English) was elected a representative to the legislature, merely because he had made a few political speeches. He, Mr. M'C., believed, that the gentleman was well known in the district, where he had long lived, and was popular and respected. The gentleman was thoroughly acquainted with their interests when elected; and he, Mr. M'C., did not believe the county of Philadelphia, had ever been better represented. One of the senators of the county, was now a resident of the city; he meant Dr. Burden.

Now, if that gentleman was not competent to represent the county when living in the city, it should be so declared by the constitution. He did not believe that the people of the county, would elect a gentleman from the city, if they were not satisfied that he was fit to represent them.

Mr. MARTIN here withdrew his amendment.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend, by striking from the fourth line "city or county," and inserting the word district," and inserting in the fourth line, after the word "in," the words "and for;" and by inserting after the word "chosen," the words "a representative;" and by striking from the section all after the word "state," in the fifth line.

Mr. E. [said he fully agreed with his colleague, (Mr. Martin) as to the necessity of an amendment. There should certainly be something explicit on the subject. According to the argument of his friend on the right, (Mr. M'Cahen) his constituents ought to be at liberty to select their representatives from whence they chose, in the state. But, by the construction put upon the constitution, the people of the county of Philadelphia, cannot elect a representative from the city, nor can the people of the city elect a representative from the county.

He, Mr. E., thought it highly necessary that an individual should reside one year in a district, before he should be deemed eligible to represent it. He was of opinion, that if the gentleman looked at the section, as he, Mr. E., would amend it, he would be satisfied that the alterations were desira ble. They would considerably abridge the length of the section, by rendering all the latter part of it, after the fifth line, unnecessary. All ambiguity would be avoided, and the constitution made a reasonable length. He believed it to be well understood now, that the convention would not consent to give each county of the state a representative. What an absurdity would it be, to say that a representative shall live in the county he represents, when, perhaps, he may represent the three counties of M'Kean, Tioga, and Potter! He can only live in one county. In reference to the senate-the constitution provided that no person could be elected a senator, that had not resided the last year of four, in the district for which he might be elected. He was perfectly satisfied with the arrangement, that a representative of a city shall not represent a county, and vice versa.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, said that the amendment would leave the matter just where it was. The gentleman should bear in mind that the representative district was the city or county. The two words were synonimous. He, Mr. M., did not think it would make the section more

intelligible; and he thought that no man who read it carefully, would see any ambiguity about it. When the question was raised among the members of the two houses of the legislature, it was considered only a question of fact. The gentleman who was elected, had resided a year out of the city, and a year in the county. In the case, to which allusion had been made, no petitions were presented. One, was that of a gentleman who went into the county of Philadelphia to reside, and, in consequence of his seductive eloquence, the citizens thereof, elected him as one of their representatives.

He, Mr. M., supposed that the gentleman was so acceptable to the people generally, that they did not dispute about his election. There was no ambiguity connected with it. He saw no necessity for going into a correction of the phraseology, unless some purpose was to be answered. Having said thus much, and as we had but little time to spare, he would do what he had never done before, ask for the previous question.

Mr. M. withdrew the call.

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, asked, whether a gentleman who resides three months in the city, was eligible for the county?

Mr. MEREDITH should say that he was ineligible. The section reads, that an individual must be an inhabitant of the state three years, and the last year thereof, an inhabitant of the city or county, in which he shall be chosen. And, then we come to the inquiry-what is the county in which he is chosen? The last clause, is to fix what is the residence, i. e. the last year of the three years.

Mr. FORWARD agreed with the gentleman from the city, as to the resultBut, was it not better to put in plain words, what the gentleman, and every lawyer could arrive at by construction? For, it was, after all, a matter of construction.

Mr. MEREDITH said, that his fear was, that, in attempting to remove doubts, which never existed, we might involve ourselves in greater difficulty. At Harrisburg, where the question was frequently up, he had not heard a doubt expressed. In that part of the state, from which the gentleman from Allegheny came, there was no distinct separation. And, in this part of it, he, Mr. M., had never heard of any difficulty.

