a narrow compass. But, the details were unimportant. If we were assured and certain that there is any thing wrong in the apportionment made by the legislature, in 1835-6, we should correct it. The wrong ought to be righted. We can certainly make a provision by which the error can be corrected, if the people wish to correct it; and, surely, we can trust them to decide for themselves, whether the acts of the legislature require correction or not.

It has been said here, that the people would amend the error in their next elections; that they would choose those who were to represent them, and cause any legislative error to be remedied. But, some years would pass before the next enumeration and apportionment, and as the representatives and senators must be distributed in conformity with the new constitution, there ought now to be a new enumeration. The new apportionment would then be made fairly and equally, if the people wished it, no matter what party might be in power; and without a new enumeration, there could not be a fair and equal distribution of representatives. Many amendments were offered here, with a view to destroy the constitution-and to prevent its acceptability with the people, but this was not of that character, and he hoped it would be adopted. It could not be considered as a vexatious or a trivial amendment. It was a proposition of interest and importance, or it would not have elicited so warm an opposition.

The amendment provides, that there shall be an enumeration within one year, so that equal justice could be done to all. The last apportionment brought together counties which were strangers to each other, and wide apart. Counties which were separated by mountains, were put together in the same district,

This was a fact, and as it was a grievance, it ought to be remedied. There was no fair and honest man, but would say, that the distance was too long, and that it ought to be shortened. There was no doubt about this.

In conversation with gentlemen of all parties here, this was readily admitted. The voters had to come from a most inconvenient distance to attend the elections, and so wide was the district, that they could not all of them have that intimate and positive knowledge of the persons to be voted for, that was at all times desirable.

Why should such a change, as was now proposed, be resisted on mere party grounds? Parties can have no interest in continuing such a state of things. One party may be in ascendency to-day, and avail itself of the unfairness and inequality of representation; but after a while, the tables will be turned, and the minority becomes the majority. The party that rules one year, may not rule next year; and the minority of one year becomes the majority of the year following. No party, therefore, can be interested in keeping up this state of things. All parties stand on an equal footing in respect to the subject of representation. A wound inflicted upon that sacred feature of our system, must be felt as a wound by men of all parties--by majorities and by minorities. Parties must look to the interest of the whole body of the people, or they cannot long stand by the aid of the people. Private and local interests cannot be brought into consideration on this subject. This was, in fine, the last topie in

the world, that could be availed of to carry into legislative halls, what ought not to be there-party, private, personal, and local considerations and interests.

If members of this body were disposed to do what was fair and honest, if they were disposed to allow a fair and equal representation to all the different sections of the state, and all its inhabitants, they would not place the counties embraced in the same district, one hundred and fifty miles apart. Let us lay aside every consideration but what concerns equal and exact justice to all, and if we do that, we shall, without doubt, pass the amend

ment.

Mr. BROWN, of the county of Philadelphia, said, that one might suppose, from the warmth of the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Scott) that he had made an appeal to this body, for justice to Philadelphia, and that justice had been refused. If any injustice had been done, the error ought to be corrected. But, how far was this from the fact? Philadelaphia, so far from being deprived of her proper and just number of representatives, had more than she was actually entitled to from her number of taxables. She was entitled to no more than five members. The county of Philadelphia had many more taxables. But what was the fact? The city of Philadelphia had seven representatives, and the county eight. Is that honest and fair? No one can consider it so.

There was no gentleman here so ingenious and eloquent, as to be able to make it appear fair and equitable. The gentleman from the city says that he made an appeal, and the legislature would not heed it. But the delegates from the county are the friends of the city of Philadelphia, and it would be wrong to blame them for not seconding the appeal.

Mr. SCOTT here said that the gentleman must not understand him as censuring the delegates of the county of Philadelphia. They had no right to control the matter. The opportunity was refused to us, as to correct our enumeration. That was what he had complained of, and still com plained of. He respected the rights of the county of Philadelphia, as much as he did those of the city of Philadelphia. All he wanted for one, he wanted for both. For both he asked a fair and just representation.

Mr. BROWN said, there was no doubt that the county of Philadelphia was unfairly dealt with, in the last apportionment, by the legislature. After all had been done to alter the enumeration, the legislature could not much reduce the original number of taxables, as first enumerated. The county had twenty-five thousand taxables, while the city of Philadelphia had but fourteen thousand. But the legislature, in the apportionment, gave seven representatives to the city of Philadelphia, and only eight to the county.

Now, he would ask, if seven to eight, was the fair and just proportion between fourteen thousand and twenty-five thousand? The county of Philadelphia was robbed and defrauded of her just rights, by that apportionment, and he, for one, was in favor of restoring them to her. If the legislature, by an unjust apportionment, defrauded any county or district of their due representation, it was undoubtedly our duty to right the wrong thus done.

We are called upon by the highest principle of right and justice, to give

back to the counties, which have been defrauded, all that they are entitled to, when, in thus doing, we commit no injury to any other county.

He maintained that we had now an opportunity to remedy this crying injustice, without in any way, impairing or invading the just rights of other counties and districts. He did not suppose that any one here would be willing to keep back from any portion of the people of Pennsylvania, their just rights. To suppose any such gross injustice, would be a slander and a reproach upon this intelligent and respectable body. It must be presumed, that it is the wish of all here, to do what is just and right, in regard to every section of the commonwealth, in the important matter of representation.

