He thought this matter of changing, the order of proceeding entirely improper, and hoped the convention would not countenance it. If this is not done, we shall be kept continually in confusion, and our business will be very much retarded. This matter inost certainly belonged to the ninth section, notwithstanding what had been said by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia. It had been so considered by the convention heretofore, and was so considered by the committee on the ninth article, which reported this section. But says the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, there is but one section in the ninth article, placing restrictions on the legislature. Why, the gentleman cannot have read that article with much care when he made such an assertion as this. He would ask the gentleman whether the section declaring that the right of trial by jury should remain inviolate, was not a restriction upon the legislature? He would ask whether the section declaring that the press should remain free, was not a restriction on the legislature? He would ask the gentleman whether the section declaring that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches, was not a restriction upon the legislature? In short, are not the greater portion of the sections of the ninth article, restrictions and prohibitions upon the legislature? The gentleman certainly had overlooked most of the sections of the ninth article, when he declared that there was but one section placing restrictions upon the legislature. This section, therefore, if it was proper that it should be adopted at all, most certainly belonged to the ninth article, and ought to be postponed until that article came up for consideration. But he desired to say a word or two on the propriety of adopting the amendment, proposed by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, viz: that no two subjects or objects of legislation should be embraced in one bill. Now, he supposed, that if an amendment of this kind was adopted, that great inconvenience would result from it, and, that the legislature and our courts of justice, will frequently be brought into collision in consequence of it.

If a provision of this kind is adopted, and the legislature passes a law in which is embraced two distinct subjects or objects of legislation, then it will be unconstitutional; and any suit brought under such law in a court of justice, must be set aside, because the law is unconstitutional. If you pass an amendment of this kind, where are you to leave the decision of this matter, whether any two matters which may be embraced in one bill, are distinct subjects or objects of legislation? Is it the legislature which is to decide as to whether there is really a difference between two subjects which may come up in one bill for legislation? Or, is it your courts of jusice, which are to decide on the matter after the law is passed?

Is it your legislature which is to say that any two matters are distinct subjects or objects of legislat on? or is it your courts of justice which are o declare laws thus passed, to be unconstitutional? He did not hold, that the courts could declare the law not to be a law of the land, although they had a right to decide that the act of the legislature must give way to the law-of the land.

Well, under this section, in case it should be adopted, your legislature might unite two matters in a bill which they did not consider to be distinct subjects or objects of legislation; but your courts might be of a different opinion in relation to the matter; and here would be a difficulty which

of

never could be gotten over; and you would be placing it in the power your courts to decide upon your laws, in perhaps almost every case, as to the fact whether there was such a difference between two matters embraced in them, as to make them unconstitutional.

Now, he wanted the gentleman from the county to tell him (because this was a part of the information which must determine this convention, either to reject or adopt this section.) what was meant by distinct subjects, or objects of legislation; and to point out how they were to discriminate, in all cases, as to what were to be considered distinct subjects, or objects of legislation. A subject may be composed of different parts; and he wanted to know, whether these parts were to be considered distinct subjects of legislation.

He considered it highly proper, that we should know what was to be considered as an integer, or a whole in this matter; and if the gentleman could find out and show us clearly what are distinct subjects or objects of legislation in all cases, then his amendment would be more intelligible than it was at present. He wished to have these distinct subjects defined and pointed out, so that there would be no mistake in relation to them; and until this was done, he feared the gentleman's amendment would only lead to ambiguity and confusion.

'This matter of declaring that the legislature should not combine in one law, distinct subjects or objects of legislation, conveyed no definite idea to his mind. He might conceive of many subjects which might be com posed of different parts, and the question with him would be, which you were to call the integer, and which were to be considered as distinct subjects of legislation. For instance, internal improvements was a subject of legislation.

