an hour each, was unconstitutional. Now, he (Mr. F.) must say that such an impression was rather extraordinary. The father of the convention" had spoken of the arbitrary character of the rules of this body. In his (Mr. F's.) humble judgment, if arbitrary rules were not in operation, we might give up all idea of making amendments to the constitution.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Motgomery, said some gentlemen seemed to think that they possessed rights which others had not. The delegate who had just taken his seat, had told the convention that he has a right to submit such propositions or amendments as he thought proper. He (Mr. S.) would ask whether, on the same principle, every other gentleman had not a right to give his reasons and opinions in regard to them.

[Here Mr. FULLER said-certainly he has.]

Mr. S. Then why did the delegate attempt to prevent arguments from being made? Why was he for suppressing discussion? The gentleman laid down a principle to which his practice was entirely opposed. He (Mr. S.) did not think the resolution respecting debate, unconstitutional. He maintained that this body had the power and the right to adopt such rules and regulations, as they deemed proper, for facilitating the despatch of their business. Our own legislature, and congress also, are guided by expediency in the adoption of their own rules, and are the sole judges of what is right and proper to aid them in the discharge of their duties. He was not to be intimidated by the threats of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) who threatened to hold up.

Mr. BROWN begged to explaim. He had not alluded to the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Sterigere.) The gentleman never entered his mind.

Mr. STERIGERE: The gentleman spoke

Mr. BROWN rose for the purpose of saying something-when

Mr. STERIGERE observed-If the gentlemen will let me go on

The CHAIR said-The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, rose to explain.

Mr. SRERIGERE: I do not object to his explaining, but he has no right to make the threat he did.

Mr. BROWN repeated his explanation—that he made no allusion to the gentleman.

Mr. STERIGERE said that he understood the gentleman as well as he did himself. He (Mr. S.) was among those whose votes the delegate threatened to expose here and elsewhere. The gentleman could not explain away the fact. He (Mr. S.) had voted by mistake, for the resolution to adjourn on the 2d of February, and did not correct his vote, because he thought the resolution would be reconsidered. He had always voted against restrictions on the freedom of debate, because they were productive of no good. Fixing the day of adjournment was of no use. He thought the convention would be able to get through with its business in a few weeks, and hence he would do nothing that was calculated to lead to unnecessary

haste in despatching the business yet to be done. What, he asked, was the scene witnessed in congress just before closing their labors? Nothing but bustle and confusion-a complete bear garden. What was done at Harrisburg for the last few days before the convention adjourned to meet here? Why nothing but talking. And, what had been the effect of the rule adopted limiting members to speak one hour only? Confusion and a waste of time. Not one half of yesterday was taken up with profitable discussion, and the time was thrown away in considering trivial motions and calling for the yeas and nays. He was desirous that the convention should adjourn as soon as possible; but still, if found necessary, he should have no objection to remain as long as his duty required him to do. As he had before said, he was opposed to rescinding the resolution. If however, the convention could adjourn by the middle of January, he should be very much gratified: but, if they must sit till the 2d of February, he would with patience submit, as it was his duty to do.

Mr. DENNY of Allegheny, said that he had been struck with the remarks of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) who had both complained that the rules of the convention had operated very much against those who came here to reform the constitution.

Mr. FULLER explained. He had not said that the rules interfered with his proposition, but that they had been manoeuvred so as to evade and prevent the amendments from being offered in the form most desirable to his constituents.

Mr. DENNY: The gentleman did complain that the propositions which he thought it his imperative duty to submit, were evaded-were not met on account of the rules of the convention.

Mr. FULLER: He had said that it was owing to a sort of manœuvre by the majority of this body.

Mr. DENNY thought that this was a remark which called for an explanation, because it was reflecting not only on the convention itself, but also on the presiding officer. He begged to call the attention of gentlemen to another remark, which he made a note of, and at the moment it fell from the lips of the delegate. The gentleman said that the party spirit and the bank spirit might have reached the President himself. He (Mr. D.) was about to call the delegate to order-for it was grossly out of order. The gentleman spoke of party spirit and the bank spirit reaching the officers of the convention! What sort of language was that to go to the people of the state? It might do for the gentleman's constituents; but the people of this commonwealth knew who was the presiding officer of this conveution, and would do justice to the spirit by which he was animated. They would not doubt but what he was guided by the most pure, honorable and impartial motives. He (Mr. D.) denied that there had been any evasion or infringment of the rules, and insisted that they had been fairly and impartially observed. The President of the convention had been sustained at all times. If the gentleman had any thing to say, either with regard to the conduct of the presiding officer or that of any other member of the covention, he had better make his charge here where members might be confronted face to face, than go home and do it. Did the gentleman suppose that the grave charge which he had made would

be allowed to pass without contradiction? No, he could not. The delegate from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) had complained that the rules had operated as a kind of machinery to prevent him and others from getting in the amendments they wished, to reform the constitution. The gentleman surely was aware that a great many propositions had been offered as amendments, which in fact, were not amendments. Alterations do not always mean reform. Many attempts had been made to introduce amendments of the most vague, wild and visionary character. To have adopted them would have been to make a worse constitution than is possessed by any state in the Union. The gentleman might when he went home, go through his district, and tell his story-his grievances. He (Mr. D.) hoped that if the gentleman had any charges to make, that he would make them here, where they could and would be met. It was his duty to do so, and not return to his constituents and defame the character of this convention.

