whole matter to the committee. He was satisfied to continue the Chro nicle. The difference between this and other papers consists in thisthat through the Chronicle we give information, while from the other papers we receive it. He had no doubt the committee could report to

morrow.

Mr. MERRILL did not know of any thing in the Chronicle of which he was ashamed; therefore, he had no strong reason for stopping it. If it was not for the Chronicle, the people would not know why we were so long in doing their business.

Mr. DICKEY wished there should be a curtailment of the number of debates and journals. He believed the Chronicle was more popular out of doors than here. Some gentlemen wrote out what they did not say; others were incorrectly reported, and if the journal of debates was to be a copy of the Chronicle, it was time it should be enquired into.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said, the introduction of the Chronicle was one of his sins. He did not like to abandon it now. It was true there were sometimes errors. Some of the speeches, as they are delivered here, murdered the English language, but they appeared in the Chronicle in good English. If gentlemen desired to see speeches as they were delivered, he had no objection. This paper was popular with the people. He had sent his abroad, and if a number were missing, he was written to. He believed the people were better satisfied, than if they had to gather the information as they could from others papers. He denied that this expense should be considered as an expense to the Convention. It was an expense incured for the information of the people. The paper was sent to them to let them know what we are doing. It was not for the benefit of the members of the Convention. It was wrong to say it was an expense incured for them; it was for the people. He regreted that his friend from Lehigh should make this the scape-goat. The postage is chiefly for letters-the Chronicle is but a small part. As to the letters, was it right that the postage of them should be paid out of the pockets of members. If the postage of a gentleman's letters amounted to a dollar a day, it was an expense which he would not have incured had he been at home. He would join in diminishing improper expenses, but he would not touch this item. Editors of most of the papers have correspondents here, who give what tone and color they please to our proceedings, while the Chronicle gives facts as they occur. This he honestly believed. He would oppose any attempt to make this paper the scape-goat. The people do not find fault with the expense; they are glad to have it, and he would like to hear any complaint which any citizen has made to any member here concerning it, or remonstrating against the act of the Convention in subscribing for it. He knew the impression of the county he represented was favorable to this paper.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, regreted the motion which had been made by the gentleman from Mercer. This discussion was altogether premature. The committee would report in a day or two, and then the whole subject would be understood. The gentleman says, the great expense of postage is in the letter postage. He did not know what was the daily expense of postage for the Chronicle. It was, however, heavy, and he wished to act with a full understanding of the subject. He hoped the gentleman from Mercer would withdraw his amendment.

Mr. FULLER said, it would be recollected that when this resolution was originally offered, he opposed it. The paper, he knew, was too small to contain a full report of the debates of this body. My idea was, that there would be suitable and proper stenographers, and that the reports would be accurately given. It was stated that this would be the fact, and I then became favorable to the subscription. But this has not been done. If the promise of the publisher had been carried out, and the Chronicle had presented fair and accurate reports, as taken down by the stenographer, it would have been valuable, but no member would say that such had been the character of its reports. Debates of two or three days old were inserted, to the exclusion of the latest proceedings, and the reason was obvious; because the long-winded speeches were fallen in arrear. He had no objection to the amendment, because there would be a report on the subject. He would like a new arrangement, so that the stenographer employed by the Convention should make out an abstract daily. The people want information, but they want correct information.

Mr. CHAMBERS, of Franklin, preferred the amendment, which would strike out the part relating to the Chronicle, and leave it to the committee to report as they thought best. He was unwilling to retain that part, because it appeared like a reflection on the publisher. He was not so much opposed to the manner in which the paper had been published, as to the expense. When the order was given, it was in reference to the time that it was supposed the Convention would sit, which was calculated at two months. It had done much good, but would not be so important hereafter. The reports of the committees were now all made, and before the Convention, either in the form of reports, or as propositions from members. As to the work, he was surprised that it was done so well, considering the short space of time allowed. It was laid on the table the next morning, and the editor indulged gentlemen with an opportunity to correct their speeches. Still, however, he believed that the publication might hereafter be dispensed with. The people are now informed of all the important matter, and the expense is heavier than before. He agreed that the investigation of the committee ought not to stop here. The daily allowance of four newspapers to each member, he deemed an extravagance. It was a small matter, to be sure, but a number of these small matters, made up the aggregate. It would be better to make the examination general, and not particular. The Chronicle had done all which the Convention had a right to expect from it.