Well, suppose you were about to grant aid to, or to charter different companies, for the purpose of making internal improvements in different parts of the state, would those different improvements be looked upon as different objects of legislation? Were you to consider the subject of internal improvements, as a distinct subject which must go in a bill by itself, or would you consider every one of the improvements, which it was the intention of the legislature to make at one time, a distinct subject of legislation? Because, accordingly as this was decided, your law was constitutional or unconstitutional. Are the courts to determine, that if the different improvements asked for in the state, were combined in one bill, that the law granting them was unconstitutional ? Was this the power you were about giving to your courts? One court, too, may think one way in relatian to this matter, and another court may think differently; and thus you will have laws constitutional and unconstitutional, according to the different opinions of the courts. He thought, therefore, that if the gentleman was desirous of introducing a proposition of this kind, he ought to be more explicit in the language of his amendment, and not leave it liable to be misconstrued, and made a matter of opinion between the legislature and your courts.

He would ask the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, to point out to him, what were two distinct subjects or objects of legislation? If the gentleman would say in his amendment, that no two charters shall be combined in one bill, he could understand that, but he confessed he was not able to comprehend what was meant by the amendment, that no two distinct subjects or objects of legislation shall be combined in one bill.

Suppose you embrace in one bill, charters for two companies to make internal improvements in your commonwealth, he would ask the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, whether he would consider them two distinct subjects, or objects of legislation, and whether or not he considered them distinct in their nature?

If it was intended to prevent the granting of more charters than one in a single bill, why not say so in the amendment; and then it could be perfectly understood by every body. But to say that no two distinct subjects, or objects of legislation should be combined in one bill, he confessed was to him too ambiguous to be easily understood; and he was entirely opposed to introducing any thing into the constitution which was ambiguous, or any thing which might bring the legislature and the courts into collision.

Suppose, sir, that the legislature was about making appropriations to several objects of internal improvements; and suppose it appropriate ten thousand dollars to one railroad, ten thousand to another railroad, and five thousand to a third, were these appropriations to be considered different subjects or objects of legislation? Or were they to be considered as one object of appropriation? Certainly the character of the different appropriations were the same, but whether they could be considered as one subject, or object of legislation, he was unable to say. For these reasons he was opposed to this provision, and he hoped it would not be adopted.

Mr. M'CAHEN said, the gentleman had asked him what were two distinct subjects or objects of legislation. This he would answer in a word, by saying, that they were two different and distinct subjects, or objects of legislation.

With regard to the amendment, he thought it was demanded by the people, and that it would have a most salutary and healthful effect upon the legislation of our state. It would prevent that ruinous and corrupt system called log-rolling, which had been 30 often and so justly complained of. He had frequently before pointed the convention to the evils arising from this matter of making omnibus bills, and huddling every species of legislation into one act.

He need now only refer to one or two cases, to show the impropriety of this system. A few years ago the legislature passed a bill to open a road in Bedford county, and in one of the sections of the bill there was a provision, divorcing a man from his wife. During the last two or three years, it had been quite usual to pass laws embracing some half dozen of objects; and he believed there was one passed a year or two ago, incorporating some five or six companies for different purposes. Now, this was all entirely improper. If a measure had not merit enough of itself to warrant its passage in the legislature, without connecting it with five or six other subjects, for the purpose of giving it importance, it ought not to be adopted at all.

At the last session of the legistature a bill was passed, making appropriations to an immense amount, for a great variety of objects; many of which were very proper in themselves, but in consequence of the bill being overloaded with appropriations, the governor was compelled to veto

the whole. And the whole were lost, although the public service demanded that many of the appropriations should have been made. If there had been a provision of this kind, we would not have been left in this situation. He believed the proposition he had submitted, to be one which would have a tendency to do much good; therefore, he hoped it might be adopted.

Mr. FULLER regretted that the motion to postpone had been made, and thought that the gentleman who made it, must see now, that a great deal of time had been taken up in discussing this motion, which might have been employed more profitably in discussing the merits of the section. He trusted, therefore, that the gentleman from Allegheny would withdraw the motion to postpone ; and if he would not, he hoped the motion might be negatived.

It appeared to him that the only question now for consideration was whether such a provision as this was proper or not. Then if it be proper to be inserted in any part of the constitution, it was proper to vote upon it

now.

