Suppose the legislature should revise the penal code, and say that the punishment for murder should be so and so; the punishment for larceny different, and the punishment for other crimes different again from that, would or would not the gentleman's amendment declare that those subjects were proper subjects to be embraced in one bill?

He would say that it was convenient and proper, that bills should embrace these different subjects, but there might be some doubt whether the gentleman's amendment, if it was adopted, would permit of it. If, sir, this amendment was adopted, and a law was passed in the way he had suggested, and a criminal put upon trial under it, why the first thing he would do, would be to plead that your law was unconstitutional, and that consequently he ought to be released. be released. This would inevitably be the case, because, if various matters of this kind were embraced in one bill, such a plea as that might be very plausible. Then, the first thing which your courts would have to do in these cases would be, to determine whether the law was constitutional; and if it was not, the criminal would go clear, no matter what his crime may have been, because your law that provided the punishment, was unconstitutional. Every rogue would make this plea before a jury, and the jurors being the judges of the law and the facts, might at one time decide one way, and at another time another way.

All this, he maintained, showed the ambiguity and impropriety of the amendment; he hoped, therefore, that it might be postponed until the ninth section was reached; and by that time, perhaps, gentlemen could put it in better form if they still desired that it should be inserted in the constitution.

Mr. M'CAHEN then modified his amendment to read as follows:

"The legislature shall not combine or unite in any one bill or act, any two or more subjects or objects of legislation, distinct in their character; or any two or more distinct appropriation, or appropriations to distinct and different objects; exeept appropriations to works exclusively belonging to and carried on by the commonwealth. And the object or subject matter of each bill or act shall be distinctly stated in the title thereof." On motion of Mr. SCOTT,

The convention then adjourned.

MONDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 8, 1838.

FIRST ARTICLE.

'The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee, to whom was referred the first article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole.

The question recurring on the motion that the further consideration of the amendment to the said report be postponed for the present, the motion to postpone was rejected.

The question then recurring on the amendment, as offered by Mr. M'CAHEN;

Mr. DARLINGTON said, the latter clause of the amendment was very objectionable, and he wished to know whether the convention would make up their minds to pass it.

Did the convention intend to place a restriction on the legislature and if so, to what extent did they mean to do it? Must the court set the laws aside as unconstitutional, unless they are formed with this provision? Will the amendment be adequate to the end? He presumed it would not be. If the object was to prevent the carrying of a measure by a combination of interests, it would be impracticable. Gentlemen will say, I will vote for your bill, if you will vote for mine. Nothing can prevent it, I am in favor of the object of the amendment; but the means appear to me to be most futile. You cannot prevent log-rolling by this measure, nor by any thing in the constitution, as all experience has abundantly shewn. I submit to the convention, that the preposed amendment will be productive of great inconvenience in practice, and be of no practical

use.

Mr. DENNY said, he believed that we were generally in favor of the object of the amendment, provided there could be some means to get at it in a proper way. This amendment was reported by the minority of the committee on the ninth article. The committee has probably some modification to offer, which might meet the views of the convention.

The gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) who is the chairman of this committee, has, no doubt, given his attention to it, and will propose something. In a modified form, such as the amendment might be made to assume, there could not be much objection to it. But the amendment, in the form proposed, would not remove the difficulty. So far as the object was to prevent the incorporating of subjects in the same act, it was a matter which might better be left with the legislature and the governor. The governor had already refused, repeatedly, to sign bills, which were evidently formed upon the principle of the combination of interests. If the subject should be laid over till we reached the ninth article, and till the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) resumed his place, we could the better reach the object in view. It was certainly competent for the legislature, to introduce into the same bills, different

objects. For instance, they could provide in the same bill, for the general improvement of the state by rail roads. Sometimes it might be improper and partial to separate subjects of the same class. There would be great difficulty, in any attempt to put every subject into a distinct bill. The gentleman from Northampton, when he returned, might obviate all objections, and we were prepared to meet them on common grounds.

Mr. BIDDLE said, all who had spoken on the subject seemed to agree that log-rolling was an evil. There was no diversity of opinion as to this. The only question, then, is, does this amendment fully meet, and entirely remove the evil? It seemed to him that the amendment did not reach its object. It provided, that every law embracing two distinct subjects. should be void. Suppose, then, a general law should contain one section that was inconsistent with its objects, the whole law would be void. We should be cautious how we made any such provision as this. The amount of difficulty which it would introduce in legislation could hardly be conceived.

The amendment had already undergone several modifications, which shewed the necessity of a deliberate consideration of the subject, before we adopted such a provision. The regularity of the mode of doing our business, ought also to be considered, and this did not appear to be the proper time and place for making the amendment. A gentleman had remarked, that the reservations of power in our constitution were all placed together in the ninth article. Unless we meant to depart from that system of placing the reservation and reservations, this was not the proper place for the proposed amendment.

There was a great difference, in this respect, between our constitution, and the constitution of the United States. The latter contains express grants of power, and reserves every thing not expressly granted; the former makes a general grant of powers, and express reservations afterwards. No powers can be exercised by congress, except those which are specially granted; and any powers may be exercised by the legislature of the state, which are not expressly reserved.

It appeared to him that we were now opening the subjects of the ninth article, instead of employing ourselves upon the first. It would be far better, in his opinion, to go on regularly. He would vote against this, because it was not calculated to remedy the evil complained of, and because this was not the proper place for introducing it into the constitution.

Mr. BANKS said, the governor's message, vetoing certain bills afforded a suitable commentary upon the impropriety of attaching bills of different subjects to each other. Corporations for different purposes, and with large capitals, were often put in the same bill. He hoped that the proposed restrictions would be introduced somewhere.

