shall be altered, or dispensed with, but by two-thirds of the delegates present". Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend, by striking out "two thirds" and inserting "by a majority of all the delegates". Mr. STEVENS thought the gentleman would better attain his object by moving to strike out the words "altered or". It certainly ought to require two thirds to dispense with a rule. Mr. BROWN said, his object was, that a majority might at any time dispense with a rule as well as alter it. Mr. STERIGERE concurred in opinion with the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. STEVENS) that it should require two-thirds to dispense with a rule. Mr. BROWN said, his object was that a rule might be dispensed with by a majority of all the delegates. Certainly, the Convention were disposed to keep the rules within the power of a majority, so that a majority could either dispense with them, alter them, or make new ones. Mr. MEREDITH said, rules were adopted when the minds of members were calm, for the preservation of order. These rules should be such as a majority might deem necessary for the preservation of order; and if they were just rules, they should not be dispensed with by a bare majority at a moment of excitement. Mr. STERIGERE hoped the gentleman would permit this rule to be adopted as reported, as he thought they would not be risking any thing in doing so. Exciting questions, perhaps, might arise when a rule which was reasonable would be altered. Mr. BROWN then modified his motion so as merely to strike out the words" altered or ". Mr. EARLE was surprised at the opposition which had been made to this amendment. He believed, in the Legislature, a rule might at any time be altered by laying a resolution on the table to that effect for one day.— He should consider it a kind of tyranny over the majority that they should not be allowed to alter their rules if they were unjust and oppressive. It might happen. too, in adopting these rules, that we adopt language which will be construed as the majority never intended, and would you then, take it out of the power of that majority to alter them? He hoped the amendment of the gentleman might prevail. The amendment was then adopted, ayes 67, nays not counted. Mr. MEREDITH moved to amend the report of the committee by adding thereto a new rule, to be called rule thirty-ninth, in the following words, viz: "The roll shall be called at any time upon the demand of any members. A majority of the Convention shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and shall be authorised to compel the attendance of absent members The amendment being under consideration, On motion of Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, the blank was filled with the number "two", and the rule was adopted. Mr. STERIGERE moved further to amend the report of the committee, by adding thereto the following, viz: "That three hundred copies of the rules of the Convention, together with the names of the delegates, under the head of the proper district or county, with their respective places of abode, and nearest Post Offices, and also the names of the delegates in alphabetical order, and their residence in Harrisburg, be printed for the use of the delegates"; which was agreed to. Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the Convention proceed to the consideration of the twenty-ninth rule, before postponed. Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said that he had asked for the postponement of that rule, believing that we could get at the subject for which we were assembled, much better by adopting a different course. If the majority of the Convention should concur with him in the opinion that they had better go into committee of the whole, and there take up the Constitution article by article, it would be best to negative this rule, and make a motion to go into committee of the whole. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton: I should like to have the rule postponed in order to offer a resolution to this effect, "that we go into committee of the whole to consider the Constitution article by article ". Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, suggested that perhaps it might be as well to wait until the standing committees were appointed, before the Convention proceeded to consider the rule. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, thought the best course would be to go into committee of the whole and discuss the several parts of the Constitution before referring them to committees, in order to ascertain the opinions of the body, relative to the amendments or alterations which might be proposed to be made in the Constitution. And if, then, it should be found requisite to appoint standing committees, why then those composing them, would carry into their respective committee rooms the views and sentiments they had heard whilst in committee of the whole. Mr. MERRILL, of Union, concurred with the gentleman from Northampton in his views in favor of a postponement rather than a negative of the rule. He had not altogether made up his mind that the better course was to go into committee of the whole. That, however, might be tried, and if the propositions were likely to be numerous and diversified, a committee could be formed at any time to take the whole matter into consideration. In fact, in every point of view, he thought that what had fallen from the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. CLARKE) deserved the serious and careful consideration of the Convention. If it should turn out that we were mistaken, then we should have the knowledge that the committees are necessary. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved that the further consideration of the rule be postponed for the present, which was decided in the affirmative. Mr. PORTER then offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the constitution be referred to a committee of the whole for consideration, article by article, commencing with the first article. Mr. STERIGERE thought that it was out of order, and that the whole subject must be postponed to enable the gentleman from Northampton to offer it. Mr. PORTER maintained that his resolution was perfectly in order. Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, moved to amend the resolution by proposing that the first article of the Constitution be referred to the commit tee. Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, thought it would be better that the gentleman from Northampton would modify his resolution so as to refer the Constitution to a committee. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, considered "order is Heaven's first law". It was indispensably necessary that something like system and order should be observed in the conducting of the business of the Convention. He could not see the slightest difficulty in considering the Constitution, article by article, as he proposed to do. The resolution was read a second time and being under consideration, Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, moved to amend the same by striking therefrom all after the word "resolved", and inserting in lieu thereof, the following words, viz: "That the Constitution be referred as follows, viz: The 1st article to a committee of nine. The 2d article to a committee of nine. The 3d article to a committee of nine. Mr. DICKEY thought the best plan of getting to work would be to order the different articles in the Constitution to different committees, as it would bring before the body able reports on the subject. He should like to have on the committees charged with the three great powers of the government, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, the most talented men in the Convention, so that they might expect able reports from them, and if there was a minority report, so much the better; it would tend still more to enlighten the Convention. But if they referred the Constiiution to a committee of the whole, they would have a very great variety of views, and many propositions would he submitted, which, no doubt, would not have been submitted, if in the first instance, they had had an able report from a standing committee. If they adopted the proposition. he had submitted, the first article of the Constitution would be referred to the Legislative Department of the government, and if they had more arduous duties than they could perform, the Convention might divide their labors and refer a portion of their business to another committee. Besides, if it was desirable to raise committees on the subjects introduced by the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. INGERSOLL) and the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. STEVENS) they might raise special committees for the purpose, and have reports from those committees on the subject. In conclusion, he wished to impress upon the Convention the necessity of having the ablest talents in the Convention acting in committee, so that they might have well digested propositions brought before the body, and not go on pell mell without deliberation or reflection. Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, said that out of the Convention no man would bow with greater deference to the opinions of the talented gentlemen of the Convention than himself. But, said he, let me tell gentlemen that however exalted may be the situation of any gentleman here-however eminent his abilities or elevated his character, the moment he enters that door, that moment he sinks into the humble representative of a portion of the freemen of this Commonwealth. And, sir, there is no member here, who, however fine may be his talents, or lowly his situation, the moment he takes his seat here, as a delegate of this Convention, he rises, at that moment to the high and distinguished station of a representative of the freemen of this great Commonwealth. All here are equal; all the representatives of the people of Pennsylvania. No gentleman comes here, as the gentleman from Beaver asserts, to present his own crude notions. Each member is here to present, for the consideration of the whole, the amendments that the people he represents desire ;-not his own crude notions, but the matured judgment of his constituents; and, sir, when those opinions are presented here, in his own plain and unvarnished language, they are entitled to the same consideration as any report that may be presented from any committee of the most talented gentlemen of the Convention. For one, Mr. B. said, he had come here to lay before the Convention the wishes and well considered orders of his constituents on the amendments they desire to have made in the Constitution, and they should be fully and fairly presented. And no report, no matter how talented might be those who made it, should prevent him from urging their adoption. No committee, said Mr. B. could report his views, for as yet he had not had an opportunity of making them known. It would be time enough to raise committees when the sentiments of members from different parts of the state had been expressed. Then committees could report such amendments as might be expected to meet the approbation of the Convention. We have, said he, already before us, in the Constitu tion itself, the best report that can be given us; and we are but a committee ourselves, sent by the people to propose amendments for their consideration. Let us therefore proceed at once to the matter entrusted to us; for every gentleman must be assured that to this complexion must we come at last. And all the talented gentlemen in the Convention, how learned soever may be their reports, will not, and cannot prevent a full and free discussion of the whole subject. pro Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, thought committees might be of very great service to the Convention, in embodying the amendments to be posed to the Constitution, in language so distinct and clear that there might be no dispute in relation to them, whereas, if they took up the Constitution in committee of the whole, there would be twenty amendments proposed to it embracing the same principles. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, remarked that as he had offered the resolution it might be expected of him to state his reasons for so doing. It was very desirable to have the opinions of the members on the amendments which were necessary. If the subject was referred to the committee of the whole, each member could express his views, as the provisions of the Constitution were taken up in order, and an expression of opinion would be elicited as to what changes the majority desired. It had been objected that thus the crude ideas of gentlemen would be brought forward, without system and without order, and that it would be best first to have the several subjects elaborated in committee, and the result laid before the Convention in the shape of reports. For his part, he thought that the project of going into committee of the whole, first, was preferable, so that the opinions of all might be known, and then a committee or committees would, if necessary, embody the sentiments adopted by the majority, and put them into the appropriate form. That as much order and method would be thus observed as in any other course he doubted not, and a serious difficulty avoided. If the articles were separately referred to different committees it would very probably occur, that gentlemen holding certain opinions, on one article of the Constitution, might be unable to bring them before the appropriate committees, from the fact of being placed on a different one. He concluded with suggesting that the freedom of debate permitted in committee of the whole, was more calculated to elicit the talents of the House, and that all could hear and decide for themselves. Pending the consideration of this question, The Convention adjourned. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1837. Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, offered the following resolution, which was laid on the table: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Commonwealth be requested to furnish this Convention with a statement containing the whole number of incorporated companies for banking and other purposes, within this Commonwealth; also, the amount of capital employed, and the dates of the several acts of incorporation under their respective or appropriate heads. Mr. FULLER offered the following resolution, which was read a first and second time. Resolved, That, when this Convention adjourns, it will adjourn to meet at nine o'clock to-morrow morning, and that to be the standing hour of meeting until otherwise ordered. Mr. HIESTER then moved to amend by striking therefrom all after the word "Resolved", and inserting in lieu thereof the following, viz: "Until otherwise ordered, the Convention will take a recess from one to three o'clock, P. M., daily. The amendment being under consideration, On motion of Mr. BELL, the further consideration of the resolution and amendment was postponed for the present. Mr. PURVIANCE offered the following resolution which was laid on the table: Resolved, That this Convention will, on Monday next, and during the sitting of the Convention thereafter, meet at nine o'clock, A. M. and adjourn at twelve, and meet again in the afternoon at four and adjourn at six. Mr. GRENELL offered the following resolution which was laid on the table: Resolved, That the standing hour of meeting of this Convention, be nine A. M. on each and every day, (Sundays excepted,) until otherwise directed by the Convention. Mr. EARLE offered the following resolution which was laid on the table: Resolved, That this Convention will hold an afternoon session on each day, (Sundays excepted,) commencing at four o'clock, except when otherwise expressly determi ned by the Convention. Mr. BANKS offered the following resolution, which was laid on the table: |