people's Constitution. The patriots of '76, in a Convention, having for its President the illustrious Franklin, whose maxim was, that "where annual elections end, there tyranny begins", had made the original Constitution of Pennsylvania. They had provided, in that instrument, for the mode of its amendment, through a council of censors. That Constitution, democratic in its character, had passed, unchanged, the ordeal of one council of censors. The time for electing another council was near at hand, so that the people could, in the regular mode, determine whether they would change the Constitution. A party was in the ascendancy in the Legislature, which was unwilling to trust the people. That party would not wait for the choice of the censors, but, by an act of usurpation, called a Convention, giving but four weeks notice of the election of delegates; a time scarcely sufficient, at that period, for the transmission of intelligence to all parts of the state, and wholly insufficient to enable people to understand the amendments proposed, who were the candidates, and what their sentiments. The Convention so elected, proceeded to form a Constitution; but it did not, as it should have done, and as was done in other states, submit that Constitution to a vote of the people, for ratification or rejection. It preferred the course of ratifying the Constitution by the formality of a procession, marching from the State House, in Philadelphia, to Centre Square, and thence back again, accompanied by much idle pageantry. The Constitution so made, and so put in operation, had never pleased the people. Attempts were early made for its amendment. They failed, through the arts which tyranny and aristocracy always use the arts of deception. The people were untruly told, that the friends of reform were agrarians; that they would destroy title deeds, and produce ruin and confusion. They were deceived for a time; but, as is generally the case, they, in the end, judged wisely. They had called this Convention, and it was for us to do their will.

The gentleman had said, that the people were happy under this Constitution. It might be so with him, but it was not so with others. It was because they felt oppression, that they had called the Convention.— The poor man's son, between the age of twenty one and twenty two, had been refused his vote, while the rich man's son had enjoyed the right of suffrage. Hordes of life officers had been commissioned; some of them were made justices, before their standing was such, that they could get no post by the votes of the people. These men had oppressed the poor: : they had sent the poor man to prison, under unjust judgments in civil, or frivolous complaints in criminal cases: they had released them on the payment of extravagant charges of costs. The gentleman from Philadelphia had not felt these grievances, because his standing in life made him too formidable to be attacked in this way.

The delegate had spoken of the peace, order, and prosperity of the American states, compared with the condition of foreign and despotic countries. Why was there disturbance and discontent abroad? Because the governments were not in the hands of the people. Why was there more order and content, and stability of laws, in those American states, where all officers were chosen annually, or for short terms, than any where else? Because the people enjoyed practical sovereignty. In those states, the Constitutions had stood the tests of repeated ordeals. wished to assimilate the Constitution of Pennsylvania to them, not doubt

He

ing but the result would be the decrease of party strife, of discontent, and of oppression-and the increase of content, prosperity and happiness.

Mr. STEVENS thought that this skirmish had consumed too much of their time, and that gentlemen had better now let off a little of their surplus steam, and come to some understanding as to the best course to be pursued. He could not believe that gentlemen were serious, when they concluded that the proper way of proceeding was to go into committee of the whole. He did not believe that they advocated that course for any other object, except that it furnished them with an opportunity of making a speech. Had not the gentleman from Erie (Mr. SILL) ably expressed the object to be attained from sending the various subjects to committees ? Was it not, that, when they should report, there would be some distinct object for the action of the Convention? And, instead of going rambling over whole subjects of fancy, of theory, of crude notions, of wild schemes, the Convention might come at once up to a proposition, amend it, put it in shape, decide it finally, and then pursue the same course in relation to all other propositions. The gentleman from Northampton was mistaken, when he said that the question which the Convention had to decide, was, whether they were to instruct the committees, or the committees to instruct us? Why, surely, it would not be pretended, even if the Convention went into committee of the whole, that they would require the committees to report in a particular way, for if so, it would be absurd, absolute nonsense, to send the subjects to them. No; they were to be left perfectly free and unshackled. If we were to go into a debate on the subjects now, what, he inquired, was the use of committing them? And, when did gentlemen suppose the committees would report? Why, it must be very long before they could do that, inasmuch as the members composing them were to sit here and listen to the wisdom and knowledge that might be displayed, before they could act, or dare report. The committees could not sit during the time that the Convention was in session, consequently, their deliberations would be slow, and tedious. Now, he apprehended, that there could be nothing more inconsistent with the object of raising standing committees than such a proposition as this, to go into committee of the whole. The respectable gentleman on his right (Mr. BROWN) had referred to the committee on the judiciary, and expressed his apprehensions that there would be something wrong. He was not satisfied with the composition of it. He seemed not to like the idea of lawyers being on the committee. Instead of putting jurists on it, who had spent their lives in learning the laws of the nation, and of every nation, the gentleman would exclude them, and have men whose pursuits had been entirely different, and were, consequently, not so well qualified for the duties they were called upon to perform! Mr. S. concluded by expressing his hope that the Convention would not only refuse to go into committee of the whole, now, to-morrow, or the next day, but until the standing committees should have reported.

