on him. Philadelphia was interested in the matter, and so was Franklin county. The Chesapeake and Ohio question was always a vexed one. There were great differences of opinion, both concerning that and the national road. He had examined the subject, as he did every subject on which he had to act, and had voted as he thought right. The gentleman from Philadelphia (continued Mr. M'S.) took up the journal, and refered to the names of BENNER and BLYTHE, and I explained. When I went home, I declined a re-election. I was one who sat with BENner, who unfortunately fell sick and died after I had left. The delegates in Adams met, and, without my knowledge, named me to succeed him. I did not know any thing about it, until the delegates returned, and told me. I was gratified at the result; and this was no proof of any disapprobation of my course. He did not blame the majority for voting the other way. He resisted the measure no further than by his votes, and he had a right to do that, in conformity with the wishes of the county of Adams. It was taking their means, as they said of the Cumberland road, when the money was taken out of the Treasury of Pennsylvania. If he had committed an error in his votes, it was that which all are liable to. He voted according to the best evidence to his judgment, and with the approval of his constituents. He was under great obligations to them, for they had confided in him for a long time. He had always acted according to the dictates of his conscience. He thanked the committee for indulging hin so as to listen to this explanation.

Mr. MEREDITH regreted that any thing had fallen from him which should have led the gentleman from Adams to suppose that he intended the slightest disrespect towards him. He had read the names merely to shew the members from Adams how these gentlemen had acted. If he knew himself, if he could have imagined any thing which fell from him would have wounded the gentleman, he would have abandonded the argument altogether. With that gentleman he had sat for years, and with the strictest good feeling, and this was the first time any explanation had been necessary between them. He believed the gentleman from Adams had always voted from conscientious motives. He had seen the name of the gentleman's friend, and two other names which he did not recollect, and his object was to have his memory refreshed. For that reason, he had asked the explanation, fearing there might be a mistake in the journal. Mr. STERIGERE said his amendment provided for an apportionment among the counties yet to be formed. If the proposition offered by the gentleman from Chester was to restore the present Constitution it was objectionable, because it distracted the counties.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said he did not intend to address the committee at large on this subject, but he looked at the consideration of the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery as little better than waste of time. It was based on the territorial principle, to which he objected. If he understood it, there is also a provision for an enumeration next year. An enumeration was made in 1835, and it could not be necessary to have another so soon. He would vote against the amendment for that reason. The gentleman from Montgomery represented the amendment of his colleague (Mr. DARLINGTON) as the same as the present Constitution. It was not all the same It corrected that part of the existing Constitution which provides, that each county shall have not less than one representa

tive, and that the new counties should be represented as soon as they had the required ratio of taxable inhabitants. Believing, that the amendment of his colleague to the amendment, meets the present condition and circumstances of the country, he should vote for it.

Mr. PURVIANCE, of Butler, expressed a hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Chester would not prevail. The article had been submitted to a committee, of whom he (Mr. P.) was one, and that committee had reported against any change. It had at first recured to the committee that some alteration of the language might be found necessary, but after an interchange of opinions on the subject, it was determined otherwise. If the present amendment was adopted, it would vary only in form, and not in substance, merely changing the words of the Constitution as it stands.

Mr. DARLINGTON did not anticipate any discussion on this proposition. His friend from Butler would see hereafter the difficulty which would arise from retaining the present language of the article. It provides for certain things to be done in this fourth article, which cannot now be done. The amendment which he had proposed, was intended merely to adapt the section to circumstances as they now are.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, hoped the amendment of the gentleman from Chester would be rejected. A majority of the committee were in favor of some alterations. The plan of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. EARLE) appeared to him to be the best; and he hoped when this amendment should be rejected, if it should be rejected, that the gentleman from Philadelphia county would offer his amendment. The great object was, to reach some plan and system which would suit the present circumstances and wishes of the State. That of the gentleman from Philadelphia, was, in his opinion, the best yet suggested, and he hoped this amendment would not pass, and that the gentleman from Philadelphia would put his proposition in the form of an amendment, and submit it to the committee.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, had not particularly examined the proposisions of the gentlemen from Chester and Montgomery, but he had examined that of the gentleman from Philadelphia county, which he looked upon as the best which had been offered. He had himself had a favorite project, but he had given it up; and if the gentleman from Philadelphia county would offer his proposition as an amendment, he (Mr. R.) thought, that so far as it went, it would cut up the evil by the roots. He would oppose every amendment until there had been a vote upon that. It was based solely upon population; and the only safe rule of representation was on population. He would oppose any project which linked representation to any other basis than population in the mass-the only true basis of representation.

