easter, Purviance, Read, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Scott, Seltzer, Smith, of Columbia, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, Sergeant, President-72.

NAYS.-Messrs. Bell, Crawford, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Donagan, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Foulk rod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Grenell, Harris, Houpt, Maclay, Magee, M'Cahen, Nevin, Porter, of Northampton, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Stevens, Sturdevant, Taggart, Woodward, Young—28.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

A motion was made by Mr. Fleming,

That when this convention adjourns, it will adjourn to meet again to-morrow morning at half-past nine o'clock.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the motion?

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

YEAS.-Messrs. Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Bell, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickerson, Donnell, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Gamble, Gilmore, Hastings, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Russell, Scheetz, Scott, Shellito, Sterigere, Stevens, Sturdevant, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-62.

NAYS.-Messrs. Agnew,'Barndollar, Bigelow, Brown, of Lancaster, Clarke, of Beaver, Cleavinger, Crawford, Crum, Darlington, Darrah, Dickey, Dillinger, Donagan, Earle, Fuller, Gearhart, Grenell, Harris, Hayhurst, Kerr, Krebs, M'Call, Merkel, Nevin, Pennypacker, Purviance, Ritter, Royer, Saeger, Seltzer, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stickel, Taggart, Woodward-36.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

A motion was made by Mr. PORTER, of Northampton,
That the convention do now adjourn.

Which was agreed to.

Adjourned until half past nine o'clock to-morrow morning.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1838.

Mr. FRY, of Lehigh, presented a memorial from citizens of Bucks county, praying that the constitution may be so amended as to prohibit negroes from the right of suffrage.

Which was laid on the table.

Mr. LONG, of Lancaster, presented a memorial of like import from citizens of Lancaster county.

Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. BIGELOW, of Westmoreland, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Westmoreland county.

Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. RITER, of Philadelphia county, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Philadelphia county.

Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, having asked for the reading of one of these petitions, it was accordingly read.

Mr. F. then said, he had desired to know what was the specific object prayed for, under the name of amalgamation. He hoped that the entry would be made on the journal in a proper manner, as these petitions seemed to look entirely to political effect.

The PRESIDENT replied, that the journal would be made up in the customary manner; and if it was not in conformity to the wish of the convention, it could be corrected to-morrow.

Mr. CAREY, of Bucks, presented a memorial from citizens of Philadelphia county, praying that no change may be made in the constitution, having a tendency to create distinctions in the rights and privileges of citizenship, based upon complexion.

Which was laid on the table.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Chester county.

Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. COATES, of Lancaster, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Lancaster county.

Which was also laid on the table.

Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia, presented the memorial of "the association of friends, for advocating the cause of the slave, and improving the condition of the free people of colour," praying that the right of trial by jury, may be extended to every human being.

Which was also laid on the table.

A motion was made by Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, and read as follows, viz:

Resolved, That a committee of

be appointed, to whom shall be referred the amendments made to the constitution on second reading, and whose duty it shall be to report, prepare, and engross them for a third reading.

And on motion,

The said resolution was read the second time.

Mr. HOPKINSON moved to make the committee consist of five members.

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, moved to make the number three.

Mr. WEIDMAN, of Lebanon, moved that the committee consist of nine.

The question being taken on the highest number, it was decided in the affirmative.

So the the committee was ordered to consist of nine members; and,

Ordered, That Messrs. Hopkinson, Denny, Chambers, Cunningham, Clarke, of Indiana, Forward, Porter, of Northampton, Dickey, and Read, be a committee for the purposes therein expressed.

The question being on the resolution as amended, by the filling up of the blank,

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, said he should like to hear some reason for the adoption of this resolution, which seemed to him to be calculated to retard the business.

Mr. HOPKINSON replied, that the reason was, simply, to prepare the amendments for engrossment, as we went along, and thus to accelerate the conclusion of our labors.

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, thought it might be better to give the committee the power to change the phraseology of the amendments, where it should be found defective.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver said, that when once referred, it would not be in the power of the committee to alter the language of any of the amendments, without the authority of the convention. They could only report the amendments as they were, and the convention would be obliged to go into committee of the whole, to make any change of phraseology.

The resolution was then agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee, to whom was referred the first article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole.

