to the propriety of acting upon it at this time. If the proposition of the committee should be lost, why the Constitution would remain as it now is. He coincided in the views expressed by the Chair, as being strictly correct. When the report of the committee should come up for a second reading, if not negatived, an opportunity would be afforded gentlemen to offer amendments. The gentleman from Beaver appeared to consider the article in the Constitution, as a bill under consideration, and requiring to be passed before it could become a law, and regarded the amendment of the committee as a real, substantive amendment to that bill. He hoped that the committee appointed to revise the rules would provide a mode by which the present difficulty, into which the committee of the whole had got, would in future be avoided. He trusted that the section would be negatived.

Mr. EARLE asked if the motion of the gentleman from Beaver was in order?

The CHAIR: The motion is perfectly in order.

Mr. EARLE How the gentleman's motion can be in order, which is no amendment at all, I am totally at a loss to perceive.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said that the committee on rules would probably report soon, and it was evident that there was a majority for not altering the Constitution in the manner proposed-therefore, he would, in order to get rid of the difficulty, for the present, move, that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. DICKEY said he thought the same difficulty would arise again, the next time they sat, as now. The Convention had refered the nine different articles of the Constitution to nine separate committees, and one of them had reported one of the articles without amendment, and he hoped that it would be considered a second time-for it was necessary that every article should undergo a second revision, and then would arise the question, whether the work of the Convention should be presented to the people as a whole, or in distinct propositions. The committee of the whole had now to act on the report of the committee who had reported an amendment to the second section of the fourth article. We must amend their report, if we would bring back the article to the state in which it was originally submitted to the committee.

Mr. STEVENS said it seemed to him a question of more than mere form; it was a question of principle, involving consequences of great moment, and it was the duty of the committee to consider them attentively. He did not think that we were to take up the opinion of the committee, and consider it as thrown into the committee of the whole or in the Convention. Although he thought there was some irregularity, as to the manner in which the reports of the standing committees were considered, yet, when the subject came into committee of the whole, gentlemen were not to lose sight of the power with which they were vested. They did not come here, as he had before said, in order to see whether the present Constitution of Pennsylvania was to be continued, but to propose amendments to it. And, until they did propose amendments, and they are submitted to the people, and confirmed by them, the present Constitution remains. Whatever the Convention did, must be affirmed or disaffirmed by the people. But, if the notions of some of the gentlemen were to prevail, we were to take up the articles of the Constitution, and decide

whether they should be the Constitution of the State! Well, supposing that we were to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, in what shape would it go before the people? Why, in the very words of the existing Constitution itself. The standing committee had proposed an amendment, and it was for the people to say whether or not it should be adopted. The gentleman's amendment could not be submitted to the people, because we had no power to lay the Constitution, or any part of it before them, but only such alterations or amendments as were proposed to be made. Look at the absurdity-it is a legal absurdity-of amending the section according to the proposition of the gentleman. What do we do? Why, we strike out words already in the Constitution, and put them in again, and present it to the people as an amendment.

Mr. DICKEY: It is not an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. STEVENS: But it is an amendment to the report of the committee, which is the same thing as an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. DUNLOP rose for the purpose of saying a few words, with the gentleman's permission.

Mr. STEVENS: I call the gentleman to order. I do not yield the floor. What do we do, suppose we refuse to adopt the amendment? Suppose that we were a legislative body, the House of Representatives, and a bill were reported here precisely the same, (as some gentleman has suggested to me) as a certain law that was passed five years ago, or a law that was not exactly the same. Well, the bill comes up for consideration, and a gentleman rises in his place, and moves to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to insert an old law, word for word, before it could be reported to the House; they would have to act on it, because it would be useless to send it to the House, unless the committee of the whole agree to the report on the subject. The law goes on to say that so and so shall be the law of the country, for so many years. Now, I would ask, would you add a repealing clause to it? Or, would you wish it to pass, when you had the same law already in force? Mr. S. would seriously ask, whether the course proposed to be adopted, did not lead us into difficulty?

