Amount transfered to the fund, 1st April, 1837, 206,139 35 72,840 30 278,979 65 Fund, 31st March, 1838, 1,529,646 33 Probable amount to be transfered, 1st April, 1838, 60,000 00 Interest on the whole, one year, 79,482 32 139,482 32 Fund, 31st March, 1839, 1,669,128 65 Probable amount to be transfered, 1st April, 1839, 50,000 00 Interest on the whole one year, 85,956 43 135,956 43 Fund, 31st March, 1840, 1,805,085 08 Probable amount to be transfered, 1st April, 1840, 50,000 00 Interest on the whole, one year, 92,754 25 142,754 25 Fund 31st March, 1841, 1,947,839 33 Probable amount to be transfered, 1st April, 1841, 52,160 67 Interest on the whole, one year, 100,000 00 152,160 67 Fund, 31st March, 1842, 2,100,000 00 Respectfully submited, NATH. P. HOBART, Auditor General AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, JUNE 20, 1837. STATEMENT of the adjusted valuation of the real and personal property, persons, trades, and occupations, in the several counties of this Commonwealth ; also, the valuation of the personal estate, bonds, notes, stocks, &c., together with the tax of one mill upon every dollar of the value thereof for the use of the Commonwealth, as returned to the Auditor General, by the County Commissioners, for the year 1835. COUNTIES. Valuation of Real Pro- Tax of one mill on Real Valuation of Personal Tax of one mill on Per. perty, &c, Property, &c. Property, &c. sonal Property, &c. $407,980 00 49,180 00 67,880 00 $407 98 484 19 49 18 67 88 Allegheny, $12,272,250 00 3,329,570 00 637,110 00 415,220 00 760,600 00 $12,272 25 3,329 57 637 11 415 22 760 60 COUNTIES. perty, &c. Valuation of Real Pro- Tax of one mill on Real Valuation of Personal Tax of one mill on Por. Property, &c. Property, &c. sonal Property, &c. 676,700 00 676 70 Franklin, 5,069,820 00 582,530 00 542,870 00 5,069 82 582 53 542 87 9,569,280 00 602,032 00 573,230 00 731,050 00 9,559 28 602 03 573 23 731 05 21,425 00 19,320 00 21 42 19 32 THIRD ARTICLE. The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the third article of the Constitution, Mr. Kerr, of Washington, in the Chair. The Chair said there had occured some difficulty yesterday as to the rule of order. On examination the Chair found that he had been mistaken. The next question ought to have been to agree to the amendment as amended. Then the other amendments would have been in order. The first question here is on agreeing to the amendment as amended. Mr. Read, of Susquehanna, said of course that question could not be taken until all the amendments had been offered. He then moved to amend the amendment by striking out all after the word * months”, and inserting in lieu thereof, the words following: “except idiots, habitual drunkards, and inmates of alms-houses, lunatic asylums, penitentiaries and prisons, shall be entitled to vote in the district in which he shall reside”. The Chair decided that the motion was not in order, because it proposed to strike out words which had been inserted by a vote of the committee. Mr. Read appealed from that decision. The Chair propounded the question. An amendment was offered by the gentleman from Chester on the right (Mr. BELL); and an amendment to that amendment was offered by the gentleman from Chester on the left (Mr. Darlington). The amendment to the amendment covered the whole ground of the first amendment, and having been agreed to, the Chair decides that a motion to strike out what is just ordered to be inserted, cannot be in order. Mr. Read said it might be thought that he was taking too much on himself to take this appeal, after the opinions which had been given yesterday to the contrary, by the gentlemen from Adams, Franklin, and Montgomery, as well as by other gentlemen of experience. After the opinions delivered by these gentlemen, he should not have offered his present proposition, knowing the Chair would reject it, had he not believed that the opinions of the gentlemen to whom he had alluded were given on the spur of the moment. This was a question of vital importance. He hoped all these gentlemen, together with the President of the Convention, would reflect on the consequences to which this decision would lead. Our amendment, and the amendment of our neighbours can never be heard. All of us will be cut out of our rights, if this decision should be sustained. Why? The authority read yesterday by the gentleman from Montgomery was good, but it had not the slightest relation to the question before the committee. As the gentleman from Philadelphia said, it was very good, but it was not to the point. It has no application to the question—and why? Because it does not apply to an amendment to an amendment. What is an amendment? It is a modification, or insertion of something into the original proposition, against the will of the mover. If the gentleman from Chester now asked to modify his proposition in any way, would it not be in order for him to strike out any part, or to prefix, or insert in the middle any other words? How else could he effect his purpose? The error of gentlemen consisted in regarding this as an original proposition which is, by the rule, to be made as perfect as |