The project of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. EARLE) was founded altogether upon population, and it was fair and just in all its features, as he had already remarked. It certainly was a great improvement upon the present article, as it stood in the the Constitution. If even it had no other recommendation than that, it would be calculated to destroy the system of gerrymandering which had heretofore prevailed in the small districts-thus depriving the smaller counties of the State of a voice in the Legislature. It would be worthy the grave consideration of the committee. The proposition required only to be examined to induce

gentlemen to go for it. For his part, he should vote for it, and he trusted that it would meet the views of the committee.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, remarked that the proposition of the gentleman from the county was not before the committee. He regarded it as nothing more than a plan fixing the ratio of representation under the present Constitution. If he understood the proposition, it was not very dissimilar to that offered by the gentleman from Chester, which met his (Mr. D's.) approbation. If this Convention should submit to the people, for their ratification, or rejection, an entire, engrossed, amended Constitution, the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, ought to be adopted. But, if it was not to be submited as a whole, then it should be rejected. He would repeat, that he liked the amendment, because it gave the new counties a fair representation, according to their population.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, said, that if the Constitution was to be submited to the people, as a whole, to be passed upon by them, he would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Chester. But he did not apprehend that that was to be the case. But, nevertheless, he was at a loss to perceive what could possibly be gained by this course of proceeding. After taking up a section and agreeing to it, then useless and unnecessary amendments were to be added to it-one piled upon the top of the other. In the remarks which had fallen from the gentleman from Butler (MI. PURVIANCE) his (Mr. B's.) views were fully and clearly expressed. He really could not see that the amendment proposed by the genleman from Chester, contained any new principle demanded by the people, and where no good was to be accomplished by a change, he would let wellenough alone.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, had supposed, that the gentleman from Mifflin, had perfectly understood the difficulty connected with submiting the Constitution to the people by distinct parts, and presumed that it would, of course, be submitted as a whole. The idea of the gentleman from Beaver, was correct, and the introduction of the amendment of the gentleman from Chester would have the effect that he had supposed. He (Mr. R.) believed, that if the committee consulted a month, they would not be able to obtain a better project than that of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia. He admited, that if no other amendment should be offered, the committee ought to vote for that of the gentleman from Chester. Indeed, it would be necessary to do so. But, as he believed, that a much better amendment would yet be offered, he would vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Chester.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, observed, that it struck him, that the Committee had better adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Chester. It would not prevent the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia from offering his amendment as a substitute for it.

The question was taken on the adoption of the amendment of Mr. DARLINGTON, and it was decided in the negative.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend the fourth section of the first article of the Constitution, by striking out all after the word "law", in the fourth line, and inserting the following, viz:

"The number of representatives shall, at the several periods of making such enumeration, be apportioned by the legislature, in the following manner, viz: One hundredth part of the whole taxable population of the

State shall be taken as the ratio of representation. Each representative district shall be entitled to as many represetatives as it shall contain number of times the representative ratio aforesaid, together with an additional representative for any surplus or fraction exceeding one half of such ratio. Not more than two counties shall be united to form a representative district, nor shall any two counties be united, unless one of them shall contain less than one half of the said ratio, in which case such county shall be united to that adjoining county which will render the representation most equal. No county shall be divided in forming districts, except that the city of Philadelphia shall constitute a separate district."

