we hold dear upon earth-when, I say, it comes to this, that the state of the public mind is such that our citizens will rise up in mobs-and that the good sense of the majority of the people will not put them down, your constitution and laws will amount to nothing. They will be regarded no more than the feeble voice of the mariner amidst the fierce howlings of the tempest.

But I come back to the position with which I set out. The legislature of Pennsylvania does not stand in need of a constitutional provision to authorize them to enact laws for the preservation of the lives and property of our citizens and for their protection against mobs and riots. Why then should we unnecessarily throw such a provision before the people? I hope it will be rejected.

Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, said:

The question presented by the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Earle) is so divided, as to admit of a vote in favor of one branch, without a violation of consistency in voting against the other.

I am in favor of inserting in the constitution a provision, making it obligatory upon the legislature of Pennsylvania to provide for the adequate compensation of those who may suffer by the violence of mobs. I see nothing in this which is in any degree inconsistent with our ordinary mode of acting in this body. We have been told by several gentlemen, that it is competent for the legislature to do this, because they have done it already in relation to the city and county of Philadelphia. The action. which has been had in relation to these particular parts, shows that it is proper also in all the parts; and yet the legislature have not legislated for all. Was not the legislature competent to provide for the repeal of the charter of the United States Bank, or of any charter? It was so, and yet the convention inserted a provision making it obligatory on that body to insert in every banking charter, a clause for its repeal, if necessary to the interests of the people. Why then should the matter be now presented to us in another light, by the same class of voters who voted in favor of the amendment I have referred to? If the legislature was in danger of being carried away by party feelings in the one case, it is 30 in the other; and the laws which one legislature has passed in regard to compensation for injuries sustained by mobs, may be repealed by the next.

The security contemplated in this amendment is that which I think every man who pays taxes, who contributes his portion to the support of the government under which he lives, is entitled to receive. If there had been such a provision in the constitution of the state of Massachusetts, we should not have known such scenes as the burning of the Ursuline convent in that state, nor should we have had such a scene as occurred here in the Vauxhall garden.

It is known to all who hear me, that policies of insurance do not cover injuries received by mobs; and while a man is sitting quietly still under his right, and supposes himself free from storm and the ordinary calamities of life, every thing he has upon earth may be swept away in a whirlwind of passion, and he be left without redress and without remedy.

Sir, it is not alone in the city and county of Philadelphia, that mobs may come. They may come in the smaller towns. They also are

liable to them, and have felt their influence. The gentleman from Mifflin, (Mr. Banks) to sustain the position which he assumes in opposition to this amendment, has told us an anecdote of the French revolution. In return, I will relate an anecdote which I have met with somewhere in the course of my reading, and which appears to me to be more applicable to the question before us.

When Tamerlane, having made some great advances into the country, was sitting in his tent, an old woman came to see him, and said that while she was sleeping at night, his army had carried away all that she possessed. "Oh!" answered he, "you ought to have been awake." "Not at all," responded the old woman, "I was sleeping in the confidence that Tamerlane, the ruler of my country, was looking to the protection of my property."

So it is here. We pay for protection; we are entitled to receive it, and the taxes which we pay should enable the community to repay that property which, by the negligence or the inefficiency of the officers of the commonwealth, could not be saved.

As to the first branch of the proposition, I do not care much about it, one way or the other. But, as to this second part, I shall vote for its adoption.

Mr. CRAIG, of Washington county, said that he felt favorable to both branches of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Earle) and especially favorable to the first branch of it.

It is undoubtedly, continued Mr. C., a matter of great importance that the citizens of the commonwealth should be secured in the peaceful enjoyments of their rights, their liberties, and their.property. Of this, there can be no difference of opinion among the members of this body.

It seems to me to be also a matter of importance that the subject should be acted upon by this convention. It has been contended that there is no necessity for our action in the premises, because the legisla ture has full power; and that there is no reason why we should act in this partial manner in relation to the press, and the right of public discussion. I admit I would rather that the provision should be penal-that it should be made obligatory on the legislature "to provide adequate and exemplary" punishment in all cases where persons are engaged in mobs or riots. And we should provide for the most dangerous cases.

