Mr. READ appealed from this decision, and supported the appeal at some length.

The PRESIDENT stated the case.

Mr. MEREDITH Supported the decision of the President.

The PRESIDENT decided that it was now too late for an appeal to be entered.

Mr. READ appealed from that decision, and asked for the yeas and nays upon it.

Mr. STERIGERE regretted, he said, that the appeal had not been received, because it could never, in his opinion, be too late, before the question was taken.

Mr. MEREDITH expressed the hope that the appeal would not be sustained, and went into an argument to shew that the decision of the Chair was correct, and ought to stand.

Mr. BROWN, of the county of Philadelphia, said he considered that the vote on the section had been taken and seconded.

Mr. MEREDITH remarked, that the question now was, whether the appeal was taken in time?

Mr. BROWN called for the reading of the minutes.

Mr. BIDDLE said, the journal was of no authority until it was corrected. Mr. BROWN maintained that when the gentleman from Susquehanna found that the gentleman from Allegheny was debating a question that had been settled, it was in order for him to appeal.

[A considerable discussion ensued on this question of order, occupying nearly an hour.]

The question was then taken: "Will the convention sustain the appeal?"

'The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FULLER and Mr. FORWARD, and were as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke of Indiana, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Cull, Darrah, Dillinger, Donigan, Donnell, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, Montgome y, Read, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward-47.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bell, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Forward, Harris, Hays, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Maclay, Martin, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Royer, Russell, Seager, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President—60. So the question was determined in the negative.

Mr. FORWARD resumed the floor, but yielded it to Mr. DARLINGTON, on whose motion,

The convention took the usual recess.

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 3, 1838.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

The convention resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the first article, and the question being on agreeing to the fifth section as amended,

Mr. FORWARD resumed his remarks on the subject:

The

When the question arose, he had not intended himself to take any part in its discussion, and he was not now, he said, prepared fully to consider it in all its bearing. He had hoped that some other member, better prepared than himself, would give it his attention. He thought that so grave and important a question ought not to be taken in silence. Few questions had been submitted to us, of more interest than this proposed reduction of the senatorial term, and it derived additional importance from the changes already made in other parts of the constitution, by which the senate had been clothed with new powers, in co-operation with the governor. reduction of the senatorial term of service, as proposed by the section before us, after that body had been clothed with new powers, did appear to him, to be a very extraordinary and ill-considered measure. After what we had done, in relation to the powers of the senate, it was certainly important to give that body the advantage of experience, by allowing to it as long a term as was consistent with their due responsibility to their constituents. We now reduce the term, after adding a very strong reason for lengthening it.

I do feel, sir, said Mr. F., very anxious on this subject. I should much deplore any abridgment of the present term of four years, which I consider as being quite as short as is consistent with that experience which is necessary to a proper discharge of the important trusts of that body. I may urge these views in vain, and it may be considered that I give them. undue importance, but I trust, that every candid man will well weigh these arguments before he gives his vote upon the question. A due regard for the public interests, and the reputation of this body for enlightened wisdom, will induce every one here, I trust, to consider this question maturely before he gives his final vote upon it. Why is it that we have divided the legislative branch of the government into two branches ? Why should we not have a single branch, reflecting the popular will alone? Why should we have a senate, constituted differently from the house, elected for a longer term, of greater age, and fewer numbers? Why not have one branch alone, embodying the popular will? Why not have one house, annually elected, as is the legislative body. What want we more than the popular will for the time being? Would not the cardinal purpose of carrying out the will of the people, be better effected by one branch, than by the addition of the senate to it, as a check? Why constitute the senate as a barrier against the popular will? The reason is, that the popular will is often governed by sudden impulses, and violent

passions, and that we wish so to contrive the legislative department as to prevent hasty action from such causes, and to represent the sober and settled sentiments, and wishes of the body of the people. The object of creating a senate, as a check upon the action of the more popular branch of the government, is to cause due knowledge and consideration of a subject, before final legislative action upon it. It is to insure a careful and deliberate course of legislative action. For the same reason, before the act of the legislature shall finally become a law, and be binding upon the whole people as such, the assent of the governor to it, is also required. Hurried legislation is, in this way, prevented. Has the experience of this state, and of this country, demonstrated that no such checks are necessary upon legislative action? Have the two independent branches of the legislature, elected for different terms, been found inconvenient, and inconsistent with the objects of free government? Does our experience shew that the senate is unnecessary? Can any reason be given, for dispensing with the senate, or for so modifying its character, as to render it more similar to the popular branch? I apprehend not. Every reason that we can advert to, goes to this point-that the term of senatorial service, ought to be lengthened, instead of abridged. That is the lesson of wisdom and experience on this subject. All experience of representative legislation, goes to shew that there should be two branches of the legislature, and that one of them should hold office for a longer term than the other; that one of them should be so much more permanent than the other, as to be independent of that sudden influence and violent excitement which not unfrequently sweeps over the public mind. What is the business of the legislature of Pennsylvania? It is vast in amount, and various in character. The acts of each session, form large volumes. The legislature of Pennsylvania, at each session, transacts three or four times as much business as congress, though they have not more private bills than in congress. The public acts of the Pennsylvania legislature, at each session, make four or five hundred pages. What are all these subjects of legislation? They embrace a vast variety of topics. Sectional and general interests are involved in them. The system of jurisprudence forms one subject of legislation. The subject of incorporations is another. Rail roads and canals form another. Who can calculate the extent of business growing out of the subject of internal improvement? Will one session, put a man in possession of all the information, requisite to intelligent action on all these intricate and varied subjects? Are all these vast and con plicated interests to be comprehended at a glance? Is no knowledge, no experience, no study necessary, to enable a legislator to understand them?

