to a certain part, reporting only the words of the amendment, and refering by name or number to the section to be amended. The second section was yet under consideration. The amendment of the standing committee had been disagreed to, but no vote had, as yet, been taken on the section or article. He thought it still competent to amend the section, without either a recommitment or a reconsideration.

Mr. STEVENS thought the case was put by the Chair in so plain a manner, that it was hardly possible to misunderstand it. The several reports of the standing committee were before the committee of the whole. We take up the first report, and pass upon it. It is still open to suggestions of amendment from gentlemen, until the final vote shall be taken on the report of the committee. When all the propositions of amendment shall have been exhausted, and no gentleman has any thing further to suggest, and we take a vote on the report of the committee, there is an end of it; and, without a vote of reconsideration, it cannot be again touched. We cannot travel over all the same ground back again. We may otherwise amend every section, and afterwards pass on the report; and then gentlemen might get up, and move an amendment to the first section, and go over the whole ground again. Could this be done without a reconsideration? Various propositions had been made to amend, and all of them negatived. No other gentleman had a day to fix; all suggestions were exhausted. The question then came up, in order-Will the committee agree to the report of the standing committee?

Mr. READ withdrew the appeal.

Mr. Cox, of Somerset, moved to reconsider the vote by which the report of the committee was negatived, and the motion was decided in the affirmative-ayes 59, nays 44.

The question then recuring on the amendment, reported by the committee, which is as follows:

SECT. 2. The Representatives shall be chosen annually by the citizens of the city of Philadelphia, and of each county respectively, on the fourth Tuesday of October.

Mr. DUNLOP moved to amend the same, by striking out the word “annually", and inserting in lieu of it, the word "biennially"; and also by striking out the words "fourth Tuesday of October", and inserting in lieu thereof, the words "second Tuesday of November"; and also by adding at the end, the words " and shall meet every other year on the first Tuesday of December, unless otherwise assembled by the Governor". Mr. READ demanded a division of the question, so as to have a vote, in the first instance, on the words "Second Tuesday of November". Mr. DARLINGTON demanded a division, so as to make the first question on so much of the section, as ends with the word " biennially”.

Mr. DUNLOP moved to postpone the further consideration of the amendment, for the present, which motion was negatived.

The question pending being on so much of the proposition to amend, as strikes out "annually", and inserts " biennially".

Mr. M'SHERRY, of Adams, stated the impression on his mind, that the amendments proposed yesterday, commenced with this proposition; and, if so, that it was not in order.

Mr. DUNLOP Suggested that the question was one of more importance than was, at first view, apparent; and he trusted that it would, on consid

eration, find more favor with the committee. He was not, at this time, prepared to give his views in support of it. He had hoped that the committee would have indulged him with time to arrange his reasons, in his own mind, that he might present them as he desired; but as that indulgence had not been accorded to him, he would, for the present, withdraw the amendment.

The motion to amend was therefore withdrawn.

Mr. FLEMING moved to amend by striking out the words “ city of Philadelphia, and of each county", and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words “ several cities and counties”. He would briefly state the reasons for his proposition. It was of a piece with the amendment he had submitted in the early part of the session, that each city and county should have, at least one representative. There were two other cities in the State, exclusive of Philadelphia, and he was willing that each should have one representative. He believed it to be his duty to make this motion, in order to preserve throughout the entire consistency of the Constitution.

Mr. STEVENS asked the gentleman from Lycoming, if, by this motion, he would not be somewhat preinaturely testing the strength of the committee on this principle? It would, he suggested, be better to bring this proposition forward, when they came to that part which provided for the distribution of representatives. The mode agreed on to be provided, was to go through the several articles in committee of the whole, and then lay them over until there could be had the final action of the Convention upon them altogether. He would, therefore, recommend to the gentleman to withdraw his motion for the present. Let the other various propositions of amendment be considered, and then he could so amend this section as to conform to the other provisions. He was not sure that he would vote to give a representative to every city, but he certainly would be disposed to give one to every county. He did not wish to see cities springing up like mushroons.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, begged to suggest to the gentleman from Lycoming, (Mr. FLEMING) and the gentleman from Adams (Mr STEVENS) a modification, which he thought embraced their views.

