to amend this section, so as to remove all doubt and difficulty as to its construction.

Mr. WOODWARD said the argument of the gentleman in support of his views, as to the submission of the Constitution as a whole, was not well founded. The first act of Assembly of 1835, provides for calling a Convention of delegates, to be elected by the people, with authority to submit amendments of the State Constitution to a vote of the people, for their ratification or rejection, and with no other or greater power whatsoever. This act confered no power on the Convention. The power was to come directly from the people, and the only limitation of their power which was imposed by the people, in conformity with the provisions of the act, was in requiring the amendments which the Convention should adopt, to be submited to them for ratification or rejection. This limtation was imposed, not by the act of the Legislature, but by the people. The act of 1837 in no way impaired the powers of the Convention. It provides the means for carrying the public will into effect, by directing the time, and mode of electing the members of the Convention, the place of its meeting, and the manner of its organization. It provides that the President shall, in case of the death or resignation of any of the members, issue writs for an election to supply the vacancy; that, after organizing, they may adjourn to any other place and proceed to the execution of the duties assigned them; and, that, "when the amendments shall have been agreed upon by the Convention, the Constitution as amended, shall be engrossed and signed by the officers and members thereof, and delivered to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, by whom, and under whose direction, it shall be entered on record in his office, and be printed as soon as practicable" in the newspapers, until the day which shall be fixed upon for the adoption or rejection of the amendments submited. In all this, there is not (said Mr. WOODWARD) one syllable prescribing the manner in which the amendments shall be submited. The Legislature too well understood their duty, to say how the amendments should be submited. It was left for the Convention to submit the amendments in any form they might think the most convenient and proper. He found nothing in either of the acts which went to limit or restrict the power of the Convention; and if it had contained any such restrictions, he had no hesitation in saying that they would have been void and of no effect, We were a body of extraordinary powers, emanating directly from the people, and deriving our power from the will of the people, our powers could not be limited by the Legislature, and he did not believe that the Legislature of Pennsylvania had not thus misconceived and misapplied their powers. If no mode, then, was provided for the submission of our amendments, we could submit them as we pleased, in detail or in mass; and, as to the people not being able to understand the effect of the amendments, if submited separately, he apprehended no difficulty from that. If we left this section as it was, would the consequences be such as were contemplated by the gentleman from Chester? Not at all. It would remain a section of the original Constitution on which the people could not pass, because no amendment had been made to it, and none submited for the ratification or rejection of the people. The original Constitution would then remain unaltered in regard to this provision, and no new construction would be placed upon it. The provisions of the sixth section of the act

of 1835, related entirely to our mode of organization and the manner in which the amendments adopted by us should be authenticated and promulgated to the people. There was nothing in it which provided the form in which they should be submited. We were under no obligation then, to submit the Constitution as an entire instrument. After we had gone through the amendments, he supposed the course would be to consider and decide whether they should be submited singly and separately, or in a body, as an entire Constitution. When that question did arise, his vote upon it would be regulated entirely by the character of the amendments adopted. Possibly they might be of such a character as to render it necessary to submit them to the people separately, in order to prevent the rejection of the whole; but, in no case, could the difficulty which the gentleman from Chester had anticipated arise.

Mr. Read did not rise, he said, to make a speech on this question, but merely to state the question in such a form, that it would be understood. Without detracting at all from the intelligence of the people, it was reasonable to suppose, that they would be puzzled by a flat contradiction.They will have good reason to doubt our intelligence, if we leave this clause in its present form. He cared nothing for the amendment, further than to avoid the absurdity of sending out to the people a flat contradiction on the face of the Constitution, saying, in one clause, that representation shall be in proportion to the number of taxables, and in the next, saying that each county shall have, at least, one representative. He agreed with the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) ihat the Constitution must be submited as an entire instrument, taking its date from the time when it receives the signatures of the officers and members of the Convention.If this clause were retained, therefore, the provision allowing one representative to each county, would be a part of the amended Constitution, although we voted down this very proposition, a few days ago, when it was offered by the gentleman from M'Kean (Mr. Hamlin).