About a month ago, when the subject of corporations was under discussion here, the gentleman from Mifflin (Mr. Banks) did not contend that it was the best to refer such matters entirely to the action of the legislature. At that time we were on the subject of property alone, but we are now discussing a matter of much more importance, because mobs at all times involve the danger of destruction not only to the property of our citizens but to their lives; whereas the danger to be apprehended from the banks are mainly to our property. The question now before us, then, is of much more importance than the other.

This being the case, it is our duty to consider whether the legislature will be likely, at all times and upon all occasions, to pass laws of sufficient force and energy to suppress mobs. How is this point to be ascer

tained? If we were certain that the legislature would act vigorously upon all these occasions, it would not be necessary for this convention to interfere in any manner by means of constitutional amendments, but I have my serious doubts whether such action on the part of the legislature is to be confidently relied upon at all times. My doubts arise from what we have seen occurring through all our southern country-through the whole slave holding states. There it is in vain to say, that the security of speech and of writing what you please, always holding yourself accountable to the courts of justice, exists at this time. There we have seen that the lynch law (as it is termed) has become the law of the land. It has spread itself until it now covers the space of nearly our whole southern country. Shall we not take warning from these signs? Is it not our bounden duty to do so? and, if so, can we answer to our consciences for its neglect? Is there no danger, with such an example before us, coming even to our very borders-is there, I ask, no danger that a similar system may, ere any great lapse of time, be introduced among us also? Sir, there is danger, and it is some years ago since we first saw the indications of its approach-against the so-called abolitionists of Pennsylvania. We have seen a strong disposition manifested to mob; nay, sir, we have seen men of respectable characters and position in life, encourage the practice of mobbing against those who think proper to express their opinions freely on the subject of negro-slavery. With such indications before us, then, shall we fold our arms in apathy, and look passively on until it is too late to act to any effectual purpose? Coming thus near to us, approaching us rapidly as this dangerous and destructive doctrine now is, is it not right that we should put something in the constitution, so that when your legislature shrinks back from their duty, the judges of your courts may plant themselves upon the ramparts-the broken fragments of your constitution, and defend the man who has been persecuted-who has been the victim of popular violence--whose property has been destroyed, and whose life has been threatened, if not actually taken? Is it not known to all who have paid any regard to the course of events for some years past, that a man scarcely dare sit on the bench of the courts of our southern country, who will pronounce judgment against the lynchers? Why may not such a spirit overtake us in Pennsylvania? Sir, it may; it is greatly to be feared that it will, unless timely prevented. Let us, then, avert the danger by inserting this clause in the constitution, and thus secure ourselves against it before it comes.

MI. EARLE said, that the arguments which had been urged here in opposition to his amendment, would be applicable to a great part of the constitution. What are they, continued Mr. E.?

The gentleman from Lycoming (Mr. Fleming) has told us that we have already adequate legislation on the subject. This is a mistake. Two individuals may go to a public meeting to disturb it as much as they please,-unless it be in meetings of a religious character; and on that head there has been legislation,-and I know of no law to correct them. I have seen no instance of it. It does not constitute a riot, because there are not three persons. There is no proper legislation in relation to mobs.

Is

But it is said that the legislature can do this. Certainly they can. this any argument? Cannot the legislature do a great many other things

