a

representative, but no county shall hereafter be erected, unless a sufficient number of taxable inhabitants shall be contained within it, to entitle them to one representative, agreeably to the ratio which shall then be established”.

It would appear, then, that the gentleman from Montgomery would not orect a new county, unless it had a sufficient number of taxables, agreeably to the established ratio. The proposition was not sound. The only true ground was taxable population, without arbitrary lines. He was opposed to the amendment. Now, with regard to the apportionment of the year before last, it was well known to all, that the apportionment was according to representation, and that there would be fractions, of which the counties should have the benefit. Mr. D. concluded with giving some facts, in reference to the relative taxable population of several counties, and the fractions which would be left under the operation of the ratio as now established.

Mr. Cox, of Somerset, remarked, that if one member be given to each of the counties, as well to the city of Philadelphia, there would be 46 left to be apportioned among the new counties. It would require but a mo

a meni's glance at the proposition, to be convinced of the injustice and impropriety of its details. At the last apportionment, it appeared that there were eight of the small counties, whose aggregate number of taxables was 9,857, which would have given them three members ; but, under the present proposition they would have eight, while the county of Bucks, with a population of upwards of 10,000, would, under the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, have but two members. Now, he could see neither fairness nor justice in this, notwithstanding the gentleman, (Mr. STERIGERE) had talked much about his amendment being based on democratic principles, owing to which, he thought it would be sure to be adopted. The county of Berks, with her 11,743 taxable inhabitants, would have three members only. So that old Berks would be made to feel the effects of the amendment, for she would lose one representative. He would venture to say, that the constituents of the gentleman from Montgomery would not approve of the alteration.

Mr. STERIGERE : (interrupted.) The gentleman misunderstands the amendment.

Mr. Cox said, he did not misunderstand the amendment. He wondered whether the citizens of Montgomery would agree to a proposition which gave them only two, instead of three members, to 9,000 taxables, while the county of M'Kean, with but 500, would be entitled to one representative. The county of Allegheny would lose one member, Berks one, Chester one, and the county which the honorable chairman, (Mr. PorTER, of Northampton) represented, would also lose one. The city of Philadelphia would lose two or three representatives. The counties of Jefferson and Potter, would be entitled to one member each. He was certain that the gentleman's proposition required merely to be examined for a moment, to induce the committee to vote it down by a large majority.

Mr. STERIGERE had but a word or two to say. He would say, that had he not known that the gentleman from Beaver (Mr. DICKEY) had been sitting behind him, wide awake, and not asleep, he certainly would have supposed that he must have been asleep.

The gentleman from Beaver had entirely misapprehended the purport

.

a

F

of his amendment, and he (Mr. S.) was certain that he could convince the committee that he had. The gentleman had calculated that, by substracting 14 members from 100, the number would be reduced to 86. Now, if the committee should decide that there should be 100 members of Assembly, then, of course, there would be only 86 members to be distributed among the remaining counties, according to their taxable population. He had made a calculation on the last enumeration, and found that the ratio would not be much increased, and no county, which had been allowed a representative at the last apportionment, would lose one under the amendment, except those which were not entitled to one on a fraction under the existing Constitution. When the representatives allowed to the small counties were deducted from the whole number, and then their taxables from the number in the whole State, the remaining representatives would be divided among the other counties, according to their taxables, and which ever had the largest fractions, would get the additional members on fractions, as they at present did.

Mr. Cox replied, going into details to sustain the position he had before taken.

Mr. STERIGERE rejoined. The question was then taken on the motion to amend, which was determined in the negative.

The committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again, and The Convention adjourned.

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1837.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed :

Resolved, That the fourth section of the first article ought to be amended, so as to be as follows:

Article 1. Sect. 4. Within one year after adoption of the amendments of the Constitution, by the people, and within every subsequent term of seven years, an enumeration of the taxable inhabitants shall be made, in such manner as shall be directed by law, The number of representatives shall, at the several periods of making such enumeration be fixed by the Legislature, and apportioned among the city of Philadelphia, and the several counties, according to the number of taxable inhabitants in each. Provided That in making such apportionment, the fractions shall be estimated for each member to which any county may be entitled, in proportion to the portion which shall be necessary in assigning a representative to the least populous county, and shall never be less than eighty, nor greater than one hundred.

Mr. Earle, of Philadelphia, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed :

Resolved, That the fourth section of the first article of the Constitution be amended, by striking out all after the world“ law”, in the fourth line, and inserting the following, viz:

“ The number of representatives shall, at the several periods of making such enumeration, be apportioned by the Legislature, in the following manner, viz: One hundredth part of the whole taxable population of the State shall be taken as the ratio of representation. Each representative district shall be entitled to as many representatives as it shall contain number of times the representative ratio aforesaid, together with an additional representative for any surplus or fraction exceeding one half of such ratio. Not more than two counties shall be united to form a representative district, nor shall any two counties be united, unless one of them shall contain less than one half of the said ratio, in which case such county shall be united to that adjoining county, which will render the representation most equal. No county shall be divided in forming districts, except that the city of Philadelphia shall constitute a separate district”.

Mr. BAYNE, of Allegheny, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed :

Resolved, That the rules of this Convention be so altered, that no delegate be permitted to speak more than once to any question, either in committee of the whole or in Con vention, except to explain, or on leave by the committee or Convention.

Mr. Read, of Susquehanna, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed :

Resolved, That so much of the twenty-third rule, as precludes the previous question, in committee of the whole, be, and the same is hereby rescinded.

FIRST ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into committee of the whole on the first article, Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, in the chair.

