« 이전계속 »
disregard a fraction less than half the ratio. And it is carrying on the principle of the fourth section in the only way in which it can be done with entire justice to all the counties, and in a manner which must bo most acceptable to the wishes and feelings of the people. The gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) and the gentleman from Miffin, (Mr. Banks) seem to think that the matter may be made still more plain, so far as the phraseology is concerned; and in this point of view I do not perceive that there can be any objection to the adoption of either of the amendments proposed by them. I think we should adopt either one or the other of those amendments, and that, alter having done that, we should at once adopt the section.
Mr. Hastings, of Jefferson, moved that the committee rise, with a view of going into committee of the whole on the fourth section, in order to have that amended so as to vote understandingly on the fifth sectionyeas 35; which not being a majority of a quorum, the motion was nos agreed to.
So the committee would not rise.
The question then again recurring on the adoption of the said amepd. ments,
Mr. Dickey demanded the previous question.
Which said motion was seconded by the requisite nuinber of delegales rising in their places.
The question was--". Shall the main question be now put ?" and it was determined in the affirmative.
Mr. Read: What is the main question ? 'The Chair: On the section.
Mr. Read then said that he would appeal from the decision of the Chair. He considered the main question to be on the engrossment of all the amendments of the article.
Mr. R. withdrew the appeal.
Will the committee of the whole agree to the fifth section of the said article, as agreed to on second reading ?
The yeas and nays were required by Mr. Bell and nineteen others, and are as follow, viz:
Yeag Messrs. Ayres, Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Doran, Earle, Foulkrod, Fuller, Hastings, Helffenstein, Mann, M'Cahen, Myers, Read, Riter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, White-28.
Narg—Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Çleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig Crain, Crum, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Villinger, Donagan, Donnel, Dunlop, Fleming, Forward, Fry,, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell
, Harris. Hayhurst, Haya Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Martin, M’Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Penny packer, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Seltzer, Serrill, Snively, Sterigera, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-85
Bo the question was determined in the negative.
That the committee of the whole proceed to the consideration of the amendment to the ninth section of the said article, which said amended. section was in the words following, viz:
" SECTION 9. No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years and have been a citizen and inhabitant of the blate four years next before his election, and the last year thereof an inhabitant of the district for which he shall be chosen, unless he shall have been absent on the public business of the United States or of this state ; and no person elected as aforesaid shall hold said office after he shall have removed from such district."
Which motion was agreed to.
To amend the said amended section, in the sixth line, by striking theresrom the words " hold said office," and inserting in lieu thereof the word " serve.'
Mr. M. said, that this amendment had been reported by the committee on phraseology. It was a mere verbal alteration.
Mr. STERIGERE thought that the amendment proposed was not a proper one. He thought that the words "hold said office," expressed the idea that was intended to be conveyed, more clearly than it could be expressed by the 118e of the word “serve."
Mr. Cochran, of Lancaster, said that the members of the legislature were not considered as holding an office, but merely as serving the people in the character of legislators. For this reason, the comınittee on phraseology had thought proper to make the alteration, and he hoped it would be agreed to..
Mr. Brown, of Philadelphia, said he could see no reason why the section should not be permitted to stand in its present shape. If amended in the manner proposed, he did not think it would be so clear. The exception taken by the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Sterigere) was a good one; and Mr. B. believed that the language as it now stood was correct,
Mr. Purter, of Northampton, said that he supposed this alteration had been made by the revisory committee, in order to preserve the harmony of language--a matter which, in his judginent, was of some importance. It will be found, continued Mr. P., in regard to the representative officers of the county, that the term used is " serve.”
So far as concerns officers to which persons are elected, these are termed officers. But I ihink no such term as “oflicer" is applicable to senators and representatives. In relation to them, I believe that the word · serve" is used: and the distinction, it seems to me, is a good one, I do not know how a man can hold an office if he can not serve in it. There are to be sure such things as sinecures where one man may hold the office and another may do the work. But I believe that this is not allowed in representation. If it is, it is a new thing to me. There are no deputy representatives, although there may be deputies in other offices.
Mr. Donlop, of Franklin, said. It seems to me to be immaterial whether we alter this section in the manner proposed, or whether we leave it as it stands now; because to serve in an office and to hold an office are tantamount. This whole clause, however-I mean the amendment made to the section as it comes to us from second reading-is, in my judgment, absurd and ought to be rejected. It says " and no person elected as aforesaid shall 'hold said office after he shall have removed from such district."
I do not know why this clause was inserted here at all, unless it was to meet the case of General Sinclair of our senale-who, being a single man, or what we term a loose man, does not choose to go back to his district.
But again, sir. Suppose that the penple choose to be served by a man who does not reside in his district. Why should they not have him Why should we interpose a constitutional barrier between them and the man of their own choice? I am not able to see any good reason WO may not be as well represented as zealously and as faithfully represented by a man who lives beyond the limits of the district as by a man who lives within them, if the people choose to elect him. If a man finds it more convenient to remove from his district, why should he be disqualified on that account?
Suppose that a man resides at a tavern or a boarding house not at the seat of his district during a year, or gets married and goes off to spend a year with his father in law, why should he be prevented from serving? I see no reason why we should insert in the amended constitution any thing more harsh on this subject, ihan is to be found in the constitution of 1790. And I trust we shall not do so. There is no necessity for it.
Mr. Brown, of Philadelphia, said that he could not find the word "serve" in the constitution, so far as time had permitted him to look hastily through it. Therefore, he could see no advantage which was to be gained by inserting it now for the first time. He thought that the language was sufficiently correct as it stood. The word “serve" was left alone, and had not reference to any thing else. He should vote against the cliange.
