Mr. EARLE suggested to Mr. Bell, to modify his amendment by adding thereto, the words “when necessary.' Which suggestion Mr. BELL declined to accept. And, the question being then taken, the amendment to the amendment was agreed to. A motion was made by Mr. DICKEY to amend the section as amended, by inserting after the word "record," in the 4th line, the words following, viz: "And all other officers whose offices are, or shall be established by law." Mr. DICKEY said, he was of opinion, that if the constitution was to give one appointment to the governor and senate, it might as well give all. Mr. EARLE said, that the opinions of gentlemen in relation to the legislature, were apt to undergo very considerable changes. At one time, said Mr. E., it is fashionable to represent the legislature, as a body that may safely be trusted with all power, whatever may be its extent or character. It is fashionable sometimes, for instance, to represent them as a body fit to be trusted with the power to grant perpetual charters. At other times, it is fashionable to represent them as a body not to be trusted with any thing. For my own part, I do not go to either of these extremes. I believe that the legislature may be trusted a great deal, but still I think that they require a little check. At all events, it is my opinion, that they may be trusted more safely than the governor. A number of the states of this union, originally vested the appointing power in the legislature, and I believe that some of them have even found it necessary to make a change. In some of these states they have had conventions for the purpose of revising the constitution, but they have not taken away the appointing power from the legislature, and given it to the governor. I am willing that the legislature should make offices, and that they should vest the appointment in themselves. It might be better still, to vest it in the people, but it had better be vested in the legislature, than in the gov ernor. According to the usage of this government, persons receive their offices from the governor by means of party nomination. There are individ. uals, in each county of the state, who have been active in securing the election of the governor. It is known to all of us, that he becomes personally acquainted with individuals in each county, who obtain his favor in behalf of persons whom they may wish to elevate to some particular office. In these cases, they are not the proper persons to judge as to the propriety of the appointment, nor, under such circumstances, is the governor. This difficulty does not lie in the way, if you give the appointment to the legislature; because, there will always be found a number of persons from each district, acquainted with the different candidates, and if one individual acts upon personal partiality, we cannot expect that all will do so. But it is very easy to produce such a bias on the mind of the governor. There is, moreover, another consideration which strikes my mind with much force. You cannot hold a governor responsible for any improper appointments he may make, because, the excuse is, that he is not to blame-that he lives at a distance, and that all the fault is to be laid at the door of those who advised him. But if you vest the power in the legislature, the yeas and nays are to be taken upon the appointment, and you will then know how every man votes. I hope the amendment will be rejected; and, if I thought that such a motion would have any prospect of success, I would move to strike out from the section, that portion which gives to the governor the power of appointment, in the cases of judicial offices, of courts of record. I fear, however, that it will be useless to propose such an amendment. Mr. MERRILL, of Union, said the gentleman could not mean the legis lature of Pennsylvania. If he meant the legislature of Virginia, or of Ohio, or any other of the states where the appointments are made by the legislature, it was another thing. His course of argument was very surprising. He now proposed to put a large amount of additional power in the hands of the legislature. It was right that there should be some provision in the constitution, in reference to the appointment of judicial officers, and he would ask, why were not the governor and senate as competent to make other appointments, as they are to appoint the judges? He thought it was highly proper, that in this section, there should be this general provision. It would be a needless task, to meet all the arguments brought forward against this proposition. If these appointments were to be made by the legislature, the effect would be, to withdraw their attention too much from their legislative duties. Taking every view of the subject, the way now proposed was the best, and this the most proper place to introduce these officers. He hoped that the amendment would be adopted. The people do not wish the attention of the legislature to be distracted from the duties which properly belong to them. Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, moved that the convention adjourn. The PRESIDENT, asked and obtained leave of absence for a few days, from to-day. The PRESIDENT then announced to the convention, that agreeably to the rule of the convention, he had appointed Mr. CHAMBERS, to officiate as president in his stead, during his absence. The convention then adjourned. TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1838. Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, presented a memorial from citizens of Montgomery county, praying that measures may be taken so as effectually to prevent all amalgamation between the white and colorued population, so far as regards the government of this state; which was laid on the table. Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia, presented the memorial of the "Association of Friends for advocating the cause of the slave, and improving the condition of the free people of colour," praying that no alteration may be made in the constitution, in regard to the right of suffrage, based upon the complexion of the individual. He asked for the reading of the memo. rial. The secretary having proceeded for some time in the reading of the paper, Mr. HASTINGS, of Jefferson, moved to dispense with the further reading. Mr. BIDDLE hoped that the whole would be read. It was from a very respectable body of persons, and, if not printed, it ought to be read. Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, moved to amend the motion of the gentleman from Jefferson, by adding to it the words, "and that the memo. rial be printed." Mr. HASTINGS then withdrew his motion to dispense with the further reading. Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, renewed the motion. As far as it had gone, the language was such that it ought not to be read. 'There may be honest differences of opinion on the subject, but we should not permit such an attack to be made on us. Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, was opposed to the reading for the reason that this and every other memorial stated what was not the fact that these people have always been entitled to the rights of citizenship, and that the convention of 1790, and the Declaration of Independence gave them the privilege. There was no such thing to be found in our records: and when gentlemen of such talent and eloquence, present this as a matter of fact, he would say that it had never been admitted as such. Such arguments had been used before: but though they were reiterated, we must return to first principles. The coloured race are a distinct people : and have always been held by our citizens at large as to be subjected to a separate and distinct law. He hoped the memorial would neither be read nor printed. Mr. BIDDLE said that if there was any subject which ought to be considered with calmness, and decided with deliberation, it was this. He would not now go into an argument which would come up when the main question should be before the convention. But he must be permitted to deplore that, on this preliminary question, some gentlemen should have exhibited a display of feeling which did not augur well of the temper with which this matter would be hereafter discussed. What is the aspect in which things now stand? What is the situation of this class of our citizens? They send here a memorial. It is not read half through, when a motion is made that the further reading shall be dispensed with. Is this treating the sacred right of petition in the proper way? Is this regarding it with that importance which it has a right to demand of us? No matter how we may determine hereafter. Let us, at least, show that we are not afraid to listen to argument, and that we have sought for information in every direction. If there be any question of more than ordinary importance, it is that of the right of suffrage, and when a petition is presented to us, in reference to this subject, shall we respond to it by insulting the petitioners? He hoped, that when on all other subjects, we evince a willingness to hear, we shall not reject a memorial on this as objectionable. He had always been induced to suppose, that if there was a ery which would reach the human heart, it would be that in behalf of the persecuted, whether persecuted for colour, or for any other cause. He hoped the convention would be disposed to treat this matter calmly. Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia county, said that after listening to that part of the memorial which had been read, he concluded that it was a reply to a portion of the argument which was contained in the petition presented yesterday. He thought it only proper that both the arguments should be before the convention. He would therefore move to amend the motion of his colleague, (Mr. Martin) by adding to the end thereof the following words: "and that it be printed, in connexion with the memorial presented yesterday." Mr. MACLAY, of Mifflin, said he had heard strange objections urged. against the memorial which had been just presented. One gentleman objects to it, because he thinks the language disreputable; and another urges in opposition to it that its facts are not true. He thought both these objections were strange. While the gentleman from Juniata, (Mr. Cummin) was speaking, it had struck him that all the objections might be very well summed up in an old distich, which was none the worse for being trite, and which runs thus: I do not like you, Doctor Fell! I do not like you, Doctor Fell! Mr. M'CAHEN asked for the yeas and nays on his amendment, and they were ordered. Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, expressed his dislike to be charged by others with doing wrong, or being guilty of a disgraceful act. It was charged in this memorial that we did stand in this predicament. He would read a passage from the memorial which, in this respect, appeared to be highly exceptionable. [Mr. B. here read a short extract.] Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia. Will the gentleman read the memorial entirely through, and then he will know all about it? Mr. BROWN said he hoped we should not put on record what tended to our own disgrace. He understood it to be the object of a gentleman near to him to move for the appointment of a committee to whom all these petitions might be referred. He had no objection to arguments being presented here on the contrary, he was always willing to hear them. But there was a great distinction to be drawn between arguments, and assertions which were calculated to fix disgrace upon us. He hoped this memorial would be laid on the table, or referred to a committee. This was the usual practice. The president of this body, when he received an improper petition suppressed it, and no delegate had ever thought of throwing censure upon him for taking that course. Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, replied, that the gentleman thought it was in order, when a debate was in progress, on a motion to insert the word "white" in the constitution, to speak of a foul plot, and to use other terms equally strong; and surely it was in order for the petitioners to say as much as the gentleman had said in debate. The gentleman from Juniata had certainly no right to offer insult to these petitioners. He was astonished to hear such language emanate from a democratic source-to listen to such anti-democratic doctrines from that quarter. He was very sorry that the convention had got into such a condition, that they could no longer bear that the truth should be spoken to them. I think it is entirely unnecessary to print these petitions, because this article will, I presume, come up for consideration to-morrow. But if there is to be any printing at all, I hope that no favor will be shewn to one more than another-that we shall exhibit fairness and equality in all we may do. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment by adding thereto the following words, viz: "The petitions of persons of colour of the city and county of Philadelphia." Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, said he had no sort of objection that petitions. and memorials, such as these, should be read, listened to and recorded; but he had very great objections to statements which were not sustained by facts. If (said Mr. C.) they would admit the degradation of the coloured race in times past and their exclusion from privileges given to the whites, and would pray that they might now enjoy those privileges, I would agree that it may be right enough to attend to them. But here are people setting themselves up as being in every respect a superior race of people to the whites; superior in integrity, superior in industry, superior in morals. Let them come out according to the true principle; let them say that they have been heretofore deprived of those rights and privileges which they ought to possess, and let them ask that they may be placed by the constitution of this state on the same footing with the white race as to right of suffrage, as to electing and being elected. That would all be well |