Mr. DUNLOP said, taking the proposition which he had suggested to the gentleman (Mr. STEVENS) that he had under consideration a bill, and some person moved that the enacting clause be stricken out, for the purpose of inserting something that appears on the statute book. Well, then, the same subject would be before the house. But it could be got rid of by some one moving that the amendment be indefinitely postponed. This amendment, therefore, might be got rid of in that way.

Mr. BAYNE, of Allegheny, said the whole matter must be construed by the rules. Two reports would be, in most cases, made by the committees, and one would be always for sustaining, and the other for altering the Constitution. He believed the report of the committee on the rules would obviate that difficulty.

The Committee then rose and reported progress, and, after a few words from Mr. EARLE, (who desired an opportunity to offer the amendment he had prepared), from Mr. FRY, of Lehigh, (who also desired an opportunity to suggest amendments), and Mr. FARRELLY, of Crawford, (who desired, as one of the majority of the committee, to make some remarks in favor of the amendment which had been reported), obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.

The Convention then adjourned.

SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1837.

Mr. MYERS, of Venango, presented memorials from Venango county on the subject of banking, praying that some restrictive provisions in relation to that subject be introduced into the Constitution; which were ordered to be refered to the committee appointed for the purpose.

Mr. HAMLIN, of Warren, presented a memorial from the citizens of M'Kean county, on the subject of banks, similar in its import, and concluding with a like prayer; which was ordered to be refered to the committee appointed for the purpose.

Mr. BIGELOW, of Westmoreland, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:

"Resolved, That the first section of the third article of the Constitution be so amended, as to provide as follows, viz: “ In elections by the citizen, every free white male citizen of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who is a citizen by birth or naturalization, and every son of a naturalized citizen, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who may have resided in the state one year, and at the time of offering his vote, a resident of the township or district where he shall offer such vote, shall enjoy the rights of an elector: Provided, That neither paupers, nor persons under guardianship, nor persons who have been convicted of any infamous crime, nor persons non compos mentis, shall be permitted to vote at any election".

Mr. DARRAH, of Berks, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That the committee on the fifth article of the Constitution, be instructed to enquire into the expediency of so amending the second and tenth sections thereof as fol⚫lows, viz:

SECT. 2. The judges of the Supreme Court and the President Judges of the courts of Common Pleas shall be appointed by a joint vote of both Houses of the General Assembly, the Judges of the Supreme Court for a term of ten years, and the President Judges of the courts of Common Pleas for a term of seven years; and the Associate Judges of the courts of Common Pleas, &c. shall be elected by the qualified electors in the counties where they are to officiate, and for a term of three years. The Judges of the Supreme Court and the President Judges of the courts of Common Pleas shall, at stated times, receive for their services an adequate compensation to be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office, but they shall receive no fees or perquisites of office, nor hold any other office of profit or trust under the authority of this State or the United States.

SECT. 10. Justices of the Peace shall be elected by the qualified electors in each township or ward for a term of three years, and not to exceed two in number in any one township or ward, and whose powers and duties shall, from time to time, be regulated and defined by law.

Mr. BARNITZ, of York, from the minority of the committee on the first article of the Constitution, made the following report, which was ordered to be laid on the table and printed:

Mr. BARNITZ, from the minority of the committee to whom was refered the first article of the Constitution, made the following report, viz:

The undersigned, a minority of the committee to whom was refered the first article of the Constitution, submit the following report, viz:

That it is inexpedient to make any alteration in the fifth section of the first article of the Constitution.

CHARLES A. BARNITZ,

HARMAR DENNY,

W. P. MACLAY.

FOURTH ARTICLE.

The Convention then proceeded to the consideration of the fourth article, being the unfinished business, when

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, suggested that the further consideration of this article, at the present time, would be out of place, and desired its postponement. He was about to assign reasons, but

Mr. CUNNINGHAM, of Mercer, suggested that the question was not debateable.

The question was taken on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the fourth article, and decided in the affirmative.-Ayes 76.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. DENNY in the chair.

The question pending being on the motion of Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, to strike out of the second section of the article the words 66 a majority", and insert the words "without a concurence of two-thirds".