The question pending being on so much of the report of the committee as relates to the fourth section,

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, moved to amend the said section, so as to read as follows :

“ Sect. 4. In the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight, and in every seventh year thereafter, an enumeration of the taxable inhabitants shall be made, in such manner as shall be directed by law. number of representatives shall be one hundred, and shall, at the next ses, sion of the Legislature, after making such enumeration, be apportioned

The

among the city of Philadelphia, and the several counties ; at every apportionment, each county, now erected, which shall then be organized for judicial purposes, shall have, at least, one representative ; and after assigning one representative to each county, so organized, which shall then not contain the one hundredth part of the taxable inhabitants of the State, the remaining representatives shall be apportioned among the city of Philadelphia, and the other counties, according to the taxable inhabitants contained in each; but no county shall hereafter be erected, unless a sufficient number of taxable inhabitants shall be contained within it, to entitle them to one representative. No two or more counties, entitled to a representative, shall be connected to form a district, nor shall any county, entitled to one representative, or more, be allowed an additional representative on any number of its taxable inhabitants, less than one half of the one hundredth part of all the taxable inhabitants of the Commonwealth”.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, moved to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the words “ hundred and”, in the first line, and inserting in lieu thereof, as follows:

“Forty-two, and in every seventh year thereafter, an enumeration of the taxable inhabitants shall be made, in such manner as shall be directed by law. The number of representatives shall, at the several periods of making such enumeration, be fixed by the Legislature, and apportioned among the city of Philadelphia, and the several counties, according to the number of taxable inhabitants in each, and shall never be less than sixty, nor greater than one hundred”.

Mr. DARLINGTON stated, that his object was to bring the provision back to that of the Constitution, as it at present stood. It was also in accordance with the views of the committee to whom the article was refered. The present Constitution provided, that there should be an enumeration within three years after the first meeting of the General Assembly, and it had been made septennially since that period. The last enumeration was made in 1835, and the next would take place in 1842, at which period his amendment fixed it.

Mr. M'SHERRY remarked, that it would be seen, by the character of the amendments which were offered, that the nearer we came to the Constitution, as it now existed, the better, and the opinion of the Convention seemed to be settling down to that conclusion. He was opposed to giving an additional representative to counties, because it would not be productive of a just and equal apportionment. He was in favor of this amendment. He would, while on the floor, say a word on another subject. During his remarks yesterday, the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. MEREDITH) seemed to think that an attack had been made on him, personally, by some gentleman: He had complained of the attack as personal, and said it was a new rule to bring forward in this Convention complaints of attacks made in the Legislature. He agreed entirely with that gentleman, and only suggested to him that he ought to have set an example. For his own part, he had no objection to this course of debate, and to defend his own conduct, except that it would occupy too much time. One charge, however, which had been made against him (Mr. M'SHERRY) was, that in the Legislature, he had opposed Internal Improvement. The reason for his vote on the subject refered to, was, that it could not benefit his section of country; that he feared a heavy debt would be contracted; that they had improved his county by their own means, and that their turnpike was eonstructed with

their own money. He wished the Legislature should act in reference to this principle; and that all the improvements should be made at the charge of those who would be benefited by them. Where money was required to be expended, the best plan was to form a company, and if means could not be obtained by that mode, then application could be made to the State for assistance. We (said Mr. M'S.) made our own roads in the first instance, and then the State aided us. We were aided by the Philadelphia gentlemen. We differed among ourselves. A road was made from hence to Carlisle, and to Chambersburg; they had obtained aid in making this road, and we considered our section equally entitled to assistance, and both the great leading roads were made. On the subject of public improvement, he would say, that he thought there should be incorporated companies to make them, and that the State should lend its aid. We (said he) voted against the bill, on the occasion refered to, and entered our protest on the journal the next year. It was the first time he had ever been called on to make an explanation of his course, and he was sorry the gentleman from Philadelphia had called on him, especially as he had taken no part in the present controversy.-Mr. M'S. here refered to the journal of the House of Representatives of 1825 and 1826, and read from it the protest to which he had made reference.-Such were the reasons for his vote. Another word, and he would have done. His colleague and he had differed on the question. This was no more than the gentlemen from Philadelphia had done. I do not complain of them (said Mr. M'S.); they differed, and we differed. We were sent here to act on our own responsibility. We had no instructions by which to govern ourselves; any proposition made by my colleague, I was not bound to support; nor was he bound to support any made by me. I find that the representatives from Philadelphia differed on the same question on which my colleague and I differed. The gentleman was under a great error if he supposed every county had any feeling hostile to Philadelphia. The members from the city, and myself, were always on the same friendly terms, and generally voted together. There was no feeling of animosity, no pique mixed up in the matter, as the gentleman has charged.

Mr. MEREDITH explained, that in his remarks, he had intended no reference to the gentleman from Adams, or to those whom he had alluded to as having acted with him. He had only refered to the votes given, as

an illustration which he had considered relevant to his argument.

Mr. M'SHERRY: Then I misunderstood the gentleman. We had always been on the best terms with Washington. We had nothing against each other.

In regard to another point. He thought the gentleman from Philadelphia had refered to a bill which came from the committee of ways and means. The report on that subject was not brought forward at the same time with the others. They had always pressed these improvements as the means of bringing coal into market. We thought that they, who were to be partly benefited, should be called on to share in the expense. An important bill, I believe, was passed with that amendment. We urged the policy of making those pay part of the cost, who were interested in the result, and advocated the necessity of such a course. It was nega tived. Another bill was afterwards introduced, and passed. He did not think the gentleman from Philadelphia should have called