acceptable to my constituents, and that it would suit their purposes better. In this, however, I have found that I was mistaken. I am also of opinion, that the excitement on election days, is sufficient at the present time, without increasing it by holding two elections on the same day; and, that the adoption of such a course would increase it, I have not a doubt. On further reflection, therefore, and on a better acquaintance with the opinions and wishes of my constituents, I think we should go back to the existing provision of the constitution.

Mr. CURLL, of Armstrong, said it would be remembered that this question had been discussed for the period of four days when last up at Harrisburg. For his own part he did not feel any anxiety in regard to changing the day of election. He always attended regularly at the polls on election day; he had never failed to attend at a general election for the last thirty years of his life. When the proposition was first brought up at Harrisburg, he had felt some inclination to go in favor of it, because he thought that some expense might be saved to the commonwealth by having the two elections held on the same day. But, after his return home during the recess, in conversation with his constituents, they appeared to be surprised that a great body like this should consume a space of four days in discussing so unimportant a change; and, although, when the question was taken at Harrisburg, he had voted more out of courtesy and with a view to favor some of the more northern members, than from any consideration affecting himself; still, as the matter now stood, and after the expression of the opinion of his constituents, which he had since that time received, he should feel it his duty to vote for a return to the old day.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said he could confirm the statement which had been made by his colleague, (Mr. Todd.) When the question was up at Harrisburg, he Mr. C., had voted in favor of a change of day; but since that time he had been at home and had had an opportunity of gathering the sense of his constituents. He found that the prevailing sentiment among them, was in favor of a return to the day fixed in the constitution of 1790. He could not, in any event, vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) because he thought that there was already sufficient excitement attending the elections, without increasing it by providing that the two elections should be held on the same day. He should, therefore, vote against it. But, his principal reason for the vote he should give against any change was, that his constituents would be better satisfied with a return to the old day.

Mr. DICKEY said, that when this question was up in committee, he had voted with the majority in favor of the third Tuesday in October; and the proposition, as had been stated by the gentleman from Armstrong, (Mr. Curll) was discussed at that time, for the long period of four days. During the progress of that discussion, gentlemen were very certain that they understood the views of their constituents, and that they represented those views correctly, though it now appears, from the statements of some of the gentlemen themselves, that they were mistaken in the course they had taken.

I trust, said Mr. D., that before the labors of this convention are brought to a close, a number of gentlemen may yet find that they have been mistaken on other and more important matters.

Mr. FORWARD said, that he had not risen with an intention to repeat the observations which he had felt it his duty to make at Harrisburg, on the subject of the change of the election day, or to the expediency of providing that the two elections should be held in one. The opinion which he then expressed, had not been, in any degree, 'impaired by subsequent information or reflection. He had taken an opportunity to converse with his constituents-not only with those residing in the city of Pittsburg, but with those also, residing in the county-and, so far as he was able to collect public opinion, in that portion of the state, it appeared to be universally opposed to the change. The second Tuesday in October, from long custom, had gained a sort of sanctity in the estimation of the people, and he could not see any sufficient reason why a change should be made.

He intended, therefore, to vote against the proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) and against the report of the committee of the whole, and in favor of a return to the provision of the old constitution.

Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, said he felt much surprise to find that gentlemen who came from the interior of the country, should be so ready to change their course on this question.

It is my opinion, said Mr. C., that to return to the day, fixed in the old constitution, is a step which cannot fail to meet the disapprobation of every farmer in the state. It is well known to all who hear me, that the second Tuesday in October, is one of the busiest seasons in the year, both as to bringing in grain and putting in seed. Upon that day, the people will not-cannot turn out. In my township, out of two hundred voters, upwards of seventy will remain at home, taking in their grain, and putting in seed. I know this to be the case; whereas, if you change the day, it will give the people an opportunity of turning out to the polls en

masse.

Allusion has been made, in several quarters, to the excitement which exists among the people on election days. I can tell gentlemen that it will be in vain for them to attempt to put it down. The more excitement there is in relation to the elections, the better it will be for the country, because it is the very means of bringing the citizens out to the discharge of their duty at the polls.

The election of state officers is an important election, but the election of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, is still more important. To go back to the provision of the old constitution, would be contrary to the sentiments and the wishes of all my constituents. I shall vote in favor of the first Tuesday in November, or the last in October, and I shall also vote in favor of holding the two elections on the same day. I believe there is no danger to be apprehended from the excitement which has been spoken of; I do not believe that that excitement will lead to any bloodshed, or to any improper conduct on the part of our citizens. Their interests require, not only that they should be as little away from home as possible, but that they should keep themselves out of trouble. It is a pleasing sight to see the people turn out en masse, to make their choice of the men by whom they would be represented. For these reasons, therefore, and believing that the change of day will have a beneficial

tendency on the interests of the people, I shall vote in favor of the first Tuesday in November.

Mr. KERR, of Washington, said, it would be recollected that when the convention took a recess in July last, one of the principal reasons urged in favor of that step, was, that it would be advantageous to the interests of the members that they should return home, for a season, to attend to their private concerns. The same reason appeared to be assigned in favor of the present proposition. When this amendment was under consideration in committee of the whole at Harrisburg, he had voted in favor of a change of day, to the third Tuesday in October. This he had done, more with a view to get rid of other motions on the subject, than for any particular preference which he had for the day. When he returned home, he had talked to his constituents on this, as well as on many other matters having reference to the business of this body, and they appeared to smile at the idea of spending so much time on a point of this kind. They considered it unimportant. So far as he had understood their sentiments, they were opposed, generally, to a provision requiring the two elections to be held on the same day, especially if we had to choose all our county officers on the same day. But, as to the mere question of a change of the day, although they considered it unimportant, still, as they had been in the habit of going to the polls on the second Tuesday in October, they felt unwilling to make any change, and he felt satisfied that they would prefer that the day should be allowed to remain the same as it was.

