much eloquence and fervor, may rest satisfied that, under all the circumstances of the case, the people, having full time allowed them for reflection and to act understandingly, will never make an amendment unless upon a full assurance in their own minds that it will be for their permanent benefit and welfare. If it should be discovered that they have done so, the majority have, and ought to have, the power again to change it when they may please.

This principle of two-thirds ought, I think, at once to be voted down by this convention. I will not suffer myself to entertain any misgivings in regard to it, because I feel the most perfect conviction that the majority of the members of this body never will agree to it. They never will agree that a large majority shall be prevented by a minority from making such changes in the constitution of the country as may seem to them, from time to time, to be desirable.

The gentleman from the city of Philadelphia (Mr. Meredith,) has told us that the fundamental law of the land is framed for the benefit of the minority. How can this be? I take it for granted that it is framed for the benefit of all-for that which is the minority this year, may prove to be the majority the next year.

The fundamental law, therefore, is framed as a social compact for the benefit of the whole body of the people; and, in a republican form of gov ernment, the minority must always yield to the will of the majority; and in the formation of the compact, such, we all know, is the understanding. There can, therefore, be no ground to apprehend injustice on this point. because, as I have said, the minority of this year may be the majority of the next. So far, the will of the majority of the people have established all their laws and institutions, and to say now that this two-thirds principle shall be introduced, is in direct contravention of that principle of the bill of rights of which I have before spoken, to the terms of which your renewed sanction has within a few days past been given, and which de clares "that all power is inherent in the people, and all free instituted governments are founded on their authority, and constituted for their peace, safety, and happiness: For the advancement of these ends, they have, at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government, in such manner as they may think proper."

This, sir, is the language of your bill of rights! Are you about to dis own it? Are you about to say, that what we have hitherto done in relation to our form of government is all wrong, and that you will establish principles in contradistinction to those by which we have heretofore been guided and regulated, and under which have lived a prosperous and happy people? The thing appears to me to be absurd.

Mr. CHANDLER, said that he had risen to make a few remarks in reply to what had fallen from gentlemen on the other side. The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia had expressed very great astonishment that we should, at this time, undertake to change a principle previously adopted. That gentleman ought to recollect that when the convention was in committee of the whole at Harrisburg, the change was made by a very large majority. Now, a different decision was come to, which was by many considered right, and the other wrong? Were we, he (Mr. C.) asked, never to turn to the right? He entertained the most profound res

pect for the opinions of the gentleman, but he felt a much greater respect for the people's rights. He (Mr. C.) was not here to advocate them in special, but general grounds. Whatever interfered with, or deprived them of any rights or privileges, also affected him. He would therefore, be doing equal injustice to himself as to them, were he to remain silent on the present occasion. The case of Michigan had been cited as an instance of the liberality of its constitution. He need not tell the convention the circumstances under which that constitution was created that there were features in it highly objectionable--that it had been attempted to bring to the polls, persons, not citizens of the United States. And, he believed that there was virtue enough in those who framed the constitution to insert a clause by which that instrument could be easily altered so as to do away with any evils that might attach to it. Under that constitution, persons might become citizens who had only just come upon the soil of

the state.

So much for Michigan. Now, with regard to Maryland, which had been referred to by his colleague (Mr. Meredith) That state was distinguished for its rotten borough system. It was unnecessary to tell gentlemen, who talked about demagogues, how easy it would be to form little knots of politicians here and there, in the state, in order to procure changes in the constitution, and who would hold the rights and balance of parties. We know that there are men in this as well as every other state who would do anything to effect their purposes. What would a party not sacrifice to make themselves dominant in the state and to secure their popularity? It was not only politicians, but the people-the whole people were liable to be misled--to be carried away by excitement. They feel always right, although they may be sometimes in the wrong. The history of this country shows how liable we are to be misled, from various causes. If the excitement of a day or of years was to uproot the constitution of the state-was to throw all into confusion, why then, this body was legislating to a bad purpose. Surely, we would not go so far as to alter the character of the constitution under which we live. He was almost as much opposed to every amendment that had been made as any other member of the convention. He desired to have them made as acceptable to the people as possible. That they shall be permanent in their characterthat something may be settled. There ought to be some abiding placesomething that the people can appeal to. This every statesman, every man who was acquainted with human nature must admit.

Mr. HAYHURST, of Columbia, called for the immediate question; which was sustained.

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DICKEY and Mr. FORWARD, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Brown, of Lancaster Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donagan, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming. Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-60.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavenger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll,

Darrah, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, White, Woodward-60. So the amendment was negatived.

Mr. MEREDITH moved

Further to instruct the committee of the whole to amend the article by striking out, in the third line, the words "a majority," and inserting the words two-thirds."

