TABLE SHOWING THE WHOLE NUMBER OF TAXABLES IN EACH COUNTY. Clearfield, 1,395 Philadelphia city, 14,419 Columbia, 4,252 Philadelphia county, 25,159 Crawford, 5,164 Schuylkill, 4,770 Cumberland, 6,047 Somerset, 3,639 Dauphin, 5,508 Susquehanna, 3,592 Delaware, 3,900 Tioga, 2,554 Erie, Fayette, Franklin, 6,082 Union, 6,094 Venango, 7,060 Warren, 4,353 3,014 1,626 Greene, 3,267 Washington, 8,470 Huntingdon, 6,144 Wayne, 2,120 Indiana, 3,166 Westmoreland, 8,223 Jefferson, 904 York, 9,559 Juniata, 2,102 Lancaster, 17,100 Whole No. in the State, 309,421 Lebanon, 4,501 Lehigh, 5,355 SECOND ARTICLE. 66 The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the second article of the Constitution, Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, in the Chair. The question pending being on the amendment offered by Mr. MERRILL. to the amendment offered by Mr. HIESTER to the ninth section. Mr. MERRILL modified his amendment so as to read as follows: “But no pardon shall be granted for offences punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, but by, and with the advice and consent of the Senate". Mr. MERRILL said he knew of no part of the patronage of the Executive which was so much complained of as the exercise of the pardoning power. So long as he had known any thing of judicial proceedings, there . had been a strong feeling against the exercise of the pardoning power . There should be some amendments to this part of the Constitution. He was by no means tenacious of his proposition. The amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster he approved of. Whether it went far enough or not, he should vote in favor of it. He had no doubt the Governor would grant pardons with more caution after this enquiry. The effect of the amendment would not be to prevent the action of the Governor at all, but merely to lead him to act with more careful discrimination. The mere restriction imposed on him by requiring him to render his reasons for granting a pardon, would not, at all times, be sufficient, and, therefore, he had submited this amendment. If the proposition of the gentleman from Lancaster was sufficient to cure the evil, it was all he (Mr. M.) wanted He asked for nothing more. Mr. REIGART said : Mr. Chairman: The amendment offered by my colleague to the ninth section of the second article of the Constitution, has my full and entire approbation. But, sir, I cannot vote for the amendment offered by the delegate from Union. The first does not restrain Executive clemency ; the latter gives to the Senate the controling power in pardons for the higher offences. I could not contract the exercise of this Executive prerogative, by connecting it with the Senate. To me, it seems that the Senate (from the demonstrations we have already had here) will have enough to do, in the connexion already determined upon, with the Executive; and for one I would not be willing to go further in this particular: but the amendment of the delegate from Union should not prevail for another reason—it entirely precludes the Executive, even in connexion with the Senate, from granting a pardon, or even a reprieve, on a conviction for murder or treason! Is it not obvious, that many cases might occur -nay, many have occured—in which it was necessary to pardon? Need I refer gentlemen to such cases ? Can they not readily be conceived ? May there not be many cases of mistake? Testimony subsequently discovered, which may most conclusively establish the innocence of the accused ! Where, then, is the power to restore this innocent man to the blessings of liberty, and to the society of his fellow-men? Shall he be incarcerated until the Legislature convenes, and await their action, before he can be restored to society? Would not such a course be a resort to that kind of judicial, nay, Executive legislation, which has been so much deprecated here? I trust, therefore, that this amendment of my colleague may be agreed to without refering to any alleged abuses of this power. What, sir, does the |