Mr. M'CAHEN regarded this as a very reasonable proposition, because, it expressed in plain words, where the representative shall be a resident of -where the qualification shall rest. He maintained that it was better to use plain, clear, and explicit language. Where there was the less, ambiguity-the slightest room for doubt, the objection ought to be removed, Where there was no difficulty as to the qualification-there would be none as to the selection of candidates.

But, in regard to the cases referred to, he would say, in reference to the gentleman who was elected, in 1835, to the legislature, that if his seat had been contested, he could not have retained it; nor could the gentleman, who was elected in 1836, and who resided in the city, and not in the county; and the county of Philadelphia would have been put to considerable expense. He could not see what objection could, reasonably, be made to putting the section in language more clear and unambiguous, and

which would obviate difficulties in future. If the language was clear and explicit, the people would have no difficulty about the matter, and would take care to choose their candidates from their immediate residents. He hoped the determination to resist amendments, would not lead to the rejection of the present.

Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, said it appeared to him that the convention were about to violate the good old rule of "letting well enough alone." No proof had been given of any difficulties having arisen from a misconstruction of the constitution. They were attributable to inattention. With regard to the gentleman who was sent to the legislature in 1835, he could say that the gentleman in question had been a resident of the county of Philadelphia a sufficient time to entitle him to take his seat. He knew him, and understood all about the facts and circumstances connected with his election. It had been shown that both the gentlemen referred to, had been residents of the county the proper time. He thought the gentleman from the county, (Mr. Earle) had better let the matter stand as it did; for, if any alteration was made, a new construction might be put on the section, and thus occasion many mistakes. It was now clearly understood that a gentleman elected from the city of Philadelphia, must have resided there one year before he could obtain the privilege of being one of its representatives. This being admitted-clearly understood, he saw no reason why any alteration of the constitution should be made to prevent any misunderstanding hereafter, when it was correctly understood now.

Mr. EARLE remarked that the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Chandler) had said he clearly understood the matter. He hoped however, that the gentleman would have some compassion on those poor mortals, whose perceptions were not so quick as his own, and who did not understand it. He (Mr. Earle) had been appealed to as a lawyer, to say whether the individuals alluded to were eligible or not. He had given it as his opinion that they were ineligible; but others declared that they were eligible, and the matter was decided against him. If a man held a seat in the legislature, who had no right to it, was not that an evil? He apprehended it was. Was this constitution such a "matchless instrument" that it was not susceptible of improvement, and ought not to be touched? It appeared to him that nothing but a fixed determination not to alter the constitution could induce any gentleman to vote against such an amendment as this was. Not a single sound objection had been urged against it; nor could there be any objection brought forward possessing the slightest shadow of plausibility. Both the delegates from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. Martin and Mr. M'Cahen) had stated that the two gentlemen elected to the legislature, had no right there. He would put it to delegates to say-whether it was not better that this convention should alter the section so as to prevent the recurrence of the like difficulties in future, than to leave it unamended, and give the legislature the trouble of deciding hereafter on the eligibility of the parties elected, after having spent months in discussion? Would gentlemen go so far as to say it was better not to anticipate the recurrence of such a state of things as had been described? He apprehended not. But, when gentlemen said that nothing of the sort had happened, they made the assertion in the face of notorious facts. He would ask the editorial gentleman, whose knowledge

of language he respected, if he would be in favor of putting an article in ten lines, when it could be expressed in five? Now, he wanted to reduce the number of lines of the section from ten to five. He said he would modify his amendment, so as to dispense with the matter towards the close of the section, which he deemed entirely superfluous. Mr. E. was proceeding to state his modification, when

The PRESIDENT said it was not in order to strike out what was unaltered in the section; but he would put the question according to the rules.

Mr. EARLE said that he would appeal, because he regarded the decis ion of the President as contrary to the uniform practice of the convention. At Harrisburg it was entirely different. He cortended that he had a right to offer an amendment to his amendment, in order to put it in the best and most perfect shape it was susceptible of. Mr. E. at the request of a delegate withdrew his appeal.