Mr. FLEMING, of Lycoming, said that he had made the motion now in order that he might not be ruled out of it by the rule-makers here who governed this body. It engrossed his whole attention and time in endeavoring to understand the right course of proceeding--for sometimes gentlemen were ruled right and sometimes wrong. However, confiding in the suggestion of the gentleman from Adams, (Mr STEVENS) and believing that he would have another opportunity of making the motion, he would, for the present, withdraw it.

Mr. Dunlop, of Franklin, moved to amend the article by striking out of the first line the word “annually", and inserting in lieu thereof, the word “ biennially", which was negatived.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, moved to insert the third Tuesday of September instead of October; which was negatived.

Mr. MAGEE, of Perry, moved to amend by inserting the second Tuesday in November. Mr. PURVIANCE, of Butler, asked for the yeas

and

nays. Mr. Fuller, of Fayette, regarded it as all important that the yeas and

nays should be had on this motion, in order that it might be clearly ascertained who voted for, and who against it.

Mr. CURLL, of Armstrong, moved to amend the amendment by striking out the second Tuesday of November, and inserting the first Wednesday.

The question being taken on the amendment to the amendment, it was decided in the negative.-Ayes 38.

The question then recured on the amendment of Mr. MAGEE ; which was rejected.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said that he felt satisfied from the votes of yesterday, that there was a majority in favor of fixing a later day for the election. Gentlemen from the south, and particularly the south-west, were satisfied with the day as at present fixed, while there were gentlemen from the middle counties, himself among the number, who wished to have a later day fixed. The delegates from the north-west desired to fix the day two weeks later. Now, taking into consideration the great diversity of opinion that existed among gentlemen in regard to fixing a day for the election, he thought it would be better to make a compromise, and fix the third Tuesday of October as the day for holding the election. He was perfectly aware that the question was tried yesterday, and he did not rise for the purpose of making a motion, but merely to throw out the suggestion and to express his hope that some gentleman who voted in the majority against that day, would move a reconsideration of the vote.

Mr. Gamble, of Clearfield, then moved to reconsider the vote rejecting the motion to insert the third Tuesday of October.

Mr. CHANDLER, of the city, said that he was satisfied that the majority who voted yesterday for sustaining the Constitution as it is in reference to the time for holding the general elections, felt very little interest on the subject. They voted to retain the clause, because those who desired an alteration were themselves undetermined as to the day. If, therefore, we would carry the clause as it is before the Convention, and it should be found on second reading, that a change was really desired, then they could act on the matter understandingly. But, for the present, he repeated, that it would be better to defer it, because, in the meantime, gentlemen who represented the farming interest, could confer together and fix upon a day for the election, in reference to their convenience.

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, observed that he fully concured in what had fallen from the gentleman from the city. He was glad that the gentleman had anticipated him (Mr. W.) in making the suggestion he had done, for it was much better stated than he (Mr. W.) could have done it. If there was a disposition to adjourn over, the Convention would come to a second reading on returning here, prepared to vote more intelligibly than they now did. And, if it was found then to be the desire of gentlemen to change the day for holding the election, the day could be fixed. He hoped, therefore, that the question would be left just where it stood. But, if the Convention were to go on in this way, taking a vote one day, and reconsidering it the next, he did not know when the Convention could accomplish their

work. He trusted that the vote would not be reconsidered.

Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, hoped that the motion would prevail. There were but very few gentlemen yesterday who voted against the proposition. In comm ttee of the whole was the proper place to introduce an amend,

ment of this sort, and he felt satisfied that a majority of it were in favor of fixing the day at a later period of the year than that on which the elections had heretofore been held. He hoped that there would be no further debate on the subject. It had been fully discussed, and nothing new could be elicited by making more speeches. Now, he would tell the gentleman that the only way to progress with the business before them, was to make but few speeches, and take up one proposition after another and despatch it. By pursuing this course, a great waste of time would be avoided, and something salutary and proper would be done in a very short time.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, would take the hint, and would, therefore, only say a word or two. He called upon every gentleman to vote for acting on the subject now—to go for a reconsideration of the vote, and to vote for the third Tuesday of October, and then when the subject came up again on second reading, gentlemen could act definitely on it.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, felt persuaded when the motion was made to reconsider, that the whole subject would be again opened for discussion. It was idle for any one to suppose that gentlemen were to sit silent in their seats and vote. No, reasons must be given and heard, if there were any, and this and another, at least, would be consumed in debate before the question was finally determined. Now, under these circumstances, he would put it to gentlemen to say whether it was proper to reconsidler. He moved to postpone the question indefinitely.

