probably prevail. A great majority of the people might be found, perhaps, voting against many of the amendments, in favor of which great numbers of the people would vote. He thought that for this convention to say that the people shall not have an opportunity of voting for or against particular amendments, was going too great a length. It was tantamount to declaring that the people shall not have a fair and free choice in making their constitution. We were laying down an arbitrary rule that they must either take all, or reject all. He conceived that the people would not be disposed to sanction a rule of this character. He trusted that the gentleman fron Chester, (Mr. Bell) would submit his proposition, and thus give the people an opportunity of voting for the amendments separately.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, had hoped that the gentleman from Chester (Mr. Bell) would have submitted his proposition, as an opportunity would then have been afforded of examining its merits. He (Mr. H.) had been in favor of submitting the amendments separately to the people. As the gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. Denny) had very properly remarked, some of the amendments would be approved by the people, whilst others were rejected. Now, he (Mr. Hiester) apprehended that if the amendments should be laid before the people separately and distinctly, great difficulty would arise. The impression upon his mind being, that in consequence of the people's approving some and rejecting others, the tendency would be to make the whole work incongruous. He confessed, however, that he did not know exactly how the gentleman from Chester intended to arrange the details of his plan, and he hoped that he would give the convention information respecting it, in order that they might see whether they could, with propriety, adopt his proposition.

But, laying this aside, he thought that there could be no objection to the proposition of his friend on the right (Mr. Darlington.) He entertained no doubt that the people would think their money well spent, if they could obtain the insertion of the amendatory clause in the tenth article, inasmuch as it would give an opportunity of amending the constitution hereafter, without expense or trouble. This was desirable, as we could not succeed in having the amendments classified, as he (Mr. H.) had supposed we should.

The gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) had observed that the amendment he proposed would be a popular one, and if connected with others might be the means of carrying them. He (Mr. H.) must freely declare, that he now thought it would be an unfair way, to give the people but one of two courses to choose, and that was, either to take the whole of the amendments, or none. It would be to deprive the people of an opportunity, and of the right, which they were entitled to exercise, of making their selection of the amendments which they conceived should be adopted. Indeed, as had already been remarked by the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Denny) that, to say the people should vote on all the amendments at the same time, was carrying out the principle of the previous question, a rule often injudiciously resorted to in this body.

Mr. SCOTT, of Philadelphia, said that he was in favor of submitting the amendments separately. He, therefore, moved to recommit the report to the committee, with instructions to classify the amendments, and report the same to the convention.

He hoped that the report would be so amended, as to give the people an opportunity of expressing their opinions separately on each amendment. This was the reason by which he was influenced in making the motion he had done.

While up, he would avail himself of the opportunity of saying a few words on this subject. He had prepared an amendment, which it had been his intention to offer in committee, but, on reflection, he came to the conclusion that it would be better to propose it in convention. What he anxiously desired was, the vote of this body on the principle, whether the people shall have an opportunity of passing their sense of approbation, or disapprobation, on the amendments, distinctly and separately, or be compelled either to accept, or reject, all.

The amendments, he regarded, as being of various descriptions-perfectly distinct in character, and perfectly capable of being separated from each other, without any previous classification.

We had been told at the outset of the meeting of the convention, that the amendments which were required by the people of the commonwealth, were but few in number that they had fully deliberated upon the character of the amendments, and that they knew perfectly well what they wanted. This body had been informed, too, that the public mind was fully prepared to receive and to act upon the amendments. He maintained, then, that if this convention was called for the purpose of making a few specific amendments, they, at least, should be afforded an opportunity of voting upon them separately. And, if that were not done, it would not be treating them as rational beings, nor as freemen. He sincerely trusted that they would not be obliged to vote for the amendments en masse-the wise and the unwise, all together. He hoped that a vote would be taken on this proposition, so that we might see who of the representatives on this floor were unwilling to trust the people, to give them an opportunity of discriminating between the good and bad amendments, proposed to be introduced into the constitution. He wished the vote to be taken by yeas and nays, and then it would be seen who were for, and who against the motion which he had made.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, observed that the subject was worthy of some consideration, especially as the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia had offered so many objections against the proposed mode of submitting the amendments to the decision of the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He (Mr. F.) had not supposed that any serious attempt would really have been made, to lay them before the people separately, instead of collectively.