The PRESIDENT said it was out of order after asking an appeal, and making a speech, to withdraw it.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, did not intend to follow the example of his colleague, who, by way of saving time, had made an appeal, spoken on it, and then withdrawn it. With regard to the section under consideration, and the propriety of amending it, he had a few words to say. The question resolved itself into a question of experience. We ought to look back in order to see whether it was necessary to provide for the future. Had the history of the past demonstrated the necessity of amending the section? In his opinion it had. The cases cited of two gentlemen being elected to represent the county of Philadelphia, who were not privileged to do so, went strongly to prove, if any thing could do, that an amendment ought to be made immediately to prevent a recurrence of the kind. As to leaving it to the legislature to declare, in the event of a contested election, who was and who was not eligible, we all knew that their decision would be in conformity with the political complexion of the body itself.

He recollected that not many years since, Mr. Benjamin W. Leigh, who ran as a candidate for the county of Henrico, (Va.) against another gentleman of opposite politics, was declared duly elected by the legislature, because they wanted his services. The next year, a Mr. Williams, who was a candidate, was declared ineligible, because they did not re quire his services. He maintained that if the seats of the two gentle men sent from the county of Philadelphia, had been contested, the legislature would have decided the matter in accordance with their political character. The editorial gentleman, as he was called, had said that the question had been settled. He (Mr. B.) thought the gentleman could not point out a single instance of a gentleman being elected to the legislature, whom that body knew to be elected according to the meaning and intent of the constitution itself. He could not see what objection that gentleman, (Mr. Chandler) or any other, could have to rendering the language of the section clearer than it at present was-to prevent mistakes and the trouble which grew out of them. The eligibility of a man should depend upon fixed constitutional principles, and not on the political character of the legislature, to which he had been sent.

Mr. CHAUNCEY, of Philadelphia, had looked with great care at the section, and did not perceive any defect in it, nor had he ever heard a doubt as to the inaccuracy of the phraseology until now. He could not conceive any reasonable ground there was for altering the section. With regard to the latter part of the section, he would say that no language could be more appropriate to express the idea the framers of the constitution had in view. He thought the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. E.) would not attain the object of his wishes-that was, to make the section clearer, and which he supposes of doubtful construction. He (Mr. Chauncey) did not think there was any such term in the constitution as a "representative district." There was the term "senatorial district." But, if the words "representative district" were to be inserted, they might give rise to a question as to what was meant by them. The language of the section was perfectly clear-city and county are the only two places. The amendment would introduce a new phrase; and instead of removing doubt, would introduce one.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, said that if a gentleman represented four or five counties, he could live in any one of them. In his opinion "representative district" was the proper term. He would tell the gentleman, (Mr. Chauncey) that the term "city and county," was ambiguous, because a gentleman did not represent either city or county.

Mr. DICKEY said the third section, as it stood, in conuexion with the fourth, would answer all the purposes of the member. We could not make it plainer than it now was, under the third and fourth sections. The lawyers in attempting to make it plainer, would only entangle it. Upon one year's residence in the state, a person who had been previously a qualified elector in the state, would be eligible. That was the provision of the third section as it was reported. The fourth section provides that no county hereafter erected shall be entitled to a separate representation, until an adequate number of taxable inhabitants shall be contained within it, to entitle them to one representative, agreeably to the established ratio. He could not see that the amendment offered by the gentleman from the county, (Mr. Earle) was of any importance, and it would only serve to embarrass the motion, without at all improving it. He was in favor of adhering as closely as possible to the form and phraseology of the old constitution, as far as was practicable, because its construction was well settled and well understood. To encumber it with new and unmeaning provisions of doubtful utility and disputed construction would destroy the instrument. He could anticipate no difficulty in the construction of the section as it stood.

Mr. M'CAHEN offered an amendment as a substitute for that moved by the gentleman from the county, (Mr. Earle.) He proposed to insert the latter clause of the section, viz: the words following :

"Or unless he shall have been previously a qualified elector in this state, in which case he shall be eligible upon one year's residence. No person residing 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 member thereof," and to modify the section so as to provide, that "no person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty one years, and have been a citizen and inhabi