record for the full amount of the claim-and whether it is not standing on the docket of the Supreme Court, unsatisfied, to this day. JOHN NICHOLSON confessed, literally confessed-the very word I used-yes, confessed the judgment by his attorney. The learned Judge who presided at the trial, is now in this body, and no doubt, well remembers the facts. There was a stay of execution allowed, for three months, during which time leave was given to Mr. NICHOLSON to point out errors in the amount, if he could. He never did point out any, and at the end of three months, the judgment stood as it did at the beginning. I say again, therefore, the debt was confessed. Was it not according to law for the Commonwealth to collect this debt? Was it not competent for the State to compel its debtor to make payment? Is it a confiscation to sell the land of a debtor, under process after judgment, to pay the debt? Is that a confiscation? Or, is it not a gross abuse of terms to call it so? Sir, I am a Pennsylvanian, and a lawyer at least I am so called--that is my profession--and the Governor, under authority of the Legislature, having seen fit to employ me as I counsel for the State, I went into Court to sustain the case--a just one, I knew it to be. I did not, as already said, go there to give up what was not my own, to my respect for Mr. LIVINGSTON or any body else, but to do my duty to the State, who had confided in me. It so happened that the Commonwealth succeeded, and gained the suit; and the decision of the Court was afterwards confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The State was able to tell all the purchasers under her sales, that they were now safe in what they had bought and paid for; and the heirs of Mr. NICHOLSON can never again disturb them with this unfounded claim. I leave that matter.

I come now to the subject of this clause. What signifies my conduct in the Chair?—what signifies my relations with Mr. LIVINGSTON or the story of the trial?-what have the Convention to do with my feelings or with me, or with the heirs of JOHN NICHOLSON, or the late Mr. LIVING-STON? Does not this body consist of one hundred and thirty-three members-and why should I go into matters that they care not for. I did not do so, nor will I. I cited a case in point, where the Legislature was charged with retrospective legislation, and the exercise of judicial power. But in the end it all came out right, it was judicially and finally decided. Is that matter to be debated here? Is it not settled. Is the Convention to be guilty of the absurdity of rehearing the case? The York county case was not that a case of remedial legislation? Suppose the Government had been tied down in such a way that neither the Legislature nor the Judiciary could give relief. The ends of justice could not have been obtained. This is a clear thing-and the delegate from Philadelphia must excuse me if, when I think a thing clear I say so, however hard it may press upon any opinion or argument of his.

I have told you before, Mr, Chairman, what I think of the freedom of debate. Freedom of debate does not consist in giving all the liberty to man that he may wish to have. It consists in speaking in order and according to law, every one having an equal right. If any individual is not subject to the same law, with the rest, all others had better withdraw, and leave him in possession of the Hall. Suppose a member tells you that you must not speak here, that there has been debate enough, (he having spoken himself) and that after the adjournment, you may have the Hall in the

afternoon, if you wish to deliver lectures. Are gentlemen to be prevented from speaking by intimations like these? Again-must they be silent for fear of being sneered at, and lectured, yes lectured ?-for fear of having words attributed to them which they have not used--must they hold their tongues unless they can adapt their phrases to the precise taste and manner and comprehension of the delegate from Philadelphia? Must they remain mute from dread of personal attack? For my own part, Mr. Chairman, I will freely admit the delegate's claim to superiority in debate, if that will content him--but I hope he will not attempt to put me down on that account. If I cannot speak as well as he does, with the same good sense and good taste, he ought to have compassion on me; instead of flouting and chiding so harshly, and menacing, with fierce and angry looks, and bringing up old grievances, he ought to be gentle and kind. But, perhaps, after all, there is not so much difference between the delegate and myself, as may appear. We are certainly both alike in one respect. I am a poor man in a free country. I was bred in a free country, and under a free Constitution: and I now tell him that no man's words, looks, or menaces, under whatever form they may be put forth, in full fury, or choaked and half suppressed, will keep me silent, when my duty to my constituents, in my own free judgment, requires me to speak.

Mr. INGERSOLL rose and moved, that the committe rise. He felt some interest in the clause, (he said) and did not feel able to do justice to it at this time. He hoped the committee would rise.

Mr. DUNLOP. I hope the committee will not rise. I wish

Mr. INGERSOLL. As the gentleman from Franklin, sometimes visits me with his wit, I beg leave to say to him, before he goes on, that I beg to be spared from that to day. I am not able now, nor in a suitable temper. At any other time, or any where, I shall be most happy to hear the gentleman's notice.

Mr. DUNLOP: I was about to inform the gentleman, that he would lose an ally if the committee rose. I have risen with no purpose but to sustain the gentleman's amendment.

Mr INGERSOLL : I beg ten thousand pardons sir.

Mr. DUNLOP: The different powers ought to be kept distinct, and, on that ground alone, can a Constitution be held together. If the gentleman withdraws the motion for the committee to rise, I shall move a slight amendment to the proposition, affecting its phraseology more than its meaning.

Mr. INGERSOLL: I withdraw it.

Mr. DUNLOP, would inform the gentleman, (he said,) that he was losing an ally by moving that the committee rise. He had risen to support the

gentleman's amendment, if he would withdraw the motion.