So far as he had been able to ascertain the opinion of those whom he represented on that floor, it was, decidedly and unequivocally, that all the amendments should be embodied in the constitution, and voted upon at the same time.

This, he repeated, had been the prevailing sentiment among his constituents; and he believed that it was entertained by the majority of this body. He had no hesitation in avowing it to be the deliberate conviction of his mind, that the people of Pennsylvania could not vote on the amendments if they were not embodied-if they were not laid before them as a whole constitution-so that they might have an opportunity to vote for or against them.

It was reasonable to suppose that the representatives here assembled carried out the views of their constituents, not only as they understood them when they first took their seats, but since, by the instructions which they had received.

He hoped that a majority of this body would see the propriety of sub- mitting the amendments as a whole, and at the period suggested by the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr Woodward.) He conceived that great inconvenience would be found in submitting so many amendments sepa. rately.

Even granting no more should be made but what the majority might deem right and proper, he would ask if it was not reasonable to suppose that the people would reject or accept them as a whole? Suppose, for instance, that in one county one amendment was rejected, and in another it was accepted, and so on of the rest in all the counties, this would cre ate some difficulty. If, too, the amendments were to be classified, and tickets issued, as proposed, he apprehended that still further difficulties would ensue, as it would create such confusion that the voters would be wholly unable to understand what they were voting for. But if, on the contrary, the whole of the amendments were to be submitted together, they would be understood by the people, who would then vote either for, or against them.

He had hoped that no serious efforts would have been made against the proposition to lay all the amendments, at the same time, before the people. And that hope rested upon this ground: that there could not be any great division of sentiment among the members of this body, as to what were the opinions of their respective constituents, they having so recently interchanged sentiments with them.

From these considerations, then, he trusted that the amendments would be submitted as a whole. Whence came the objection? Why, the gen tleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Scott) as every one knew, had been a strict conservative from the commencement of the sittings of this convention up to the present moment, and wanted no amendments made to the constitution; and yet. strange to say, he objected to the amendments being submitted as a whole, when, perhaps, they might all be voted down!

He (Mr. F.) could not but consider the objection as a most singular one; and the remarks which had fallen from the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. Bell) in reference to the position in which he wished to regard him (Mr. F.) and others as standing, were altogether gratuitous, and founded upon no substantial basis.

From the disposition manifested by the conservative portion of the members of this convention, he believed that they were inclined to vote against all the amendments. He conceived that the opinions which those gentlemen professed to entertain, in regard to them, were totally wrong.

In conclusion, he begged to call upon the friends of reform-not, however, as a political party-to sustain the amendments, and vote to have them submitted as a whole; for, should they not do that, he would pledge his word for it, they would be all defeated.

Mr. SCOTT, in explanation, said:

The difference between myself and the delegate from Fayette is this:

I believe the people can be trusted, and I am willing to trust them, but he is not. I believe that the people are competent to say, as one distinct proposition, whether they will have the judicial tenure changed; whether they wish the insertion of a clause in the constitution, relative to making future amendments to that instrument; whether they desire the appointing power changed, &c. Yes, I am willing to trust them to say what shall be done, and to vote upon every proposition separately and distinctly. But the gentleman from Fayette is not. I am obliged to reject his intimation, that I have been an entire conservative.

He (Mr. S.) had voted for giving the election of the county officers to the people. He was willing to trust it in their hands, so that he was not a total conservative. The gentleman from Fayette would vote against submitting the amendments separately, because in some of the counties there will be majorities against particular amendments.

Mr. FULLER explained. He had said it might be so.