Mr. DARLINGTON said, that it would be necessary, in his opinion, to submit the amendments to the people in an engrossed form. But there would be a difficulty as to the construction and application of this section, if it remained unaltered. To obviate this difficulty, he had yesterday offered an amendment somewhat similar to that under consideration, providing for an enumeration of the taxable inhabitants of the State, in 1842, and every seventh year thereafter, and for the apportionment of the representatives among the several counties, and the city of Philadelphia, according to these returns. But the committee thought differently, and rejected the amendment. It seemed to him, that there was a clear indication of an opinion on the part of the committee, that no alteration should be made in the section. If so, he held himself bound to vote against the present motion. He prefered to leave the section as it was, until the second reading, when he would renew his amendment, and both propositions could stand or fall together.

Mr. STEVENS : Can it be possible, that the idea of the gentleman from Susquehanna, that we are to submit the Constitution, as a new Constitution, and that the people are to vote upon it as a whole, is correct? What were the provisions of the first and second act of Assembly? They did not require us to make a new Constitution. They provided for the call of a Convention of limited powers, and it was called for certain objects,

66

which were expressed upon the face of the acts under which they were called together. Gentlemen could not get clear of that. What were we to do? To prepare amendments and submit them to the people. The people were not then to say, Constitution", or "no Constitution", but to decide on the amendments submited to them. The idea that we were to submit a whole Constitution was absurd. It was contrary to the acts which gave us the power only to submit amendments to the existing Constitution.

Mr. READ here said, that he denied that we derived any power from the act of Assembly.

Mr. STEVENS: Then it is from our own omnipotence, if the gentleman pleases. Can we not classify our amendments, and submit some of them separately, and others in gross? Are we so bound up that we cannot separate the amendments into two classes, omnipotent as we are, according to some gentlemen. He asked if the suggestion was not intended to prevent us from submiting them separately. But, when the Constitution was adopted, was it to be considered as a new Constitution, bearing date from the time of our signatures? The suggestion alarmed him. Had we come here to say that every thing done, heretofore, is annihilated by our omnipotence? Were we to say, that not a law, nor an act, nor a penalty, under the former Constitution, was now existing? That they were all abrogated? That not an office could be held, nor any power or privilege exercised in virtue of the old Constitution. He had no idea of this covert design to break up the Constitution. Yet, this appcared to be the object of the doctrine of an engrossed Constitution, which the gentleman from Susquehanna had brought forward here. The very provision for an engrossment of the Constitution, as required by the acts of Assembly, negatived the idea of the gentleman from Susquehanna, that it should be submitted as a whole. The engrossment was for the purpose of puting the present Constitution in another shape, in case the people should adopt the amendments. The section of the act of 1835, cited by the gentleman from Chester, looked to the publication of the engrossed Constitution in all the newspapers of the Commonwealth, but it looked no further. When the question was submited to the people, it must be upon the amendments, and not upon the engrossed Constitution. No part of the old Constitution was to be submited to the people, and, therefore, there was no necessity for this amendment.

The committee then rose, and the Convention took a recess.

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON-4 O'CLOCK.

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

The question pending being on the last division of the amendment offered by Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, to strike from the fourth section, all after the word "hundred" in the eighth line, to the end of the section; the motion was decided in the negative-ayes 26.

The report of the committee on the fourth section was then agreed to. The report of the committee on the fifth section was then taken up for consideration, viz :-"That the fifth section of said article be amended so as to read as follows, viz :-Section V. The Senators shall be chosen for

three years, by the citizens of Philadelphia, and of the several counties, at the same time, in the same manner, and at the same places, where they shall vote for representatives".

The question being on the report of the committee, the following report of the minority was also read:—" That it is inexpedient to make

any

alteration in the fifth section of the first article of the Constitution”.

Mr. Doran, of Philadelphia, moved to amend the report by striking out the word “ three”, and inserting the word "two".

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, moved to amend the amendment, by striking therefrom all after the word “report”, and inserting in lieu thereof the following words:-“That it is inexpedient to make any alteration in the fifth section.