Mr. FRY said, he had not anticipated this long discussion. He had nothing to say against the Chronicle. His sole object was to reduce the expenses. These expenses, he understood, were a hundred dollars a day. In olden times, members paid their own expenses. He did not mean to make the Chronicle the scape-goat; but he thought it necessary to curtail the expenses of the Convention. He then asked for the yeas and nays on the question, and they were ordered accordingly.

Mr. AGNEW, of Beaver, stated that he had voted for the Chronicle, because he had believed that it would be useful to the Convention and the people. He was still inclined to support the paper, but if the resolution was amended so as to be an inquiry into the manner in which it is conducted, he would prefer it. He was not disposed to make a scape-goat of the Chronicle, but he would be willing that some inquiry should be made

into the manner in which the paper is conducted. He believed it was not conducted with fairness, and sometimes there was a total perversion of the argument, of which he had himself felt the effects. Some write out their remarks, of which he did not complain. He made no complaint of that, or of the correction of grammatical errors; but he did complain when arguments were inserted in the paper which were never delivered. It was no longer ago than last week, that a gentleman behind him occupied an hour on the subject of the tax qualification, and another gentleman followed, who only consumed about ten minutes. Gross injustice was done to the former gentleman. The report of his speech was but the shadow of an outline, while the speech which had been delivered in ten minutes, filled the space of four columns and a half in the paper. He had been himself called on by the reporter, to write out his remarks on the veto power, and was informed that if he did not furnish his speech, it would not appear He had still the note in his possession. He was, therefore, compelled to write out his speech. This was a course which did not meet his approbation. If the resolution was put into a form so as to make it an inquiry into the manner in which the paper was conducted, he would go for it.— But he was not in favor of cutting down the Chronicle all at once. He would support the amendment of the gentleman from Mercer, in the hope that this would affect the course of the editor. He was not aware that any stenographer was employed for that paper. He hoped some gentleman, after this motion was disposed of, would modify the resolution so as to provide for an inquiry into this matter.

Mr. PURVIANCE, did not intend, he said, to make any remarks on this subject, but it had struck him that the gentleman last up, had alluded to the publication in the Chronicle, of his remarks on the right of suffrage, in reply to the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Scorr). If so, he would only say, that the report in the Chronicle was not full. He said much more than appeared there. But he considered this discussion, as prema. ture, at present. It was a proposition for enquiry, only, and did not bring up the merits of the question. It was true, that he had, once or twice, taken the trouble to reduce to writing, the substance of what he had said here, and he believed the gentleman from Beaver, who had complained so much of it, had done the same thing. His remarks in the Chronicle had, also, been quite as much tortured there, as those of that gentleman. He had been made to say, there in reference to something, that it looked like courting a woman for popularity." What he said, was "courting popularity." But some how or other, they contrived to thrust a woman between. What he had said here, had never been nearly as fully reported, as it had been spoken.

MI. BROWN, of Philadelphia said these charges of writing speeches were too general. He wished they might be rendered more specific. He had not listened to all the speeches, and could not, therefore, unde take to say, that what was reported had not been said. Considering the degree of attention, generally given, here, to speeches, he did not think any gentlemen had a right to say, that any speech delivered here, did not contain the words reported. His remarks in the Chronicle, had not been reported fully. Nothing was ever added to them and he was sure that much was omited, and necessarily so. The fact was, that what fell from him, or the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL,) or the gentle

man from Philadelphia, over the way, (Mr. SCOTT,) in one hour's speaking, would fill two or three numbers of the Chronicle. Gentlemen expected what was impossible, therefore, if they supposed, that more than an abstract, and a very brief one, of our daily debates, and proceedings, would appear in that paper, it was of necessity, therefore, that the remarks of gentlemen were tortured in those reports. The difficulty was, in our expecting too much. His own remarks, as published in the Chronicle, were very much condensed. One geatleman, the other day, declared to him, that he, (Mr. B.) did not make a certain remark, which was attributed to him in the Chronicle report; but, two or three other gentlemen, who were near him at the time, declared that they remembered it, distinctly. This shewed, that no member could safely undertake to say, that members had reported in the Chronicle what they had not delivered. He had no doubt, that those employed in reporting the debates, were desirous of doing justice to all, and if any errors were made, genthemen had an opportunity of correcting them in the proof sheet, which was for that purpose, laid on their tables, every morning. If any thing there was erroneously imputed to thein, they could strike it out, instead of bringing their complaints here.

