to the propriety of acting upon it at this time. If the proposition of the committee should be lost, why the Constitution would remain as it now is. He coincided in the views expressed by the Chair, as being strictly correct. When the report of the committee should come up for a second reading, if not negatived, an opportunity would be afforded gentlemen to offer amendments. The gentleman from Beaver appeared to consider the article in the Constitution, as a bill under consideration, and requiring to be passed before it could become a law, and regarded the amendment of the committee as a real, substantive amendment to that bill. He hoped that the committee appointed to revise the rules would provide a mode by which the present difficulty, into which the committee of the whole had got, would in future be avoided. He trusted that the section would be negatived.

Mr. EARLE asked if the motion of the gentleman from Beaver was in order?

The CHAIR: The motion is perfectly in order.

Mr. EARLE How the gentleman's motion can be in order, which is no amendment at all, I am totally at a loss to perceive.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said that the committee on rules would probably report soon, and it was evident that there was a majority for not altering the Constitution in the manner proposed-therefore, he would, in order to get rid of the difficulty, for the present, move, that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. DICKEY said he thought the same difficulty would arise again, the next time they sat, as now. The Convention had refered the nine different articles of the Constitution to nine separate committees, and one of them had reported one of the articles without amendment, and he hoped that it would be considered a second time-for it was necessary that every article should undergo a second revision, and then would arise the question, whether the work of the Convention should be presented to the people as a whole, or in distinct propositions. The committee of the whole had now to act on the report of the committee who had reported an amendment to the second section of the fourth article. We must amend their report, if we would bring back the article to the state in which it was originally submitted to the committee.

Mr. STEVENS said it seemed to him a question of more than mere form; it was a question of principle, involving consequences of great moment, and it was the duty of the committee to consider them attentively. He did not think that we were to take up the opinion of the committee, and consider it as thrown into the committee of the whole or in the Convention. Although he thought there was some irregularity, as to the manner in which the reports of the standing committees were considered, yet, when the subject came into committee of the whole, gentlemen were not to lose sight of the power with which they were vested. They did not come here, as he had before said, in order to see whether the present Constitution of Pennsylvania was to be continued, but to propose amendments to it. And, until they did propose amendments, and they are submitted to the people, and confirmed by them, the present Constitution remains. Whatever the Convention did, must be affirmed or disaffirmed by the people. But, if the notions of some of the gentlemen were to

He would not say that the gentleman's (Mr. DICKEY's) proposition was out of order, but he must say that it was absurd, if the gentleman would excuse him. He meant, however, not the slightest disrespect to the gentleman. On the contrary, he entertained the greatest respect for him. But, supposing that the gentleman's proposition succeeded what would be the consequence? Why, it would be to leave that part of the Constitution which had been refered to one of the standing committees, precisely as it stood before. We should then be told it was the old Constitution, totidem verbis. The better and most proper course, would be to let the question be taken on the report of the committee, if it be an amendment why can't we call it so-"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -and then when it should come up on its second reading-any member would have an opportunity of offering an amendment. For, supposing the House to disagree to the report of the committee, why then the gentleman's proposition would come up on the second reading. The difficulty which now presented itself on the ground that it is no amendment, would thus be got rid of. Well, then, let the committee, at once, take a vote on the report, and proceed in the regular way, as it would not prevent the gentleman from Beaver, from offering his amendment hereafter. As to the gentleman's (Mr. SERGEANT's) illustrations, in regard to SANCHO PANZA, and the difficulty into which the committee had fallen, he (Mr. D.) would only say, that if the committee would adopt the course which he had pointed out, all would be well, and however SANCHO might be puzzled, he hoped that we would not.

Mr. DICKEY said, that his proposition was not so absurd as it might appear to the gentleman. He (Mr. D.) conceived that he had taken the right course in moving his amendment at this time.

Mr. DUNLOP said-Cannot you move to insert your amendment on the second reading?

Mr. DICKEY replied-I choose to do it in committee.

Mr. DUNLOP I might move to put the the same words in again-what prevents?

Mr. DICKEY: I could move to strike them out again.