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, moved that the committee rise. He said he made the motion for the committee to rise, in consequence of the apparent impression on all sides, that in the present stage of our proceedings no change ought to be made in the article under consideration. Those who looked to a change at any time, had all placed that change upon contingencies which might or might not happen. It was therefore due to them to postpone a decision of the question, until the future provisions in the Constitution shall point out the course for them to pursue. The people, he said, would be surprized, if not astonished to learn, that the Convention had been for several days debating upon questions which had not been agitated by them; and they would ask how it was, that some twenty or more of the most talented gentlemen of the Convention, had all spoken in favor of the article under consideration, when not one word had been said against it. They will think there is more in it than meets the eye. He, for one, (said Mr. B.) did not know what was meant by all those speeches, unless it was to induce a belief elsewhere, that the friends of reform were desirous of changing all parts of the Constitution, merely for the sake of change, and to give certain gentlemen an opportunity on which to hang learned speeches in defence of the independence of the judiciary, and on the "sacredness of the trial by jury", when no one here felt any desire to destroy the one, or impair the other. The friends of reform wished only such reform as the people required. They did not want to try theories, no matter how beautiful they might appear to those who proposed them, and he called on them now, to put an end to the discussion of subjects, which did not look to the reform required, and take up those parts of the Constitution, to which it was necessary to make amendments.

While he was up, he (Mr. B.) would say a few words to the gentleman from Northampton, in reply to what fell from that gentleman yesterday. The course of that gentleman's remarks, went to show the incompetency of the people for self-government.

Mr. PORTER rose and said, he had not said the people were not competent to self-government.

Mr. BROWN said the gentleman from Northampton might modify the language he had used, if, on reflection, he thought best so to modify it; but he (Mr. B.) was not mistaken in the inference that was drawn from

A

the gentleman's language, which went to show how prone the people were to do wrong.

Mr. PORTER: The gentleman is bound to take my explanation. I did not say that which he put into my mouth.

Mr. BROWN: I have a right to draw my own inferences from the gentleman's remarks, however he may qualify them.

Mr. PORTER: I call the gentleman to order. He misquotes me, and persists in his misrepresentation of what I said.

Mr. BROWN: I have a right, sir, to infer from the course of argument pursued by the gentleman.

Mr. PORTER: I call the gentleman to order.

The CHAIR said, the gentleman from Philadelphia county is called to order.

Mr. PORTER: I neither said what he imputes to me, nor any thing from which any gentleman could draw such an inference.

Mr. B. said the gentleman from Northampton may have his own version of his own language, but he, (Mr. B.,) had a right to say in argument, what were the inferences to be drawn from the arguments of the gentleman from Northampton, though this gentleman may now give to his language and his argument, what direction he pleases. He, (Mr. B.,) would leave it, however, to the Convention, to judge of what the gentleman from Northampton did say or what he meant. As the gentleman seemed so sensitive on this subject, he, (Mr. B.,) would notice another portion of the gentleman's remarks, which he, (Mr. B.,) presumed the gentleman from Northampton would not deny having made. The gentleman from Northampton had joined in chorus with those opposed to reform, and had, long and loud, uttered his deprecations against the increasing desire of change, that had obtained among the people. This (said Mr. B.,) had been the cry at all times raised by those who had power, against the people when they attempted to wrest it from the hands of those who had unjustly deprived them of it. All the despots and tyrants that had ever held the people in bondage, were opposed to this desire of change in the people. All the good (said Mr. B.,) the people ever attained-all the freedom they now enjoy, here or any where else, had been obtained through this desire of change; and he (Mr. B.) hoped this desire of change would never cease; but that the people would always require such changes in their Government, as their experience and future light might point out to them, as necessary for their happiness. The people of Pennsylvania had always been in favor of change. The Constitution made in 1776, by the tried men of that period-by such men as FRANKLIN, CLYMER and RITTENHOUSE, was changed in twenty years. Change is the result of experience; and the people will always desire change, when the government is not such as they approve.

Mr. B. would not, he said, have troubled the Convention, with any reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Northampton, had it not been that circumstances had placed that gentleman, at the commencement of the session of the Convention, in a prominent position in the party with which he (Mr. B.,) acted; he deemed it, therefore, his duty to say that the whole tenor of that gentleman's remarks was not, in his (Mr. B's.) opinion, such as the democratic party, in or out of the Convention, entertained or approved.