The question recurring,

Will the convention agree to amend the third section, by inserting in the seventh line, after the word "state," the words and shall thereafter have been a resident of one of the other states, or territories of this Union?"

It was determined in the negative.
And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the amendment of the committee of the whole as amended?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. KREBS and Mr. BARCLAY, and are as follows, viz:

YEAS.-Messrs. Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers. Cline, Cox, Crain, Dunlop, Earle, Gamble, Krebs, Long, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Montgomery, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Riter, Russell, Scheetz, Sellers, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Young-25.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Fleming, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Pollock, Read, Ritter, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, Woodward, Sergeant, President-77.

So the question was determined in the negative.

99

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend the third section in the eighth line; after the words "no person residing,' by inserting the words, less than one year," so that the sentence would read

thus:

66

"No person residing less than one year within any city, town or "borough, which shall be entitled to a separate representation, shall "be elected a member for any county, nor shall any person residing "without the limits of any such city, town, or borough, be elected a mem "ber thereof."

In explanation of his motive, Mr. M. said, that some difficulty might arise, unless there was such an amendment, as there was some ambiguity in this section, as regards the city and county of Philadelphia. The city and county had a separate representation. It was not proper that a person, who was a resident of the county, should go into the city to be a candidate, or, vice versa, that a resident of the city should go into the county to be chosen. He wished to see the language of this section less ambiguous than it was in the third and fourth lines, which merely rendered it necessary that a person must have been "a citizen and inhabitant of the state, three years preceding his election, and the last year thereof, an inhabitant of the city or county in which he shall be chosen a representative," &c. He desired to have the language more clear.

Mr. AGNEW, of Beaver, said, he did not know if he rightly understood the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia county. If he did, he thought the gentleman must have overlooked the third and fourth lines of the section, which were very plain.

Mr. MARTIN repeated his explanation relative to the ambiguity of the third and fourth lines, by which persons residents in the county, could go into the city to be a candidate, and those from the county could go into the city.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, expressed his hope that the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. He did not see any ambiguity in the

language of the third and fourth lines of the section. The city, when this constitution was made, was in the county, and this clause was introduced to remove all ambiguity. A residency could not be gained in the city by the residents of the county, so as to gain those rights which are vested in the body of the inhabitants of the city. He did remember instances in which persons were elected in the county, who had not resided the previous year in the county. The returns were laid before the senate, and, the only question was, if they had resided one year in the county? The amendment proposed by the gentleman, so far from reaching our object, would defeat it.

The clause would read-"no person residing less than one year within any city, town or borough," &c. So that, by express implication, if he resided one year in the city, he would be eligible in the county.

He believed the clause, as it stood, was without any ambiguity whatever. He trusted that his friend from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Martin) would withdraw his amendment, and let the constitution remain as it is, for he had never heard that there was any ambiguity in it.

Mr. MARTIN said, he would certainly take the advice of the gentleman, because he was not certain that the amendment would reach the evil. No longer ago than last fall, a Mr. English, now an officer in the custom house, who had lived in the city only a few days before the election, removed into the county of Philadelphia, where he had made a few political speeches, and was, in consequence, elected to represent the county. And, the year before, Mr. Peltz was also elected to represent the county of Philadelphia in the senate, although he had resided only three months in it.

[Here Mr. M'CAHEN made some explanation, in an under tone, the purport of which did not reach the reporter.]

Mr. MARTIN expressed himself satisfied with the accuracy of the delegates statement. He, Mr. M., wished to bring the subject before the convention, in order that the ambiguity might be removed, if possible.

Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia county, would admit that there had been some difficulty in deciding before an election, whether persons residing in the city could represent the county; unless they had resided in it. It was to be recollected that a part of the city was in the county; and hence, it had happened, when an election took place, that there was doubt as to which a man belonged. He had no objection that a man, although a resident of the city, should represent the county, if competent to do so. He would not vote for the amendment of his colleague, but would leave the people at liberty to elect a resident of the city, if they thought him best qualified. He thought, however, it was indispensable, that the individual should be acquainted with those whom he represented, and that he should also be a representative of the policy of the state, to be a good representative.

He, Mr. M'C., could not see that the amendment was calculated to meet the expectations of his colleague or himself. He could not agree with his colleague, when he said that the gentleman to whom he had alluded, (Mr.