What has been the chief cause of complaint, in regard to our legislature? Has it not been inconsiderate legislation? Have not the errors of the legislature grown out of want of experience? Will any one tell me that Bo study is necessary to a sufficient knowledge of all these vast interests? Let me ask every one here, whether one or two sessions put him in possession of adequate experience for the discharge of legislative duties? What is a new member able to do at his first session? Let me ask every

one this question. I was a member for one session, and am free to say, that I found myself wholly incompetent for a proper discharge of my duties, in relation to the great variety of new topics presented for my consideration and decision.

On certain great and leading questions, it is 'true that every one is ready and prepared to act; but on general subjects, no one can say that an unexperienced member can act intelligently. No one ever entered upon a discharge of his duty as a legislator, without feeling his insufficiency for the task, on account of his necessarily limited experience upon the subjects presented to him. A service of three, four, five, or six sessions, is necessary to qualify one to attend, in a proper manner, to the business of legislation, vast and varied as it is. The subject of internal improvement, and the complicated local interests involved in many questions, render such experience and knowledge necessary to a member of the legislature. I ask for the senate, a term of four years, which the present constitution gives to that body. That term, in my opinion, is short enough. I am confident, that the term of four years is necessary, in the case of ordinary individuals,—I speak not of prodigies-to fit a man to discharge his duties as a senator.

Suppose a man to be elected as a senator from Crawford county. Is he to legislate for Crawford alone? Is he not, also, to legislate for Berks, and for Philadelphia? And must he not have some knowledge beyond the concerns of his own county or district? In order to qualify himself for his duty, in relation to the important interests which will be affected by his votes, he has every thing to begin to learn. Many and clashing local questions are to be settled by him. He must act, not in reference to his own county, but to the general interests of the state. He must look to the general interests, and then settle the local questions, in a manner not inconsistent with them, and yet do justice to every part of the commonwealth.

This is no very easy matter. It requires much labor, and much experience to become sufficiently well versed in these subjects. The legislative business of this state, in nine cases out of ten, involves local interests, but the action of the legislature affects every part of the commonwealth. Legislation is a matter of practical business in Pennsylvania, and business knowledge, and business experience, are requisite for legislation here.

Am I to be told, then, that all this knowledge and experience are to be acquired in a day? Sir, I put it to you, to say whether two or three years' experience are adequate to qualify a man to discharge these laborious and complicated duties? What I contend for, is, that the legislative body of the country, should have that experience, which will secure to it, enlightened action, and that they should be able to approach every subject with a full knowledge of all its important bearings on local and general interests. I ask for the senate of Pennsylvania, not independence of the popular will, but I ask for them that experience which can only be gained by a lengthened term of service. This is what I want; and, sir, the business of the legislature of Pennsylvania is vastly increasing in amount every year. Why is it that the number of legislative acts is every year increased, instead of diminished? It will be so for a length of time, because local interests of importance are to be attended to, and the number of questions growing out of local interests, must, necessarily, increase with our population, and with the extent of our internal improvement system.

I stated, this morning, that the importance of this question, had, in my opinion, been greatly enhanced, by the determination which the con

vention has made to unite the senate with the governor, in the discharge of some of his most important executive functions. For the reason that we had thus enlarged the sphere of their responsibilities, their term of service ought, in my opinion, to be lengthened, rather than abridged. If he recollected right, the strongest arguments urged in favor of dividing the appointing power between the governor and the senate, were based upon the permanent character of the senate, which would enable it to withstand executive influence, and prevent the fluctuations of executive will, reflected in appointments to office. This consideration was urged upon us by those who wished to give the senate a negative upon all the appointments of the governor. The senate of Pennsylvania are to be created into a high court of justice. They are to sit in judgment upon official and individual character. They are to decide whether individuals nominated for public office are proper and fit men to be appointed. The senate is also the tribunal to try impeachments. Are the people of each district to instruct their senators how to vote upon nominations and impeachments? Is it not, on the other hand, desirable to remove the senate, as far as possible, from the influence of all popular feeling in such matters? There may be occasions when it is necessary for the public interest that the senate should disregard the popular will. To disregard entirely, the indications of popular sentiment is impossible. But, if a senator is to act on all subjects, in accordance with the popular will at home on all these subjects; if he is to be influenced in all his acts by a regard for the will of his local constituents at the time, and not by his own judgment, then may we dispense with the senate altogether, and put the whole legislative power of the state into the hands of a single branch, instead of two branches. But, it is argued that the senate must be more immediately responsible to the people-brought nearer to them, in order that the people may have a guaranty that they will carry out their wishes; and it is said that if their term of service is continued as long as at present, they will be less mindful of the will of their constituents than if the term should be reduced to two or three years. He could see no reason for such an apprehension. A just and proper degree of responsibility is already amply secured under the present constitution; and the curtailment of the term will only tend to impair the efficiency of the body, by depriving it of its most valuable members at the time when their experience has been gained by three years' service. Senators will be desirous of a re-election, and ambitious of popular favor and distinction, and there are ties which secure their proper responsibility to the people, more than the abridgment of their term of service.

But a word as to this matter of cbeying the will of constituents. He desired gentlemen to look into the acts of assembly, and see what they consist of. What will they find there? nothing but acts concerning local interests. A member from one county has to legislate for fifty-three other counties. Must he, on all these questions, consult the wishes of his own constituents? What a chaos of confusion would such a doctrine, if carried into practice, bring us into! In at least nineteen cases out of twenty, each member of the legislature must, after all, act for himself, according to the lights of his own experience and judgment, without any instruction from his immediate constituents. Obedience to the will of his constituents on these subjects is absurd to speak of. His constitu.