Mr. Fuller said, that for his own part he was not very particular as to the language. The objection raised to this amendment by the gentle man from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop) though urged with the usual tact of that geritleman, did not, in his, Mr. F's., judgment, carry much weight with it. What was the convenience of an individual compared with the good of the public? What had the people to do with the convenience of an individual elected to represent them, so far as that convenience involved a removal from the disirict which stood in constant need of his services, and his attention to the interests of its inhabitants? If a man is elected to represent a particular district, is it not his duty to remain there, in order that he may be present among them and may ascertain from time to rime what their wants and wishes may be. Surely, sir, it is so; and the moment he leaves the district, and attends to other business, it is proper and just that he should resign his seal. How can a man attend to the interesis of those whom he is elected to represent, if he does not live among them? How can he know what their wants and wishes are ? I hope that this convention will not sanction any such principle.
better to say
Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, considered the section an important one; but as to the amendment to substitute the word “serve," for the words “ hold office," he id not see any necessity for it. He was not for making any changes which could be dispensed with. And this amendment might lead to a dispute, in case a senator vacated his seat.
Mr. Cochran, of Lancaster, said if his colleague woull inform him whether a senator held an office, he would do something towards producing conviction in his mind. Oificers are commissioned; but senators and meinbers of the legislature serve. The language used in reference 10 the latter is “they shall receive compensation for their services." It was thought proper 10 make this change for the purpose of preserving harmony throughout.
Mr. Hiester replied that where no advantage was to be gained by a change, he uniformly went against any change. He thought the words at present used sufficiently expressive. He took the language which was of common import as the best.
sav of a senator of the United States that he holds the office of senator. Every one understands this to apply to others than those which are coinmissioned. There are many justices of the peace, who hold their offices, but do not serve; and he thought it
" hold the office." Nr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, said the right to fill offices involved the right to reccive fees and emoluments. Iį must be so. In the constitution of the United States, it is said the president of the United States and the judges hold office. And the constitution of this stale says the governor, judges and commissioners hold offices.
Mr. M'Cauen, of Philadelphia county, asked for the previous ques. tion; and a sufficient number rising to sustain the call, the previous question was ordered.
It was then determined that the main question be :10w puit.
Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, moved that the convention proceed to consider the fifteenth section.
'The Chair decided that the question was out of order, until that section shall be reached.
Mr. Bell, of Chester, moved that the convention proceed to the consideration of the tenth section.
Mr. MEREDITH withdrew his motion to consider the Gifteenth section.
The tenth section was then taken up for consideration and read as follows, viz:
Secrion 10. The senators who may be elected at the first general election, under the amendments to the constitution, shall be divided by lot into three classes ; the seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the first year; of the second class at the expiration of the second year; and of the third class at the expiration of the third year; so that hereafter, one-third of the whole number of the senators may be chosen every year. The senators elected before the aineodmenis shall be in operation, shall hold their offices during the terms fus which they shall respectively have been elected.
Mr. BELL moved to amend the said section by striking therefrom the word "under." where it occurs in the second, and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words " after the adoption of," and by inserting the words “ to the constitution," afier the word “amendmeni," in the tenth line; and by striking thereform the words, “ in operation," in the tenth line, and inser. ting in lieu thereof the word "adopted.”
Mr. Brown, of Philadelphia, said. There is a question involved in this discussion which will influence the whole of our decisions hereafter. If we pass the amendinents proposed by the gentleman from Chester, our constitution, when engrossed, will record the amendments, but without shewing in the constitution, what those amendmets are. My opinion is, that after being filed, &c., the amended constitution thus filed, should read as one consiitution, that it should not be made up of hetrogeneous maliers, one taking date at one time and one at another. I would, therefore, make the section read " under this constitution," and not “under the amend. mets to this constitution." It seems to me that this is the most plain and proper course.
It is not these amendments which are to be signed by us, and engrossed and deposited with the secretary of state, but we are to deposite the constitution as amended when it passes from our hand. I shall certainly vole against this amendment of the gentleman from Chester, and shall, at a proper lime move to make the section read in the manner I have pointed out. The amendment of the gentleman from Chester would
pul it out of the power of the convention to comply with the requisi. tions of the act of assembly, which requires that the constitution as amended, shall be engrossed and signed by the delegates, &c.; and would confine them to the amendments alone.
Mr. Bell, of Chester, said it ought to be a source of congratulation to the members of the revisory committee that they had, most unexpect. edly to themselves, given rise to a discussion of great technical acuinen, and to the discussion of principles, which principles have little or no reference to their report. Whether the people are to adopt the constitution as a whole, (continued Mr. B.) or whether they are lo adopt or reject the amendments agreed upon to the constitution of 1790, is a subject upon which I will touch hereafter. There is no objection made to the verbal alterations of the commillee, and I do not think that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. Brown) can object, if he will reflect a little. His objection, ho vever, has a deeper root.
He disdains any thing upon the surface. It will be seen that his objection is not to the report of the revisory committee; but his objection is to the section as reported from the committee of the whole.
Sir, the word "amendment" is properly used. Under what authority are we here? I answer, under the act of assembly-under the authority of the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Fron that act of asseinbiy we derive all our authority. Without it we are nothing, nay, less than nothing. And what were we to do under that ac: ? We were to assemble here for the purpose of agreeing upon amendments to be submitted to the people, that is to say, if we ever arrive at that consummation so devouily to be wished for. What are we to do? Under the terms of the act of assembly providing for the call of this convention, we are lo submit the amendments to the people ;-—and what are the people to do? Let us see.