enough. But to hear them say, that they have in times past been in possession of such rights and privileges, and that they are now about to be deprived of them, is a statement which it is not proper to make to this body. It is not true.

Mr. BIDDLE said that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) had objected to this petition, that it contained aspersions on the motives of the members of this convention, and that, therefore, it ought not to be read.

Now, (said Mr. B.) I think that the gentleman is mistaken. I think he will discover that the petition contains nothing of this objectionable kind. It certainly does express the opinion that to alter the constitution of the state of Pennsylvania, so as to prevent a particular class from exercising the right of suffrage, would be to place a blot on that instrument. Is an expression of an opinien of this kind, even though couched, as I admit it to be, in very strong language, to be considered as an imputation upon the members of this body? I think not. I take the ground that it casts no imputation upon the motives or the conduct of any man, or any set of men, in this convention.

But how do we arrive at the knowledge that there is any thing in the petition which, even according to the opinion of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, is to be regarded as improper or disrespectful? The gentleman took the petition from the desk of the secretary, and read a paragraph of it. Are we not to be allowed to have the contents? Are we to have part only of the petition, and not the whole, which might explain any particular part which might, of itself, seem to bear an objectionable construction?

It has been said also that there are assertions in this paper which are not supported by facts, assertions which are known to be untrue, and that therefore, it ought not to be read. There are matters connected with this subject about which differences of opinion may prevail, and about which also it is known that great difference of opinion does prevail in this body. If we are to hear an opinion on the one side, are we not bound also to hear the opinion on the other?

A few days ago, when a petition was presented from coloured people, we refused to print it. But now, a portion of those whom none will deny to be our fellow-citizens, whose complexion are as fair as our own, approach us in the language of petition. Shall we not hear them? Shall we turn a deaf ear to what they have to say? And why so? Because they ask us to make a great change, and because they entertain favorable opinions in behalf of a class of people whom they regard as an oppressed and perse cuted race. Sir, I think that so far from these being reasons why we should not listen to the prayer of these petitioners, they are reasons why we should listen to them with respectful attention. And most especially ought they to be listened to by such of the members of this body, as are opposed to granting the prayer of the petition. Those who are in favor of it, need not read the petition; but those who are opposed to it and refuse to hear it read, show, by that very act, that they have come here with minds prepossessed and closed against the admission of reason or argument on the one side of the question, however forcible that reasoning and that argument may be. I do not think that any gentleman here will

adopt a course of conduct so contracted. On the contrary, I anticipate a general, if not a universal vote in faver of reading this petition. I trust I shall find that my expectations will not be disproved by the result.

Mr. DARLINGTON, rose to inquire of the Chair, what was the true state of the question before the convention-and if the motions which had been submitted-and which he believed were three in number—had been reduced to writing; and, if not, he intended to require that they should be?

Mr. DICKEY, here moved, that the petition might be read.

The CHAIR said, that the latter motion was not in order. The reading of the petition had been asked, in the first instance, by the gentleman who presented it. A motion had then been made to suspend the reading, which latter, was now one of the pending motions.

Mr. STERIGERE, rose to inquire, whether the reading of this paper was not a matter of right?

The CHAIR said, that it certainly was a matter of right, but that it was in the power of a majority of the convention, at any time, to suspend the reading.

Mr. MARTIN, therefore, withdrew his motion, to suspend the farther reading of the said paper.

The secretary then proceeded with the reading, and the same having been concluded.

Mr. M'CAHEN, called for the reading of the memorial presented yesterday, and, to which, the memorial just read was intended as a reply.

Mr. EARLE said, that the hour devoted, under the rule, to the consideration of resolutions, had almost elapsed. If it was in order, he would move that the farther consideration of that motion be postponed until to

morrow.

After some conversation,

Mr. M'CAHEN withdrew his motion.

A motion was made by Mr. M'DOWELL,

That the convention re-consider the vote heretofore taken on the following resolution;

Resolved, That the following new rule be adopted in convention, viz: "That when any twenty delegates rise in their places and move the question on any pending amendment, it shall be the duty of the presiding officer to take the vote of the body on sustaining such call: and if such call shall be sustained by a majority, the question shall be taken on such amendment without further debate.

This motion gave rise to some desultory discussion on a point of order.

Whereupon, Mr. M'D. withdrew his motion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

The question recurring on the amendment to the eighth section, as amended by the committee of the whole, by inserting after the word "second" in the fourth line, the words "and all other officers whose offices are or shall be established by law."

Mr. READ said, that the short discussion which arose on this subject last evening, had taken place during a general confusion, and an unreasonable amount of noise-so much so, indeed, as to render it almost impossible to hear any thing that was said. I believe, said Mr. R., that I heard generally the remarks which were made by the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) but I could not hear a syllable of what fell from the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Scott.)

I understood the gentleman from Union to assume the ground, that it was necessary to make a provision in this case as we went along, lest the matter should not be understood. I will call the attention of the convention, to a provision which has been made in the seventh article of the constitution, on this very subject. If we have any disposition to progress with our business, or any hope that we shall ever bring it to a close, we ought to take this question up on the seventh article, in the same manner in which it was considered in committee of the whole. I thought I understood the gentleman from Union to say, that if we did not adopt the amendment, there would be a casus omissus: a case not provided for. The case is fully provided for in the seventh article, and the committee has solemnly determined, that the seventh article was the proper place in which to make a disposition of this matter.