Mr. SCOTT resumed. Taking it so. Taking the provision relating to the county officers. Suppose that a majority of the people were opposed to that change, ought it in that case, to go into operation against the will of a majority of the people? Suppose a majority of the people were opposed to the judicial tenure :-ought it to go into operation against the will of a majority? Suppose a majority of the people to be opposed to vesting the power of appointment in the senate. Should that be carried into operation, if a majority of the people are against it? Shall we say to the people, you shall take all together, because there is a portion which you dislike, and which you would reject, if submitted to you separately. Is that the way you would get the noxious dose down? Is that the desire of gentlemen? Be it so. He was willing to trust the people : to put each great change to them distinctly, and see whether they will, or will not, act with wisdom and discrimination.

Mr. FULLER said it was true the gentleman from Philadelphia did vote in the way he had stated, but he had generally gone with his colleagues against all amendments. And now there was a hue and cry raised against submitting the amendments as a whole. He did not believe that the people wished to vote on the amendments separately.

Mr. DENNY, of Allegheny, said he did not know of any better plan which could be devised to defeat the whole of the amendments, than to restrain the free action of the people. In the first place it seems, they are to vote on the amendments at the October election, when their minds will be fully occupied with the election of governor and members of congress, and of the legislature: Then they are to be required to vote for the amendments altogether. We are not to trust the people. Gentlemen who are at all times so desirous to advocate popular power, are now unwilling to trust the people. The gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) appealed to the friends of reform to go against the proposition for separate votes, because, if carried, it would defeat the amendments. How would it defeat the amendments? The gentleman was always a democrat, yet he calls on gentlemen to rally against this motion, because, if successful, it will defeat the amendments. How? Was he not willing that the voice of the people should determine the fate of the amendments? It always lay at the basis of our institutions, that the will of the people, fully expressed, should be the governing principle. On this ground, then,

he called on all here, who are democrats, to go for the proposition, as the only fair mode of producing an expression of public opinion. The gentleman from Fayette says, it is an inconvenient mode: and that the people cannot vote on the amendments separately, because their understandings were not competent to reach a correct decision. This came from one who had been accustomed to eulogize the competence of the people. 1 (said Mr. D.,) have that confidence in the people, that I doubt not they will understand the amendments, if properly classified, and submitted in a distinct form; and if they are not required to be voted on amidst all the noise and bustle of the October elections. To vote on these amendments would occupy but a few days. The question is of the highest importance, and commends itself to every man's reflection. And it behooves those who have said the most about their confidence in the people, to adopt that mode which will allow the people to vote for such amendments as they are pleased with, and to vote against those which they dislike. There were some of the amendments which he approved, and which his constituents approved, and there are others which they did not. And were they to be compelled to take the whole? Why not let us have our free choice? the people may ask. I can only say to them, I voted in the minority on the question, and we must all submit to the will of the majority. I was willing to submit the amendments separately to the people, in order that every man might have a chance to express his opinion as to each.

66

Mr. CHAUNCEY, of Philadelphia, would say but a single word. We had arrived at a stage of our proceedings, when it becomes the duty of the convention to say, in what form the amendments shall be submitted to the people, under the eighth section of the act of assembly by which this convention was called together. This was not an original question, as it appeared to him. If it were, there could be no difficulty. The question is, what is the proper mode of submitting the amendments" for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the citizens." That is the language of the act of assembly; the express terms in which our duty is pointed out. It is to submit the amendments for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the citizens." "What is the most rational mode of doing this?" The legislature contemplated that we might do this, if the amendments which this convention might make to the constitution were in such a form, as that the sense of the people might be obtained distinctly upon them, by presenting them in the shape of single amendments; and, they also contemplated, that a different mode might be adopted, if it should seem to us that the sense of the citizens could not be in that manner ascertained. They, therefore, provided that if, in the judgment of this body, it should be found expedient, in order properly to ascertain the sense of the citizens, that the amendments should be submitted in separate and distinct propositions, they should be so submitted.

Now, the question arises, what is the rational mode of conducting this business? How are you best to present the subject to the citizens of this commonwealth, and to ascertain their sense upon the expediency of ratifying the amendments here made? How are you to do it, except by presenting them in such a way, as that the sense of the citizens may be fairly and actually expressed upon them? What do gentlemen think? Is my sense of an amendment ascertained when it is coupled with seven