The debate was continued by Messrs. DENNY and FLEMING,

When Mr. HAYHURST rose, and said, that as he believed all the members were ready to vote, he would call for the previous question. Which demand was seconded by the requisite number of delegates. And on the question,

Shall the main question be now put?

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

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cine, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donogan, Doran, Farrelly, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, Heister, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Mann, McCall, McDowell, Meredith, Merkel, Montgomery, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Riter, Ritter, Koyer, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Sill, Smith of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens. Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Woodward, Sergeant, President-99.

NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Dunlop, Earle, Hopkinson, Ingersoll, Maclay, Magee, M'Cahen, McSherry, Merrill, Miller, Young-12.

So the convention determined that the main question should now be taken.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to reconsider the said vote?

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

YEAS-Messrs. Ayres, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cochran, Crain, Crawford Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Donagan, Doran, Dunlop, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Gamble, Hastings, Helffenstein, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Riter, Sellers, Shellito, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Woodward-41.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleaving r, Coates, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Earle, Farrelly, Forward, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hyde, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay, Magee, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-74.

So the motion to reconsider was not agreed to.

Agreeably to leave given.

SEVENTH ARTICLE.

The convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr REIGART in the chair, on the report of the committee, to whom was referred the seventh article of the constitution.

The question being on the motion of Mr. FULLER, of Fayeue, to amend the amendment offered by Mr. READ, as modified by him, by adding to the end thereof, the words following, viz:

"No bank shall issue any bill, check, note or paper credit, of a less denomination than ten dollars."

Mr. INGERSOLL rose, and said:

I had before me a few notes, with some preface in relation to the prior question, but I will dispense with that, and proceed at once to the mere dry question of the right of repeal by enactment. I said last night, and I now repeat, that I deem this the greatest pending question of the day, in this country. I begin, by disclaiming all power in this convention to act upon the subject directly--I mean to say, that I know of no power, possessed by this body, to act upon this subject, except indirectly through the legislature ;--in other words, that the power which has been ascribed to a convention, to do that which it is a question whether the legislature can do, I altogether disown. I, for one, claim no such power. I claim in behalf of this body, the right, by organic institution, to act upon the legislature, and in that way we can get at the subject; but I disown altogether, the power which has been attributed to this boly, of direct action upon it.

In the next place and as the gentleman to whom I am about to allude, is absent, and as he has been spoken of, in somewhat rough terms here, it is proper I should say, that I wish to be understood as speaking of him, not only in all delicacy, but in all kindness of feeling-in the next place, I dissent from the whole argument of Mr. Dallas' letter, and I took occasion in private conversation, to tell him that I did so. In the first place, I deny his concession of the contract; and, in the second place, I disown his argument in relation to fraud. I deny that it is in the power of any collateral body of men to repeal an act of the legislature, on the ground of alleged corruption or fraud in those who voted for it I know of no such authority. And I believe that such a repeal is unauthorized and impracticable.

In the third place, I much question the doctrine of Mr. Dallas' letter, and of the resolution of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) as to the necessity of the restoration of the bonus. Upon this subject, I would say what I think. I doubt much whether a repealing law, either in justice or in any other respect, involves the necessity of returning what has been given in the form of a bonus. And there is no part of the recent message of the chief magistrate of this commonwealth, who I am glad to see has condescended to honor us with his presence to day, which I have read with so much pleasure, as the intimation it contains, that hereafter, the legislature of this state, should cease to take any bonus from banks, I believe that, if that principle be carried out, as I shall endeavor to develope it, it is of immense importance to the welfare of the people of this commonwealth.

In the fourth place, I disclaim altogether the unfortunate illustrations of Mr. Dallas' letter, as to the power of this convention-which he says are mere illustrations, but which I consider as arguments, and which have no doubt been used pro and con as arguments.

In the next place, I acknowledge the supremacy of the supreme court of the United States-or, in other words, I acknowledge the supremacy of the federal government, either through the agency of the supreme court of the United States, or otherwise, to review, and, if unconstitutional, to annul whatever we may do here. I mean to say, that there is no difference, in my opinion, between a legislative enactment and a constitutional ordinance, as has been asserted by gentlemen of very high authority. There is no difference in the superintending power of the federal govern

ment.

Let me be precisely understood on this subject. There are those who hear me, who will recollect, that there is a large and growing party in this country-Charles M'Kean was a member of it, and many distinguished men in the southern states-who deny the exclusive authority of the supreme court of the United States, to declare a law unconstitutional. I will not enter into that question; nor will I say what my opinion is. All I will say is, that I acknowledge the power of the judicial, or of some other branch of the federal government, to review and revoke the acts of this body in the same manner as it would review or revoke the acts of a legislature. And, in the next place, I beg to be understood as repudiating and deprecating every thing which, in the slightest degree, looks like a violation of property. I consider, without reserve, that no state can resume a grant, provided that grant be a grant of property.

He conceded, without reserve, the doctrine in the decision of the case of Fletcher and Peck, and he should accept of the opinion there given by Judge Marshall. He conceded, where the legislature of a state, made a grant of property, that it was not in the power of the legislature to resume that grant; and he wished to be understood, in all his argument, to found it on an effort to preserve property from the operation of certain special privileges, which always interferes with it. And lastly, for these were his premises, he repelled without hesitation, the concession of Mr. Dallas and Mr. Forward, that a future act of assembly cannot annul an act of assembly passed previously.