Mr. MERRILL said, in order to reconcile the conflicting views of the gentleman on this subject, he would move to amend the amendment by striking therefrom all after the words "section fifteen," and inserting in lieu thereof the words as follow, viz:

"No act of incorporation shall be passed by the legislature, unless public notice to be prescribed by law shall have been given for two months, and in no case shall one law contain more than one act of incorporation."

Mr. MERRILL said, he apprehended that the last clause of the amendment, was not so clear as to be distinctly apprehended. It would belong to the courts to overhaul the doings of the legislature, and to declare all laws void, the objects or subjects of which, were not distinct, and distinctly declared in their titles. This was not the first time that we had heard a great deal said against the legislature here. It was surprising to hear gentlemen talking of the legislature, as if they were not the representatives of the people of Pennsylvania, freely chosen by them, and responsible to them. The legislature and the courts, in case the amendment offered by the gentleman from the county, should be adopted, might differ in opinion as to the character of the objects and subjects of a bill. The legislature might deem the whole subject of banking as one distinct object. But, if two banks were chartered in one law, the courts might decide that the law, under this provision, is void. The object of a law, would, in fact, just as well admit two subjects, or two charters, as one. law having but one object, might embrace two different subjects.

A

One object of legislation, was the criminal code, another was the banking system, and a third was the system of internal improvement; and, if a law was compared to one of these objects, it ought not to be considered as relating to, and providing for, distinct subjects. There can be no ambiguity, and no difficulty on the subject, if we provide that one law shall in no case contain more than one act of incorporation. Do we wish to restrict the legislature in the ordinary course of legislation, and cripple all the legislative action? Or do we merely wish to prevent the giving of acts of incorporation, with too profuse a hand, and with too great a facility? When we go further, and push those restrictions to extremes, we do a great injury to the public interests, by embarrassing legislation, and rendering it uncertain. He was in favor of some amendments to the constitution; but if twenty gentlemen should rise here, and oppose any amendment that might be offered, he should hesitate very inuch as to the propriety of that amendment. He wished to adopt no amendment of a doubtful character, and none that were not clearly called for by the public interests. He wished to make no amendments for the sake of an experiment upon the constitution, and to adopt such only as were clearly necessary.

If the constitution which we framed, went to the people with a bare majority, it would not receive their approbation. No amendments of doubtful propriety would be acceptable to the people. There could be no objection to the amendment which he now proposed. It requires a notice to be given of every act of incorporation asked for. The people were not in general opposed to incorporations, and the only object in view was, to guard the abuse of the system. Let those who ask an incorporation, give previous notice of it to the public, in order that its object may be well considered; and let it be provided, that only one act of incorporation shall be placed in the same law. This was all the restriction that it was necessary to impose on the legislature. Who shall say, that the people shall not have what is most agreeable to their own interests? If they want acts of incorporation, let them have them without any unnecessary restraint upon the grant of them. If we go any farther, in imposing restrictions upon the legislature, then we not only cast a reflection upon the integrity and trust-worthiness of the representatives of the peo

ple, but also of the people themselves. We have a right to say, that the legislature may have been, and may be, mistaken in their judgments; but we have no right to vilify our own institutions.

Mr. EARLE said, the amendment of his colleague went to one distinct subject, and he hoped we should have the separate and distinct action of the convention upon it, and not cut it off by foreign matter. If he was seconded, he would move the previous question.

Mr. E. withdrew the the demand for the previous question for the present, at the request of

Mr. CHAUNCEY, who said he was, at one time, favorably disposed towards an amendment of this sort. He thought he had perceived soine difficulty arising from the mingling of distinct subjects together, and he felt disposed to support a provision requiring that all subjects of legisla tion shall be kept separate and distinct. But the whole difficulty resolved itself into one of inconvenience. It is inconvenient to embrace two subjects in the same law, and that forms an objection to it. But, sometimes it might be inconvenient to separate two distinct subjects, and it might be found more convenient to put them in one and the same bill. considered the reasons urged in favor of introducing into the constitution the provision offered by the gentleman from Union; and, upon a little reflection, it had occurred to him, that it was not the establishment of a principle of legislation, but rather the designatoin of the mode in which legislation should be carried on. We cannot prescribe the mode in which the legislative shall carry on their our proper business. The rules of proceeding are to be made by the legislature for itself.

He had

The constitution ought not to go farther than to settle the principles of legislation. In the first place, then, he objected to the amendment of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) because it prescribed the mode in which legislation should be carried on; and, because, in the second place, it would appear as intended to cast a reflection upon some branch of the government. What was the necessity of this? The arguments in favor of the original amendment offered by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, led us to believe, that there was some great defect it the construction of the legislative department of the government-that the legislature was corrupt, radically corrupt, and that the constitution must be so altered, as to tie their hands. Now, if all this were indeed true, it would be useless for us to sit here. We could not cure it by any provision of the constitution.

It was said that there was much log-rolling among the members, and that they agreed among themselves to sustain this and that measure, and that corruption of this kind was very common and prevalent. But, would this amendment, or any amendment, prevent it? Could you, by any constitutional provision, prevent members from entering into a private agreement to vote for one bill, in case other members should give their sup port to another bill? The object can always be effected without tacking two bills together, unless they are so corrupt that they cannot trust each other. But there will be great difficulty in so forming the amendment as to constitute it a check on the legislature. Suppose the amendment to be adopted, and to become a part of the constitution. Suppose, then, that the legislature pass a law containing two objects or subjects, distinct from