dillinger, Donnell, Farrelly, Forward, Gearhart, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hiester, High, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lan