The facts that he had referred to, were undoubted and undisputed, then why should there be any opposition to the proposed remedy?

The gentleman from the city, tells us that we must not make any amendments, on the second reading of the articles, which have passed through the committee of the whole. But, if the committee of the whole were not prepared to act on the subject, if they avoided it on account of the agitation they supposed its discussion would create, he trusted that the convention would not be afraid to look it in the face, and meet it fully and fairly, as becomes the representatives of a free and intelligent and honest community.

It must be recollected, that when we were in committee, the county of Philadelphia was the standing subject of attack, and its members had to come into this body, armed to the teeth, to resist the most outrageous and wanton assaults. If the subject of the representation of that county was then kept back, in order to avoid agitation, there is no reason why it should not be presented and acted upon now.

That county had been defrauded of its rights, and it was the duty of its members to demand and insist upon redress-full and adequate redress. He trusted that there was honesty and disinterestedness enough in this body to afford it.

Mr. MEREDITH said, he thought it quite too late for the convention to employ its time upon a subject of ordinary legislation. The subject had been repeatedly brought before this body, and there had been always manifested an indisposition to interfere with it. This was from a general and strong conviction that by our interference, we should commit as many errors, and do as much injustice as we remedied; and also, from the belief that we had nothing to do with a subject of ordinary and regular legislation.

This body met in May last, and here in January, we are still talking on the subject of the last apportionment. Instead of going on with our business, and endeavoring to complete it by the 2d day of February, we are still disputing about an enumeration of taxables made three years ago, and which, in process of time, must be renewed and rectified by ordinary legislation.

The regular enumeration of taxables, will take place in 1842, and we cannot, by any amendment, cause one to be made before 1839. Was it worth our while to delay and embarrass our business, by an at empt to

anticipate, for a short time, the regular course of legislative action on this subject? Of all the difficult, laborious, and perplexing subjects, that occupy the attention of our legislature, this one of enumerating the taxables, and apportioning the representation, is the most so. It occupies a large portion of their session, in which it is attended to, and after the greatest effort to do justice to all, with a sincere desire to make a fair and equal apportionment, they can but approximate to what is just and equal. Absolute equality is not attainable. Some districts must have fractions left, which are unrepresented.

He believed that the legislature generally, in making the apportionment, were actuated by a desire to do what was best. He would ask whether the representatives from the county of Philadelphia were doing justice to their constituents, and promoting their interests, by disturbing this body perpetually with this subject?

Mr. BROWN: I will settle that matter with my constituents.

Mr. MEREDITH Continued. Was it not enough, he asked, that the city of Philadelphia should have to encounter the hostility of the county commissioners? Was it not enough, that the county, illegally appointing its own men, should attempt to do injustice to the city? Was it not enough, that they should make an enumeration, which every inhabitant of the city could prove to be wrong? Was it not enough that the county should report a list of taxables, which every one repudiated as incorrect and fraudulent, and which a majority of the legislature refused to recognize? Should the county, after all this, endeavor to keep up a perpetual agitation of the subject, and even in this body, which has nothing to do with it?

The city of Philadelphia, applied for a lawful and fair enumeration, and the legislature did what they thought best in settling the matter. The county was dissatisfied with the course taken by the legislature, preferring of course, its own illegal and unfair enumeration, as a basis of the apportionment. He deprecated the perpetual agitation of the subject here. We could not correct the procedure before 1839, and in 1812 the legisla ture would order a new enumeration, and make a new apportionment. In the mean time, it was not worth our while to bring up the subject for agitation here.

Mr. WOODWARD said, it was now manifest that, unless the difficulties between the city and county of Philadelphia could be settled some where else than here, the convention would not be able to adjourn before 1842. Under that conviction, he should demand the previous question.

At the request of some gentlemen, Mr. WOODWARD withdrew the motion for the previous question.

Mr. DICKEY renewed it, and the motion was seconded.

Mr. READ moved an adjournment. Lost.

Mr. STERIGERE said, that there was nothing on which the previous question could be put.

The CHAIR stated that the previous question would cut off the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read.) The main ques

tion would be on agreeing to the report of the committee, in regard to the fourth section of the first article.

Mr. M'CAHEN moved an adjournment. Lost.

Mr. M'CAHEN asked the yeas and nays, on ordering the main question to be put.

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crum, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Forward, Gearhart, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Hiester, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Montgomery, Pollock, Purviance, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Smith, of Columbia, Snively, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Wiedman, Woodward, Sergeant, President-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, High, Hopkinson, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Young,

-46.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

The question then being,

Will the convention agree to the report of the committee of the whole, so far as relates to the said fourth section?

The

yeas and nays were required by Mr. EARLE and Mr. HOPKINSON, and were as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chaunce Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crum, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Forward, Gearhart, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Heister, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr,, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Montgomery, Pollock, Purviance, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Smith, of Columbia, Snively, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-58.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, High, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Woodward—44.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

On motion of MI. HASTINGS,

The convention then adjourned.