To adopt this amendment, would be, in effect, to disregard an amendment which has been adopted in committee of the whole, to the seventh article of the constitution. Mr. R. then alluded to the great patronage which the amendment would bestow on the governor, and concluded by expressing his hope that it would be negatived.

Mr. DENNY said, that he rose to express a hope, directly contrary to that which had been expressed by the gentleman who had just taken his seat. I hope, said Mr. D., that the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver will be agreed to. I am disposed now to regard it as being of more importance than I thought it last evening; for such were the hurry and confusion attending our last evening's session, that many of us did not feel inclined to give to the amendment that consideration which, as it now appears to me, its importance entitles it to receive. Nor do I think, that the amendment chothes the governor with that extensive patronage, which the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) supposed. We do not know, to what extent the legislature may provide for the establishment of new officers; it may be to a greater, or a lessextent. We have no means of judging. Those of us, who are acquainted with the manner in which appointments are got up in the legislature,

would feel great regret at not making a provision to guard against that inconvenience, because we know, that there is great inconvenience resulting from it, and that it gives room for much suspicion against the members of that body. I have, it is true, raised my voice on this floor, against the attempts which were made, to bring odium upon the legislature, but I do not hold to the doctrine, that the legislature is infallible. The members of that body are like ourselves-like other human beings; they may err, and sometimes, we know, men may get into that body, who may allow themselves to be governed by improper motives in what they do. I think, therefore, knowing as we do the materials of which the legislature is composed, that we should keep them as far from temptation as possible, and that we should not, by any act of ours, bring them into a situation in which they may be liable to err. This is a very important matter, to reserve in the constitution this residuary power of appointment, to provide for contingencies, to provide for vacancies, to provide for offices which may hereafter be created. Those officers, it is true, may not be many, but whether they be few or many, I think that the power should be retained in the executive branch of the government. The legislature, in making new offices, may make them subject to, and in conformity with the provisions of the constitution, and, if they would not do it, they are undeserving of having power in their hands, because such a proceeding would shew, that they retained the power for sinister perposes. Why should they create offices which do not come under the fundamental law of the state, when we, so far as we can fix the matter, say that these offices shall be filled in another way, and not by them? If we would keep the legislature pure, we should retain this power of appointment in the hands of the executive, and of the senate-if, in the opinion of this convention, the senate should be connected with the governor in the exercise of this power. There are undoubtedly evils which may arise from that. condition of things, in regard to which I will not enter into details at this time. But, I hope that we shall not, so far, depart from that which we wish to put into the fundamental law of the state of Pennsylvania, as to leave the residuary power-if I may be allowed so to call it-in the hands of the legislature.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said, that he had not risen with any view again. to travel over the ground which had been passed over at Harrisburg, when this question was under consideration in committee of the whole. It has been decided, said Mr. B., by a solemn vote of this convention, that the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania required at our hands, that the patronage of the governor, over-grown and excessive as it then was, should be reduced, and that the power of appointment to office should be vested in some other source.

The amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) is torestore the power which has been denied by this body. The effort now is, to give to the governor the power of filling offices now created, or which may hereafter be created by law. The major part of the officers of this commonwealth, are creatures of the statutes, and not of the constitution. The question then presents itself, whether we will take from the governor, that power which is found to be dangerous, and which it is the well known wish of the people to reduce. This, sir, is the question which we are called upon to decide.

The gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) says, that all this is provided, for by amendments made in committee of the whole at Harrisburg, to the seventh article of the constitution. These amendments have not yet been printed, and I have looked in vain to find them.

Mr. READ said, that he was in error, In saying that the amendment would be found in the seventh article; it was to be found in the sixth, and not in the seventh article.

The sixth article, as adopted in committee of the whole, provided, that all officers, whose election or appointment is not provided for in this constitution, shall be elected or appointed as shall be directed by law."

Mr. BELL said, that, as that was an important amendment-if such indeed there were, he would like some gentleman to refer him to the page of the journal, where it might be found.

Mr. AGNEW referred the gentleman from Chester to page 140, of the minutes of the committee of the whole,-being the proceedings of the convention in committee of the whole, on Wednesday, October 18.

Mr. BELL resumed.

In looking to the history of the amendment now under consideration, he was struck forcibly with the contest which we had on this subject in committee. He then referred to the action had upon it, in committee of the whole, and stated that it had been passed over, for the purpose of getting rid of the discussion and difficulty which the committee had, in relation to this subject.

This, however, now seemed to be the proper place to put those restrictions on the governor, which it was necessary to place upon him, and all must admit, that to restrict the power of appointment by the governor, was one of the great objects of calling this convention. We have taken from the governor, at present, all his patronage in the shape of appoint ments, and what reason could there be urged for permitting another power more dangerous than the first, to grow up, and be placed in his hands. It must be evident that it would be a singular anomaly for us to pretend to reduce the patronage of the executive, while we permitted this enormous patronage to grow up in the hands of future executives.

He held to his original idea, that this was the proper place to introduce this matter of restrictions, upon the future power of the executive, and for the purpose of trying the sense of the convention upon it, he would, so soon as the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver (Mr. Dickey) was disposed of, introduce the amendment he had proposed in committee of the whole, on this subject. It would then be for the convention to say, whether or not, this was the proper place for introducing these restric tions.

Mr. HIESTER Considered the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) an important amendment, as it proposed to carry out that system of checks and balances, so necessary in a republican government. What, sir, did the framers of the constitution of 1790, think on this subject? By the eighteenth section of the first article, it is declared that:

"No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he shall have been elected, be appointed to any civil office under this common