Mr. INGERSOLL: I beg ten thousand pardons. I withdraw it. Mr. DUNLOP was persuaded, (he said) that the several departments of the Government were not sufficiently distinct; an entire separation of them ought to be effected, and on that ground alone, could the Constitution stand. He should support this amendment with some slight alterations in its phraseology. He would, he added, now say, in reference to the remarks which had just fallen from the gentleman from Philadelphia, that he sought no conflict with any member; and that, if any of the little sargasms in which he had indulged, had occasioned a moment's pain to any one

he was very sorry for it. If he carried a sting, he also had a little store of honey. The sting he kept for those who were entitled to it--certainly not for the gentleman.

I must say, (continued Mr. D.) that much as I admired the able argument of the learned gentleman who opposed this amendment, I cannot be driven from the opinion, that the several powers of the Government ought to be kept distinct, and that the laws interfering with the proper functions of the Judiciary, were usurpations. I have always voted against such laws in the Legislature. Shall the Legislature make laws and ask the Judges to administer them, and then if a blundering lawyer in York county he hoped there were no York county lawyers here-should commit an error, shall the Legislature interpose their authority to correct this error, at the hazard of committing flagrant injustice to individuals in other cases? Take this case. Suppose a feme covert makes an acknowledgment of a transfer of her estate, and that it is not done in legal form. After the husband's death, suppose she is advised by some lawyer that the transfer was not good, and she sells the estate again. Should the Legislature be permitted to interfere, and say that the first acknowledgment was good, contrary to the law? This was a case that had happened, and in which a widow and her daughter were turned out of doors, after paying a full consideration for their property. One party then claimed, under one act of the Legislature, and the other under another act. He submitted that it was essential to the purposes of equity and justice, that the laws, when made, should be left to the administration of the Judiciary. Interference by the Legislature was certain to produce great injustice in some quarter or other. He did not think that encouragement ought to be given to such laws, or that they were proper instances to cite in opposition to the provision now offered for keeping the powers of the Legislative department distinct from those of the Judiciary. A declaration, such as was proposed to be placed on the face of the Constitution, would, he thought, have the effect to cause the respective departments of the Government to keep within their proper spheres. In defiance of an obligation, sanctioned by an oath, which, as on another occasion, he had remarked, had in it something imposing on the mind, both of the learned and unlearned, no officer of any department would be likely to touch upon powers not belonging to him. In forming a new Constitution it was proper to make a declaration, that the powers of the several departments should be kept distinct. It could do no harm, and might do much good-and this was an argument which, though it had been much twitted, was not easily disposed of. If every man's mind was like his own, open to conviction, he should not despair of seeing this proposition sustained. He hoped, therefore, that gentlemen would deliberate upon it before they decided, and that they would not decide against it hastily, and under the influence of the able and learned arguments of its opponents, as was the case with the proposition which he recently introduced, for providing that each State officer should take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. He suggested, as a modification of the amendment, the alteration of the phraseology of the third line, so as to read-" legislative, executive, and judicial”.

Mr. INGERSOLL accepted the modification.

Mr. MERRILL asked, if all the powers proposed to be granted to each

of the three departments were to be enumerated. Without such an enumeration, the difficulty would not be removed, and powers of doubtful character would still be exercised by two departments. But, if they were

enumerated, and any mistake should be made in the catalogue, another Convention must be called to remedy the error. He asked whether we were to go on, and enumerate specifically, all the powers which were to be exercised by the several departments. The Constitution of the United States was one of limited powers, and those powers not granted by it are reserved. He wished to know whether we were to grant all powers in mass, or make a catalogue of them.

The committee here rose and reported progress.
The Convention adjourned.

MONDAY, MAY 29, 1837.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the following communication from the State Treasurer, in reply to a resolution of this body:

MAY 26, 1837.

In accordance with a resolution of the Convention, calling on the State Treasurer to communicate a complete view of the "expenditures, income, debts, and property of the Commonwealth, and, also, a precise statement of the sums received, or receivable from banks as a bonus, dividend, or otherwise, and, also, a statement of all such sums as were received during the last financial year, as taxes of all kinds":

The following report is submitted with respect to the first and second inquiries; as to the receipts and expenditures, permit me to refer you to the annexed statement, marked A. and B. The two first items are liable to much fluctuation. The revenue may be increased by legislation on particular matters, and the expenditures may be increased, as is often the case, by large local appropriations. Such appears to have been the case last year, as the ordinary expenditures appear to have exceeded the ordinary receipts.

With respect to the third item, I will refer you to statement marked C., exhibiting the whole amount of premiums in the form of bonus, and also tax on bank dividends, received since 14th May, 1814, and dividends on bank stock. Statement marked D., contains the amount of State debt and State property. Statement E., shows the amount of taxes (proper) collected annually.

Which is respectfully submitted.

DAN'L STURGEON.

A.

REVENUE OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

Whole amount of revenue as reported by the Auditor Ge

neral, for the last financial year,

From which deduct the following, viz:

Premium on charter of Bank of the United States, specially

$3,804,642 54

$1,600,000 00

414,700 00

7,776 94

2,022,476 94

$1,782,165 60

$65,763 80

9,900 00

Auction commissions,

67,160 58

Whole amount reported by Auditor General, for the last

year,

$3,675,638 11

Deduct therefrom internal improvements and temporary

loans,

1,649,217 45

Ordinary expenditures,

$,2026,420 66