He should, therefore, vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) and against the amendment adopted by the committee of the whole; and he should vote in favor of retaining the provision of the constitution of 1790.

Mr. BONHAM, of York county, said, that as he proposed to change his vote, and to give it differently from that which he had given in the committee of the whole at Harrisburg, on this question, it might be proper that he should briefly assign his reasons for so doing.

When the question was under discussion at Harrisburg, he was in favor of fixing a remoter day, in the season than that provided in the existing constitution, because he thought that a change would add to the convenience of most of thefarmers in his section of the country. He had heard complaints of their not being able to get to the polls, on account of being engaged in seeding, and he had been under the impression that, by fixing a week or two later in the season, they would have got through with their labors, and thus bave been able to attend to the performance of this most important duty. But, after the adjournment of the convention at Harrisburg, when he returned home, and inquired as to the effect of the change, which had been made in this provision of the constitution, he was told by his constituents that it was a matter of very little importance; but that, inasmuch as the second Tuesday in October had been the day upon which they had been accustomed to attend, for a series of years, they did not think it necessary that any alteration should be made in that particular. It was his intention, therefore, at the present time, to vote for a return to the existing provision of the constitution, as he believed that, by so doing, he would best meet the views and wishes of his constituents.

And the question was then taken on the motion of Mr. READ, to wit:

To amend the section, by striking therefrom, in the third line, the word "third," and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "first ;" and by striking therefrom the word "October," and inserting in lieu thereof, the word November."

On which said motion,

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. READ and Mr. DICKEY, and are as follows, viz:

YEAS.-Messrs. Cox, Cummin, Darrah, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Gamble, Hastings, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, Montgomery, Nevin, Purviance, Read, Shellito, Taggart, Weaver, Young--20.

NAYS.-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Lyons, Maclay, Martin, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Woodward, Sergeant, President-89.

So the amendment was rejected.

A motion was then made by Mr. CUMMIN,

To amend the section in the third line, by inserting after the word. "Tuesday," the words "and Wednesday."

Mr. C. said, that the reason which had induced him to offer this amendment, was, that the people in the country were so engaged in their business that they would not attend the polls, as they ought to do, on the day appointed; but if two days were given to them, they might almost make up the time they lost on the one hand, by the time they gained on the other, when time was of great importance to them.

I believe, said Mr. C., that the arguments which have been urged here by many gentlemen, in opposition to this change, are futile-that there is no force nor soundness in them. They say that the people are in favor of retaining the provision in the old constitution, because they have been habituated, for a number of years, to attend the polls on the second Tuesday of October.

Sir, this is a bad reason, and one which ought not to influence the minds of the members of this body, when it is considered that experience has shewn that the people will not turn out to discharge their duty at the polls, on the day now prescribed. Their bread, the staff of life, is at stake; they will not neglect it; nor is it to be expected that they should.

There is no man within the sound of my voice, who holds in greater respect than myself, the obligation which rests upon every good citizen, to present himself at the polls, and by his vote and example, to aid in the preservation of our liberties, and the free institutions under which it is our happy lot to live. But there are many important considerations on the

other side, which we are not at liberty to disregard. If the gentlemen of the bar, and citizens from the cities, were not so numerous in this assembly as we know them to be, I have very little doubt that my amendment would be carried. I still entertain a hope that it may obtain the vote of a majority of the delegates. Let them reflect how hard a case this is for the farming community.

A neighbor, for instance, has some buck-wheat-a beautiful and precious grain-which it is much to be desired should be taken in. There is an appearance of snow, or the snow is falling upon it. It is the staff of life, and farmers will not leave their homes on that day to go to the polls, because, on that very day, they may be able to bring their labors to a close. Is it not wrong, thus to close the door upon them-to say that, because they will not turn out on a particular day, when, by turning out, their crops might be spoiled, however anxious they may be to vote, they shall not be allowed to do so?

I am aware that gentlemen of the bar, and citizens of the cities, look upon these as small matters, but they are not so with us in the country.

[A suggestion was made, at this stage of his observations, in the ear of Mr. Cummin, by Mr. Stevens-but in so low a tone as not to reach the desk of the Stenographer. Mr. C., however, turned round and said aloud with great emphasis, though in a peculiarly good-natured tone of voice :]

Potatoes! I will thank the gentlemen from Adams, (Mr. Stevens) to keep to his own country, without introducing mine. His country is as much a potatoe country as old Ireland; and he need not, therefore, come whispering to an Irishmen about potatoes at such a time and in such a place as this. I think, however, that he is in favor of my motion, and I shall therefore take every thing he has to say in good part.

If his amendment should be adopted, he thought it would meet the wishes of the people generally, and particularly that portion of them which he represented. It was not the intention of those who sent delegates to this convention, that, after spending four or five months in debate, they should then fall back on the old constitution. Such a course of proceeding was ridiculous and absurd. It was nothing less than child's play. The convention put themselves in the condition of children, building houses with a pack of cards only to throw them down. They did one thing to-day for the purpose of undoing it to-morrow.

Mr. FRY, of Lehigh, had hoped the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna would be adopted. The amendment of the delegate from Juniata, (Mr. Cummin) would meet the wishes of the farmers of the state. He should vote for it. If there were more farmers and fewer lawyers and doctors in the convention, he entertained no doubt but that it would be adopted-as it was, however, he was afraid it would not prevail, though he hoped it might.

The amendment was negatived-ayes 9; noes not counted.

Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend by striking out "third" and inserting "fourth."