The Convention, then, on motion of Mr. STEVENS,
Adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow.

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1837.

The question recurring on the motion of Mr. DUNLOP, made yesterday, to postpone the further consideration, for the present, of the motion made by Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, that the resolution offered by Mr. PURVIANCE, relative to instructing the standing committees on the several articles of the Constitution, be referred to a committee of the whole :

Mr. DUNLOP said that the more he reflected on the subject, the more he was satisfied that his motion, yesterday, to postpone the question was right. When the gentleman from Butler first offered his propositions, he thought they contemplated some definite action by the Convention, but it was only necessary to examine them, to be satisfied that they did not. The instructions which they would give the committees, if we passed them, were vague and indefinite. Take, for instance, the first proposition on the subject of executive patronage, and it would be seen that it only affirmed, what almost every delegate admitted, that the patronage of the executive ought to be reduced, but it did not declare in what way, how much, or in what particulars. Supposing, that we go into committee of the whole, and pass it, what will it avail? What gentleman of the committee will consider it any instruction to him in relation to any particular mode, or manner, in which it shall be reduced? Some gentlemen are of opinion that the executive patronage should be reduced by taking from the Governor the power of appointment others by taking away, or abridging the veto power.Some were for curtailing it, by requiring the action of the Senate upon all the appointments, and others were only for shortening the term of his office, rendering him ineligible the second term. To a committee containing these conflicting views, what instruction would the passage of this resolution give it? The passage of the resolution would amount to nothing, and the Convention would only be engaged in the discussion of vague and useless propositions. We have passed a resolution instructing the committees to make no reports, and they can only report the articles with or without amendments. It is therefore useless to discuss these propositions, as every plan of amendment will be discussed when the several articles are reported to the Convention. It will be a waste of time. The resolutions, if passed, will pledge no one. If we now go into the committee of the whole on the naked proposition to reduce the executive patronage, we shall have endless propositions, without system or order, submitted; useless discussion on impracticable projects,

66

Nonsense precipitate, like running lead,

That slips thro' cracks and zigzags of the head."

Some gentleman had talked about the inconsistency of a delegate changing his mind. For his part, he hoped he should always change his mind when he was convinced that he was in error, and he could not have a very high estimate of any man who was not open to reason and reflection.

Mr. M'DowELL, of Bucks, said: Mr. President, I have listened for three or four days, as attentively as a great degree of impatience would admit, to the arguments of the gentlemen for and against the proposition now before the House, and I have come to the conclusion to vote in favor of going into committee of the whole. I shall do so, sir, for various reasons,

some of which I am free to confess are purely selfish. I believe it is better to do so, whether it is right or wrong in the end. If we had gone, at once, into this committee of the whole, three or four days ago, when the discussion about it first arose, we should, in all reasonable probability, have been out of it by this time. Sir, I have taken the pains to make arithmetical calculations, and I have come by the force of figures, to the geometrical conclusion, that there is to be, and will be, delivered, in and upon this Convention, four thousand seven hundred and eleven speeches. Now, sir, here is a most appalling prospect ahead! If any gentleman of this Convention wishes to know the data upon which this calculation is made, let him only revert to the past; to the time already spent here; add up the number of speeches that have been delivered, make the same liberal allowance for the future, and he will find my calculation correct. Sir, I think it is entirely immaterial as to what time, and under what circumstances, the great number of those speeches are delivered, and it is useless to waste time in this Convention, in debating the propriety of either.Why, sir, we have been in Convention here for nearly two weeks, and what have we done? We are not yet organized for business. Sir, the proposition now before the House, is an important one; it is a question of economy-the economy of time; a question, which, I think, is likely to be of paramount interest here, if we are to judge of the future by the past. If I had not learned before I left home what I was sent here for, most certainly I should have gained no information upon the subject, from any thing that has transpired in this body. Until yesterday, sir, when a few threats were made in the shape of resolutions, I have scarcely seen or heard tell of the Constitution in this Convention. With great deference to the talent and taste which has been displayed upon this subject, I must say I am tired of it. Let us go to work; it is little difference how, turn us loose into committee of the whole-let those who have come to devour the Constitution, have their prey; let the speeches be inflicted upon us; let all the vials of wrath be poured out: we must meet it, and the sooner the better for the business of the Convention. There is a large amount of talent here that must be exhausted upon wild notions of reform. It is in vain to attempt to suppress or control it. Sir, these things must be. After the thundering and lightning is past, after the storm has spent its fury, a calm will ensue-the tempest will have purified the atmosphere, and the sober minded, the wise and thinking portion of the Convention, can commence their work. They can restore the injured Constitution-give to it new life, new features, and, in a few days, the great work of reform will be accomplished.