With respect to the propriety of adopting it, there could, in his judgment, be but one opinion in this body. Certainly it had been a subject of complaint for some years, that too many bills were coupled together in our legislature.

Accompanying this report he found the name of the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) who was now absent; and he was certain, if that gentleman was present, he would advocate this proposition with force and great ability.

The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia had expressed a doubt whether we should ever reach the ninth article of the constitution. Now, he (Mr. F.) had no such fear, because he believed a majority of the convention were anxious that it should be reached; and he could not see on what the gentleman from Philadelphia county, founded his doubts. He believed that we would be enabled to get through with all the other articles of the constitution, and also consider the ninth article before we adjourned.

He trusted, therefore, that the motion to postpone, if not withdrawn, would be rejected, and that we would get a direct vote upon the section proposed by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

Mr. DICKEY thought there was a good deal in the objections urged by his colleague, (Mr. Agnew) against the adoption of the section proposed by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia. He considered the provision, that the legislature should not embrace two distinct subjects, or objects of legislation in one bill, rather ambiguous; and he, in fact, did not know exactly what idea the gentleman meant to convey by it. He would ask whether an act to incorporate a company to build a bridge across the Beaver river, and an appropriation of five thousand dollars to that object; another to erect a bridge across the Allegheny river, with a similar appropriation, and a third to construct a bridge in Venango county, with a like appropriation, would be looked upon by the gentleman who had submitted this amendment, as an act embracing distinct subjects, or objects of legislation? The appropriations were certainly for the same object, for they were to build bridges.

The only effect of the amendment, then, would be, to prevent the legis lature from chartering a bridge company and a railroad company in the same act, because they were different subjects of legislation.

Now, would this amendment prevent log-rolling? He apprehended it would not. Then you would be placing a burdensome restriction upon the legislature, without any good resulting from it. It was found in prac tical legislation, to be very convenient to embrace in one bill, a variety of matters of the same nature; and this saved an immense deal of time. For instance, it was very common for a number of persons, in the course of a session of the legislature, to ask the body to confer power upon them to sell real estate. Well, it was very convenient, saved time, and was no injury to any one, but a very great benefit to the parties concerned, to have all these matters embraced in one bill; because, if they were not, it would be impossible to get them all adopted in separate bills, for want of time.

:

Again the matter of election districts, which claimed the attention of the legislature at every session, was very conveniently and expeditiously disposed of, by embracing the whole of the districts in one bill, and passing it into a law in that form. There were various other matters which came before the legislature, that were disposed of in this way; and unless this was done, there would be great difficulty in getting them passed. He could not see the propriety or necessity of adopting this section; but even if it was proper, the ninth section was the place in which it should be introduced, it having been reported by the committee on that article, and being of a nature similar to the provisions of that article.

He hoped, therefore, that the motion to postpone might be adopted; and that we would not be troubled with propositions of this kind, until we reach the ninth article.

The

Mr. AGNEW wished to say a word or two more on this subject. gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, had answered the interrogatory which had been put to him, that a distinct subject of legislation was a different subject. Now, this was such an answer as there was but little information to be derived from, therefore he should pass it over.

He would now say a word or two to carry out his idea in relation to this amendment. He apprehended that our penal law might be called a subject or object of legislation. So, also, were murder, robbery, theft, arson, and the like, subjects of legislation? But he would ask the gentleman from the county, to tell him to which his amendment would apply? Would it apply to the penal law, as being a subject or object of legislation? Or would it apply to the separate crimes, and say that the punishment for no two of them should be united in one bill? Would the gentleman, under this amendment, say that the penal law was one subject or object of legislation, and that crime, murder, or larceny was another? or which of these was to be made the integer, or in other words, the object of legislation in connexion with which no other could be introduced? Was the penal law to be a subject of legislation as a whole, or was it to be considered in separate parts? Was robbery to be considered one part, larceny another, and arson a third; or were they all to be consolidated and considered as one subject of legislation?