THE Chair decided that the motion was not in order.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said that it must be apparent to every gentleman that delegates representing the farming interests desired that the day of election should be at a later period of the year. It was true that yesterday they did not all agree in opinion, therefore, as had been properly observed by the gentleman from the city (Mr. CHANDLER) the better course was to defer the consideration of the question until gentlemen had confered together and come to some conclusion. Since yesterday, he (Mr. Bell) understood much consultation had taken place, and something like a union of opinion had been arrived at. And, probably, if they came to decide upon the question now, and each delegate saw that he must give and take a little, a day would be fixed upon which would be generally satisfactory. The committee had been told that at the period when the Constitution of 1789–90 was formed, the day of election, fixed by it, was convenient; but that since a change of the seasons had produced a change of opinion. As far as he had ascertained the opinions of gentlemen, they had fixed upon the third Tuesday of November. But, if by the time the amendment came up for a second reading, they should change their opinion, he would change with them, as he desired the adoption of such an amendment as would suit the farmers.

Mr. STERIGERE said the argument was that notwithstanding a majority may be in favor of the third Tuesday, yet the question could be settled at the second reading. He would say that it ought to be determined now, so that the proposed amendment might go forth th the people, and the Convention would then get their opinion on it. They were more interested in it than the Convention were. It was for the convenience of the people, and we were to be governed by their opinions. He had heard no complaint against making the third 'Tuesday the day of election,

a

a

but if gentlemen's constituents are dissatisfied with it, why then they would know exactly what to do when the amendment should come up for a second reading. Like the gentleman from Chester (Mr. Bell) he would vote for any day that would meet the approbation of the farming interest.

Mr. Read, of Susquehanna, remarked that he had yesterday moved a reconsideration, because he thought the day of election as it at present stood, a week too early. As the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL,) had observed the seasons have changed, and that which was fifty years ago a convenient day for the farmers, was very inconvenient now. And, when the present Constitution was adopted, the northern part of the State was a wilderness. The seasons were, then, about two weeks later than at present, and the progress of vegetation was much slower than in the southern counties. If altering the day was no inconvenience to the southern counties, why should not the northern counties be accommodated by fixing the day of election a few days later in the season? He was in favor of the first Monday in November. That time would suit the agri. cultural interests of his county and of the whole State. But, as it might be doubtful whether that day would be agreed to, he would agree to the day named yesterday, as it would accommodate Chester and other counties. He would vote against reconsidering, and also against the third 'Tuesday of October.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said that he was desirous that such an alteration in the Constitution should be made in regard to fixing the day of election, as would meet the wishes of every section of the State. He was himself perfectly indifferent about the subject, and if the first Tuesday in November was as convenient as any other day for the farmers he was willing to go for it. It had been said after this article was through, the Convention could adjourn, and submit what they had done to the people.

Mr. Read, of Susquehanna, remarked that he was very sorry to hear the report revived that the Convention were going to adjourn before the second reading.

Mr. CUMMIN, of Jupiata, said that he regarded the continuance of this debate as useless, uncalled for, and a great waste of time. His opinion was that the further consideration of the question had better be postponed until it was ascertained whether any of the more important changes in the Constitution would be made, or not. Judging from the past proceedings of the Convention, he had brought his mind to the conclusion that nothing more would be done. It was, therefore, not worth while to spend any more time here. The practice had been for first one member, and then another, to rise in his place, and offer amendments, not proper in the opinion of any man of common sense, and after being each debated for two or three days, they were then withdrawn. He submitted whether this course of proceeding was very becoming in a grave and dignified body like this assembled by the people of a great Commonwealth to revise their Constitution. He was totally opposed to this waste of time, and was for acting in such a manner as would tend to the advantage of the people. He knew that the lawyers were against making the proposed amendment, because it would interfere with their court days here and there. Every change that would be advocated by them would be for their own benefit and accommodation, This was the reason why they