Mr. DORAN, of Philadelphia, rose and said, that he was disposed to add one to the 4711 speeches, which the gentleman from Bucks had just stated would be delivered by gentlemen here in the discharge of their duties. He was willing to take the risk of whatever blame might attach to him on that account. But, while he did so, he was not to be deterred by any threats on that floor as to its being an unnecessary consumption of time.He came from the large, respectable and populous county of Philadelphia-a county containing one hundred and forty thousand inhabitants, and in which there was a very large majority in favor of reform. He came here to deliver their sentiments on the important matters which the Convention was assembled to take into consideration and act upon, What

had he heard asserted yesterday? Why, that the Constitution was a "matchless" instrument!

Mr. BIDDLE, of Philadelphia, explained, that the assertion was not made by him. The Constitution was not a matchless work. No human work was matchless. Every human work was imperfect. He had merely said that every member of the Convention should approach the work of amendment to the Constitution with the greatest caution, and ought to make no alteration in it, unless the reasons for so doing were very convincing indeed.

Mr. DORAN resumed. The remarks which he had made had no reference to the gentleman from the city, but to another gentleman, who said that he, and his constituents, thought the Constitution a matchless instrument, requiring no reform, and that the Convention ought not to recommend any. He said, also, that he should vote for continuing the Constitution as it now was. Nay, so far had some gentlemen been carried away by their reverence for that instrument, that they attribute all the present distress in the world to the attempt that was now to be made to reform the Constitution of Pennsylvania. One gentleman had said, look at the sad condition of France, of England, of South America, &c., when contrasted with that of the State of Pennsylvania, which was happy and prosperous under her admirable Constitution: and we were warned against indulging in this spirit of reform, which had produced so much trouble elsewhere. He (Mr. D.) was surprised to learn that the Constitution of Pennsylvania was regarded as of so much importance-that the liberties of the people of the whole world depend upon the preservation of it in its present shape that we were now about to settle the destinies of nations. Such was the exaggerated language of those who opposed reform. He was a reformer, and was in favor of modifying that instrument. Although he was but an humble citizen, he was for keeping pace with the intelligence of the age, and not at all disposed to cling to that which was defective, merely because it was ancient. He had heard it said, yesterday, that the Constitution was made by the most enlightened men of any age-that, inasmuch as it was a Constitution under which we had lived prosperously and happily, that, therefore, we ought not to alter it. Was that the object of this Convention being called? Were gentlemen to decide the question whether the Constitution shall be remodelled, or not? No; the people have, already, firmly decided that that shall be done, and they had, in consequence, sent their delegates here. Forty years ago the cry of reform was raised; it was echoed by SIMON SNYDER, and by every true friend of the people, and, after years of difficulty, it at length triumphed. No less than 80,000 voices had recently been raised in favor of making some amendments to the Constitution.

He would refer to the act of Assembly, which was passed, requiring that a Convention be called for the purpose of submitting amendments to the Constitution: "Whereas, in pursuance of an act passed the 14th day of April, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, the freemen of this Commonwealth have, by a decided majority, determined that a Convention shall be holden to propose and submit for their ratification or rejection a new Constitution", &c. Now, it would be seen, that the people have decided, by an immense majority, that a Convention should be held to form a new Constitution, to revise the Constitution. And yet, gentle