Mr. MEREDITH hoped that the Convention would not lose sight of the governing principle of their proceedings. He understood that principle to be, that it required a positive majority of the body to make an amend ment to any article of the Constitution, and if the vote was even, the Constitution would remain unchanged. The question before them, then, was not one of mere form. In whatever they did, they ought so to proceed as that they should preserve this one important principle. And, the question was-how was it to be done? A standing committee had been appointed, to which had been refered the fourth article-now under consideration. That committee had reported two sections of it without amendment, and, with reference to the second section, they recommended a certain amendment, which is contained in their report. The Convention then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, for the purpose of seeing whether there was a majority in favor of making an alteration in that article. What would be the consequence of the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Beaver? Why, it would be to restore the language of the Constitution, instead of changing it, as was proposed by the committee. He could not agree with the gentleman from Beaver, as

to the propriety of acting upon it at this time. If the proposition of the committee should be lost, why the Constitution would remain as it now is. He coincided in the views expressed by the Chair, as being strictly correct. When the report of the committee should come up for a second reading, if not negatived, an opportunity would be afforded gentlemen to offer amendments. The gentleman from Beaver appeared to consider the article in the Constitution, as a bill under consideration, and requiring to be passed before it could become a law, and regarded the amendment of the committee as a real, substantive amendment to that bill. He hoped that the committee appointed to revise the rules would provide a mode by which the present difficulty, into which the committee of the whole had got, would in future be avoided. He trusted that the section would be negatived.

Mr. EARLE asked if the motion of the gentleman from Beaver was in order?

The CHAIR: The motion is perfectly in order.

Mr. EARLE How the gentleman's motion can be in order, which is no amendment at all, I am totally at a loss to perceive.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said that the committee on rules would probably report soon, and it was evident that there was a majority for not altering the Constitution in the manner proposed-therefore, he would, in order to get rid of the difficulty, for the present, move, that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. DICKEY said he thought the same difficulty would arise again, the next time they sat, as now. The Convention had refered the nine different articles of the Constitution to nine separate committees, and one of them had reported one of the articles without amendment, and he hoped that it would be considered a second time-for it was necessary that every article should undergo a second revision, and then would arise the question, whether the work of the Convention should be presented to the people as a whole, or in distinct propositions. The committee of the whole had now to act on the report of the committee who had reported an amendment to the second section of the fourth article. We must amend their report, if we would bring back the article to the state in which it was originally submitted to the committee.

Mr. STEVENS said it seemed to him a question of more than mere form; it was a question of principle, involving consequences of great moment, and it was the duty of the committee to consider them attentively. He did not think that we were to take up the opinion of the committee, and consider it as thrown into the committee of the whole or in the Convention. Although he thought there was some irregularity, as to the manner in which the reports of the standing committees were considered, yet, when the subject came into committee of the whole, gentlemen were not to lose sight of the power with which they were vested. They did not come here, as he had before said, in order to see whether the present Constitution of Pennsylvania was to be continued, but to propose amendments to it. And, until they did propose amendments, and they are submitted to the people, and confirmed by them, the present Constitution remains. Whatever the Convention did, must be affirmed or disaffirmed by the people. But, if the notions of some of the gentlemen were to

whether they should be the Constitution of the State! Well, supposing that we were to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, in what shape would it go before the people? Why, in the very words of the existing Constitution itself. The standing committee had proposed an amendment, and it was for the people to say whether or not it should be adopted. The gentleman's amendment could not be submitted to the people, because we had no power to lay the Constitution, or any part of it before them, but only such alterations or amendments as were proposed to be made. Look at the absurdity-it is a legal absurdity-of amending the section according to the proposition of the gentleman. What do we do? Why, we strike out words already in the Constitution, and put them in again, and present it to the people as an amendment.

Mr. DICKEY: It is not an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. STEVENS: But it is an amendment to the report of the committee, which is the same thing as an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. DUNLOP rose for the purpose of saying a few words, with the gentleman's permission.