Mr. Doran said he was, at all times, unwilling to obtrude himself on the attention of the committee. Nor should he have risen now to make any remarks, if he did not think he would be acting in conformity with the views of his constituents of the county of Philadelphia, by moving the amendment which he had offered, that the Senators should be elected every two years. He thought, that in the organization of a Government. especially in that part which relates to the Legislature, great importance was to be attached to the term of years for which their service should be fixed. He believed that the purpose of the people, in framing the Government, was not merely that the Government should control the governed, but that the Government itself should be restricted by such checks and limitations as the people might think fit to impose. He believed it was the intention of the framers of this Constitution, when they adopted that part of it relating to the Executive, while deciding on the powers and duties of all the co-ordinate branches, so to regulate these powers,

that they might have in view, what are the objects of all good Governments, the happiness and prosperity of the governed, and ascertain and adopt the 11 best means by which these beneficial and legitimate ends should be secured. Therefore, a system of checks and balances was introduced. Under that view, the powers of Government were limited, and where no checks and balances exist, for the purpose of regulating the Government, the people have reserved to themselves, under all circumstances, and at all times, the right of controling that Government. It would be extraneous here to to descant on the Judiciary or the Executive, as totally unconnected with my purpose, which is to shew that, in the existing organization of the powers of the Legislature, there is a manifest defect in the mode of electing Senators. Why were the two branches separated? Why was there constituted a House of Representatives and a Senate? Do gentlemen believe that the two branches were intended to control the action of the people? No gentleman would say that such was the view of those who framed the Constitution. Who was it that framed the Constitution ?What was their object in creating two branches? They were intended to be checks to each other, to constitute a part of the system of checks and balances, that one might perfect and control the action of the other, and the result of these checks was to promote the objects of the framers of the Constitution. In regard to the House of Representatives, it is a body more disposed to acts of usurpation than the Senate—it is more numerous, and more liable to be operated on by imflammatory appeals, and is deficient in that calm and sound judgment which is to be found in a less body, la

a

order to curb the action of the House, the Senate was constituted-an order of sounder judgment, of maturer age, and greater experience than is generally to be found in larger bodies. But while, to a certain extent, this was the object of the framers in separating the two branches, there was still another. And what was that? It was to bring the Legislature more completely within the control of the people that they should, by frequent elections, be compelled to come before the people at stated periods, in order that the people might have the opportunity of revising their conduct. They were thus to come to judgment, that it might be seen if the legislative measures had been calculated to promote the prosperity of the people. How has this been attained ? He would not now speak of the House of Representatives, as that branch was not the subject of his inquiry. He would only allude to the Senate. How has this been attained? Is it a fact, that the Senate, as at present organized, has operated as a check on the House of Representatives? Has this body regarded the will of the people, and looked to their interests ? Such was not the fact. On the contrary, the sentiments and prosperity of the people, since the present Constitution came into existence, have been entirely lost sight of, and the Senate, instead of looking to that as the primary object of legislation, have passed acts having in view the preservation of individual interests, without regard to the good of the people. This is human nature. When men obtain power, they are apt to forget the source from which they have obtained it. The prospect of being brought before the people for judgment, was too remote to operate as a check upon their course, and led them to those acts which were calculated to benefit their own personal interests. Such was his general view of the subject, a view in which he was borne out by facts. In the history of the country, how had the Senate operated as a check on the House of Representatives ?Lamentable experience had shewn, that if this body of thirty-three individuals had been selected by the people, for their wisdom and experience, to be brought into operation to check and control the immediate action of the House of Representatives, it had entirely failed in its object. Instead of controling the action of the House, the Senate had always yielded to it; instead of acting as a check on improper legislation, it took the lead in acts of legislative tyranny, fell into the wake of the House, and passed laws which were inimical to the interests and feelings of the great body of the people. Had there not been instances of individuals sent to the Senate, pledged to carry out certain principles, who, on obtaining their seats, abandoned all those principles, turned their backs on the rights and interests of the people, and set at defiance the very people they ought to have represented there? He did not intend to allude to any particular instance. One individual, as was notorious in the county of Philadelphia, had gone directly in opposition to the great democratic principle, that the representative is bound to obey the will of his constituents. It was notorious, that there had been an individual in the Senate, who was pledged to his constituents to carry out certain measures, who had abandoned those very measures, and the interests of the people of the county. The people had felt the evil effects of his infidelity, and had seen the necessity of imposing a check, since experience had taught them, that an individual elected for four years was beyond the control of his constituents. They had, therefore, thought it fit that their delegates to the Convention should respectfully