MR. EARLE said, he thought that the committee understood tolerably well the object of his amendment. The main object of it was to carry out the principle of representation by population-to extend an equal representation to the small counties, and to prevent the possibility of any complaint of unfairness being exercised by the legislature. It would thoroughly abolish the practice called gerrymandering—the splitting of districts, or the carving out districts with a view to political effect. He entertained no doubt, that every man who loved fairness, would approve of the object of the amendment. The manner in which the term gerrymandering originated, was this: Whilst Mr. GERRY was Governor of Massachusetts, the party to which he (Mr. GERRY) belonged, formed a district, out of two territorial districts-the object of which was to prevent any two counties from being united, unless they had half a ratio. The district happened to be of so singular a shape, that a drawing of it was made and published in one of the newspapers at the time, and the name of "Gerrymander" was given to it. A description of the shape of the district was published in all the newspapers, and it had the effect of turning out of power the party which made it. The only question which the Convention had to decide, was, whether the representation should be fixed by the Constitution or by the Legislature. It appeared to him, that any man who liked the principle of fairness to be observed, would be in favor of a rule, before it should be known to what number of representatives a county might be entitled, so as to have no departure from it.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, remarked, that the theory of our Government, was-although it was not fully carried out-that every member of the House of Representatives, should, as nearly as possible, represent the same number of taxables. And, the gentleman from Susquehanna, and others, had offered propositions, the object of which was to bring about that desirable result. He (Mr. M.) had himself, this morning, submited a plan, for the purpose of being printed, and which he now gave notice he should offer as an amendment, on the second reading of the article under consideration. He would prefer to have the whole State divided into one hundred districts, without regard to county lines, to having the districts unequally represented. By the disposition of the fractions, which he had proposed, the present and increasing inequality of representation would be avoided. He thought that to divide the population into one hundred, and charge the hundred with the fraction, as was proposed by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, was an objection. He thought his plan would operate too much in favor of the large counties. He would say nothing more on the subject at present. But, he hoped that the gentleman would suffer his amendment to lie over until it was printed,

9

a

a

as there was always a difficulty in understanding the exact bearing of a proposition of this sort, from merely hearing it read.

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, rose to ask the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, whether, by his proposition, the number of representatives would not, sometimes, exceed 100? Might it not happen that there would be more or less than 100 ?

Mr. EARLE replied, that there would be 48 representative districts. Taking half of these as having a number below, and the other half as above the ratio, the number of representatives would be about 100. But, if 25 of the districts were above the ratio, the number would be 101. It would not vary more than one or two. This would do away with the objection to the last apportionment. It was said there would be a difficulty in fixing it at precisely 100, without doing injustice 10 some of the counties. There was a mistake in supposing that it would operate unequally in the large counties. The intention was to give a member to every hundredth part of the taxables The rule would operate most justly, as where some counties would lose, others would gain.

Mr. FARRELLY, of Crawford, said, that according to the terms of the amendment, he felt certain that the number of representatives would be fluctuating, and would probably exceed 100. There might be 105, or there might be less than 100. He regarded the principle of the amendment as a bad one. The true theory, in his opinion, was in the former practice, to give a representative to the largest fractions. The only difficulty was in giving a representative to a small county, which had not a full ratio. The only thing to be done, was to consider the population of a small county, if less than a ratio, as a fraction, and allow a representative for it. He apprehended that there could be no difficulty in engrafting this principle upon the Constitution. He would vote against the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, and for that of the gentleman from Montgomery.

Mr. Smyth, of Centre, observed, that the mode laid down by the genteman who had just taken his seat, met with his approbation to some extent: but still there were difficulties in it which he could not get over. The county of Centre, which he had the honor to represent, and the other counties that were entitled to one member, might have eight hundred taxables over the ratio for one member, and still not be entitled for their fraction to an additional member; while the county of Philadelphia, for example, which was now entitled to eight members, and a fraction of only two or three hundred taxables over the ratio would be entitled to an additional member. Now, this was an objection to the present system, which he wished to see obviated. He thought the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia was better than any which had been offered. He trusted that by the time the article now before the committee came up for a second reading, the committee would be able to agree upon an amendment which would meet the views of every gentleman.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, would call the attention of the committee to the fact—which gentlemen would find to be correct, on a due examination of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia—that there was no distinction between it and the terms of the old Constitution, in this respect, that no provision was made to give to a small county a certain representation. If there was any distinction,

a

a