Mr. HOPKINSON said, the discussion was premature.. If we were about to adjourn, for a short time, the whole subject might as well rest for the present. As to the Chronicle, he had never read a line of it, nor sent one of them away. He did not know, whether they made his remarks long or short-but they could not well make them shorter than they were. He did not think, any gentleman should complain of his speeches being reported briefly.

Mr. BELL said, he was at all times in favor of enquiry, and, if the proposition was made by any one, for an enquiry on this subject, he would vote for it. As to his own remarks, they had not been reported so much at length, as he, taking counsel. perhaps, of his vanity, might wish. He would suggest the propriety of making the proposition a little broader, and of ascertaining who reports our remarks, in the Pennsylvanian, and the Inquirer. They make us say strange things there, sometimes. He called the attention of gentlemen to a letter in the Pennsylvanian, imputing certain remarks to him, which he read. The writer must have dreamed of this. He hoped the commitee would extend their care to this reporter, and persua le him, either to drop his correspondence, or to come somewhere near the truth.

Mr. FLEMING said, the question was now on raising the committee to make inquiry as to the expediency of discontinuing the Chroncicle and other expenses. He could see no reason for appointing such a committee.Was there a gentleman here who did not know what was the amount of the expense for the Chronicle and the postage upon it, and of all our other expenses? Then what was the necessity of spending five or six hundred dollars in debating and deliberating upon the matter, as if we wanted information upon it. If gentlemen continued to bring such subjects before us for debate, it would cost more than the Chronicle, and our postage togeth er. Some complained that their speeches were imperfectly reported in the Chronicle, and others said, they cared nothing about the reports. But he confessed, that he thought some of the speeches were somewhat improved by going through the fingers of the reporters, It had been a matter of

surprise to see how correctly and promptly the debates and proceedings had been furnished by this paper. He did not see the ground for all these complaints, and he did not think that we were bound to notice these complaints, so far as to raise a committee of inquiry, when we had already a special committee for the superintendence of the publication of the Daily Chronicle. No complaint had come from that committee, whose duty it was to attend to this subject. It is not to be presumed, therefore, that the person with whom we contracted to print the paper, has in any way neg lected the duty devolvel upon him by the contract. We had several times, after a long debate, expressed an opinion in regard to the Chronicle; and, if any one thing had been determined by the Convention, it was, that they should continue to take the Chronicle. What, therefore, was to be gained by further debate and by arguing, he could not imagine, especially as we had before us every item of expence connected with the publication and distribution of the paper. He was in favor of continuing the publication, because he believed the people wanted it. He knew that they were anxious to receive it, and that it was read with great avidity. He receiv ed letters day after day, wishing for more copies of the paper than were allowed to his share.

Mr. DARLINGTON said the subject had now been discussed for nearly two hours, at the expense of several hundred dollars, and he moved its indefinite postponement.

Mr. HIESTER said, as this motion would not settle the matter, and as we had already spent half of a day in discussing a preliminary question, he would move the previous question, which was seconded.

The main question was ordered to be put, and being taken, the resolution, as modified, was agreed to-yeas, 102: nays, 13-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clark, of Beaver, Clarke, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crum, Cummin Curll, Da-rah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helfenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konig macher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Call. M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Lancaster, Purvi ance, Reizart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, Smith, Smyth, Sniv. ly, Sterigere, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Todd, Weidman, White, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President—102.

NAYS-Messrs. Ayres, Baldwin, Cunningham, Darlington, Farrelly, Fleming, Henderson, of Allegheny, Houpt, Meredith, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Stevens, Thomas -13.

The committee was then ordered to consist of five members, and the following gentlemen were appointed by the Chair to constitute the committee: Messrs. FRY, STEVENS, PORTER. of Northampton, DICKEY, and BROWN, of Philadelphia.

Mr. MARTIN called for the second reading and consideration of his resolution for an adjournment, from Saturday the 1st day of July, to Monday the 27th day of July.

Mr. HIESTER asked the yeas and nays on the motion, and

Mr. MARTIN withdrew it for the present.

Mr. MEREDITH moved the second reading and consideration of the