Mr. STEVENS: I call the gentleman to order. I do not yield the floor. What do we do, suppose we refuse to adopt the amendment? Suppose that we were a legislative body, the House of Representatives, and a bill were reported here precisely the same, (as some gentleman has suggested to me) as a certain law that was passed five years ago, or a law that was not exactly the same. Well, the bill comes up for consideration, and a gentleman rises in his place, and moves to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to insert an old law, word for word, before it could be reported to the House; they would have to act on it, because it would be useless to send it to the House, unless the committee of the whole agree to the report on the subject. The law goes on to say that so and so shall be the law of the country, for so many years. Now, I would ask, would you add a repealing clause to it? Or, would you wish it to pass, when you had the same law already in force? Mr. S. would seriously ask, whether the course proposed to be adopted, did not lead us into difficulty?

Mr. DUNLOP said, taking the proposition which he had suggested to the gentleman (Mr. STEVENS) that he had under consideration a bill, and some person moved that the enacting clause be stricken out, for the purpose of inserting something that appears on the statute book. Well, then, the same subject would be before the house. But it could be got rid of by some one moving that the amendment be indefinitely postponed. This amendment, therefore, might be got rid of in that way.

Mr. BAYNE, of Allegheny, said the whole matter must be construed by the rules. Two reports would be, in most cases, made by the committees, and one would be always for sustaining, and the other for altering the Constitution. He believed the report of the committee on the rules would obviate that difficulty.

The Committee then rose and reported progress, and, after a few words from Mr. EARLE, (who desired an opportunity to offer the amendment he had prepared), from Mr. FRY, of Lehigh, (who also desired an opportunity to suggest amendments), and Mr. FARRELLY, of Crawford, (who desired, as one of the majority of the committee, to make some remarks in favor of the amendment which had been reported), obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.

The Convention then adjourned.

SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1837.

Mr. MYERS, of Venango, presented memorials from Venango county on the subject of banking, praying that some restrictive provisions in relation to that subject be introduced into the Constitution; which were ordered to be refered to the committee appointed for the purpose.

Mr. HAMLIN, of Warren, presented a memorial from the citizens of M'Kean county, on the subject of banks, similar in its import, and concluding with a like prayer; which was ordered to be refered to the committee appointed for the purpose.

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

"Resolved, That the first section of the third article of the Constitution be so amended, as to provide as follows, viz: "In elections by the citizen, every free white male citizen of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who is a citizen by birth or naturalization, and every son of a naturalized citizen, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who may have resided in the state one year, and at the time of offering his vote, a resident of the township or district where he shall offer such vote, shall enjoy the rights of an elector: Provided, That neither paupers, nor persons under guardianship, nor persons who have been convicted of any infamous crime, nor persons non compos mentis, shall be permitted to vote at any election".

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

Resolved, That the committee on the fifth article of the Constitution, be instructed to enquire into the expediency of so amending the second and tenth sections thereof as follows, viz:

SECT. 2. The judges of the Supreme Court and the President Judges of the courts of Common Pleas shall be appointed by a joint vote of both Houses of the General Assembly, the Judges of the Supreme Court for a term of ten years, and the President Judges of the courts of Common Pleas for a term of seven years; and the Associate Judges of the courts of Common Pleas, &c. shall be elected by the qualified electors in the counties where they are to officiate, and for a term of three years. The Judges of the Supreme Court and the President Judges of the courts of Common Pleas shall, at stated times, receive for their services an adequate compensation to be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office, but they shall receive no fees or perquisites of office, nor hold any other office of profit or trust under the authority of this State or the United States.

SECT. 10. Justices of the Peace shall be elected by the qualified electors in each township or ward for a term of three years, and not to exceed two in number in any one township or ward, and whose powers and duties shall, from time to time, be regulated and defined by law.

Mr. BARNITZ, of York, from the minority of the committee on the first article of the Constitution, made the following report, which was ordered to be laid on the table and printed :

Mr. BARNITZ, from the minority of the committee to whom was refered the first article of the Constitution, made the following report, viz:

The undersigned, a minority of the committee to whom was refered the first article of the Constitution, submit the following report, viz:

That it is inexpedient to make any alteration in the fifth section of the first article of the Constitution.

CHARLES A. BARNITZ,

HARMAR DENNY,