that we have been doing? Could not the legislature do what we have constrained them to do in relation to banks? Could not the legislature provide, as has been provided in the constitution, that the courts shall be left open? Could not they provide for trial by jury? Could not they provide that the citizens "shall be secure in their persons, houses, pa. pers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures?" Could not they provide "that the person of a debtor, where there is not strong. presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison after delivering up his estate for the benefit of his creditors in such manner as shall be prescribed by law? Could not the legislature do all these things? The whole of the ninth article of the constitution-the Bill of Rights, as it is termed--is filled with that which the legislature could do, even if there were no constitutional provision in regard to it. Why then are these constitutional provisions inserted? Because, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Craig) has very justly observed, there is danger that the legislature will not at all times do their duty-that they will not act with that prompt energy and decision which is required at their hands. Experience has shown us that there is good ground for such apprehensions; that there is danger that the legislature will fail in many particulars that are set forth in the Bill of Rights, and therefore it was that our fathers thought it prudent that they should be bound down to the performance of their duties in those particulars, by means of constitutional provisions. The only question for us is, then, does such danger exist? What has been our own experience? Are we to learn no wisdom from that? Have we not seen a judge in the state of Missouri (Judge Lawless) recently charging a jury of that state, that where a majority of the citizens take a man's life without law, they must not be indicted that there must be no punishment for such offences? This case must be fresh in the recollection of every man who hears me. And shall this be our legislation in the state of Pennsylvania, or shall it not?

But it is said that the legislature will certainly do its duty, and the action of the convention in regard to this subject is deprecated on that account. Sir, will the legislature do their duty? Is it true that they will at all times and on all occasions legislate boldly and efficiently? We know that they have not done so heretofore. We know that the legislatures of other states of the Union have not done so. It is in vain to attempt to disguise the truth of this matter. There is danger, actual and positive danger, that the legislature will not do their duty, because they are sometimes carried away by excitement, by party feeling, or are driven from their purposes by the fear of the consequence that may result to themselves. We know that particular cases have arisen, and will hereafter arise, in which that body would not do its duty unless compelled thereto by an absolute constitutional provision. But even if we could assure ourselves--as we can not-that the legislature would always perform their duties fearlessly, in the absence of all campulsory provision in the constitution-still we should insert such a provision, because it cannot do any harm, while it may be productive of much good.

A division of the question was then called for by Mr. Earle.
And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the first division, viz: "That it shall be

the duty of the legislature to provide adequate and exemplary penalties to be imposed upon all persons who by mobs, violence and tumult or intimidation shall interfere with the enjoyment of the right of freedom of speech, of the press, and of public discussion in relation to all questions of public or general interest?"

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. EARLE and Mr. CRAIG, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Cochran, Cox, Craig, Cummin, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Doran, Earle, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Russell, Seager, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Todd, White-47.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barnitz, Bedford, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Curll, Darrah, Donagan, Fleming,, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Payne, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Woodward, Young, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tem.-58.

So the first branch of the amendment was rejected.

99

The second division of the said amendment being under consideration, the same was modified by striking therefrom the word "relatives,' as follows, viz: "That it shall be the duty of the legislature to provide by law for the adequate compensation of all persons or their heirs or lawful representatives, who shall be injured in person or estate by any mob or riot, unless such mob or riot shall have been directly and wilfully instigated, aided or encouraged by the persons so injured."

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said that he was opposed to the second branch of the amendment, as he had been to the first. If I did not know, continued Mr. F., that the legislature had abundant power to do all that is requisite to be done, I would cheerfully give my support to the proposition of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Earle.) The gentleman himself argues that the legislature is possessed of power to act. What then is the objection which he urges against leaving the matter to the action of the legislature? It is this: that the legislature will not discharge its duty-that it has not done so heretofore-that it will not provide the necessary legislation. Now, on this course of reasoning, it seems to me that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia must distrust the people of Pennsylvania as well as the legislature. Nothing will remedy the evil which he deprecates, and which, I am sure, every member of this body does most cordially deprecate--save public opinion; and public opinion, it is to be presumed, has governed the legislature in regard to this subject, so far as concerns the city and county of Philadelphia, for which, as has been said, a special provision has been made by the legislature. That provision arose out of a riot which occurred on a certain election day; application for such a provision was made to the legislature, and at the next session the bill was passed. Up to this time, it has not been necessary to pass a similar act in reference to other parts of the state but the legislature has the power to do so, and to make the