66

Mr. M. asked for the yeas and nays,

Mr. EARLE, Philadelphia county, said that he hoped the motion would not prevail. Some gentlemen had said there ought to be some principles which should be held sacred, and never changed, not even by the majority. He denied the doctrine as relates to government, and to a majority of the people. He asserted that a majority of the people, deliberately making up their minds and deliberately acting, have a right to form or alter a constitution in any manner they may think right and just. Even if it were true, however, that there are some principles of a constitution which should not be changed by the will of a majority, the amendment of the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Meredith) would not attain the object he had in view. The delegate's allegation was, that the majority of the people have no right to change contrary to the wishes of the minority-that there should be some security guarantied to the minority, which the majority should not overturn. Now, if the principle were sound, the gentleman ought to offer an amendment that two-thirds of the people should sanction every amendment before it could be adopted. If a majority of the people are sufficient to sanction the amendment, the principle was admitted that the people are sovereign. Until gentlemen strike out that feature of the amendment, they have not fixed the principle that the majority shall govern. If it was admitted that the majority should govern, why not give the people an opportunity of altering their constitu tion? While the argument was admitted that the majority of the people can change their constitution, every thing was conceded. The gentleman from the city had said—and if in order, he would allude to what he did say that this convention was called by a minority of the people of Pennsylvania. And what did the gentleman propose to do? Why that this minority convention, wise in its own conceit, should make amendments to be ratified by a minority of the people. It was argued that amendments ought not to be submitted to the people through four separate bodiestwo senates and two houses of representatives, that they had not wisdom enough to submit any amendment that this minority convention had made. What an absurdity it was. Some gentlemen professed to entertain great fears that demagogues in the legislature would make the subject of amend ments one for agitating and keeping up a continual state of excitement. But, in his (Mr. E's) opinion the adoption of the principle of two-thirds would not prevent the subject from being agitated. What, he would ask, was a demagogue? He supposed a corrupt politician. Could any delegate here show that corruption was on the side of reform? Now, all his observation and reading had taught him that corruption was against reform. When Christ was crucified at Jerusalem, was corruption on the

side of reform? When Saint Paul went to preach at Ephesus, was cor ruption on the side of reform? Did parliamentary history show corruption to be on the side of reform? He would maintain that corruption had always been opposed to reform-that demagogues we:e-for reform was not to their interest-on the contrary they wished to perpetuate corruption. No demagogue could bring forward a proposed change in the constitution with the least prospect of success. He would like any gentleman to point out any alteration that had been made in the constitution of the United States, or in any of the states from a corrupt motive. Were the amendments to the constitution of the United States made from corrupt motives? Now, supposing a demagogue to be elected to the legislature, the chances were at least nineteen to twenty, that instead of his bringing forward any proposition for reform, he would oppose it as strenuously as he was able.

He thought that a pretty compliment was paid to the legislature by this amendment. He would suppose some disappointed politician, some young lawyer to propose amendments to the constitution, and the legislature must per force consider them. But gentlemen seemed to forget that there must be a vote taken-that the legislature was not bound to adopt everything that might be proposed. Could not gentlemen suppose that there would be some gentlemen in that body-some good conservative would arise, like the gentleman from Lycoming and the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, and protest against the proposition, and argue that it was unwise to make any changes in the constitution-that it was inexpedient-that it was dangerous. Do those, he (Mr. E.) asked, who are opposed to making any changes pretend to have found the philosopher's stone? Did they imagine that the people have not common sense to know what was for their benefit? Surely gentlemen could not suppose that an argument of that sort could have any weight here. It was the common weakness of men-of conventions of men-of a man in managing his farm, to adhere to his old habits, practices and notions-and where you found a man wisely changing his politics-his mode of conducting business, you found a hundred who went on in the old way. As for instance, the wagoner who continued to drive his team along the old and bad road when there was a better, merely because his father had done so for forty years. This was the common weakness of human nature. Now, if men would weigh well these prejudices, he should say that onethird of each branch of the legislature for two successive years, would be sufficient to propose amendments. Gentlemen had said it was necessary to have two-thirds of each house. Now, was this anything more than to make a motion? Had the delegate from Lycoming even proposed that we should so alter the rule of this convention as to requite two-thirds to make a motion?

He

Gentlemen say they want deliberation and caution-not excitement and rashness. They said the people might act under excitement. (Mr. E.) admitted the doctrine to be sound. And that if two successive legislatures were not enough, they might require three, nay, five, six or seven. But gentlemen could not do it in accordance with the principle that the majority shall govern.

It was probable that the convention would submit the amendments en masse to the people; and those amendments which might not be regarded as good would have to be adopted, rather than that those which were ap

proved should be lost. So that by a minority of the people it would be adopted. Was it true-was it a fact, that there was danger of rashness in the manner proposed? If the people would ever be able to make up their minds in reference to the amendments that would be submitted to them, they surely could do it in three years, for nearly that time would elapse between the period when the first legislature would act on the subject and that on which the people give their votes on the amendments. Thus the chances were against the amendments, if there happened to be only a small majority in their favor. Aye, even if there was a considerable majority in favor of amending the constitution, the chances of affecting that object are decidedly against it under the provision that was now before the convention. Had not (he asked) his colleague (Mr. Brown) justly observed that the effect of the proposition would be to keep up agitation year after year.

He (Mr. E.) would inquire of gentlemen whether they desired to see in this commonwealth the agitation that had taken place in Ireland and England, for the last five years, the minority struggling for the majority. The majority must govern. If the people reject the amendments the question would be settled, and we should be at peace. He wished to draw an argument-it might be applied argumentum adhominum-as to the excitement among the people of the United States who were exceedingly agitated just now in regard to the sub-treasury bill. He was not going to express any opinion favorable to or against, that measure. But, he had heard gentlemen say that there was a disposition evinced on the part of the government to force that measure on the people, who do not want it and will resist it even unto blood. He, however, would tell those gentlemen that there was a much easier mode of obtaining redress than that. All that the people had to do was to remove the public authorities—was to put their shoulders to the wheel and alter the constitution of the United States, and shorten the term of office of the president of the United States and the senators. Then the people would be able to control their rulers. But if, on the other hand, they do not make their representatives in congress responsible to their constituents, they ought to submit. One thing of two was true, either that the people should govern, or should not. These excitements in the public mind had become much too common in this country. He did not mean to say that the government had acted contrary to the wishes of the people; but he only said that gentlemen seemed to think it had. And hence they should devise a remedy for what they regard as evils.

There was only one way of rendering stable and of strengthening and perpetuating a republican government, and that was to make it subject to the people, and not to have anything in it but what the people can change. It was necessary to establish the power of numbers to avoid the necessity of establishing the power of the sword. And, the moment the attempt should be made to abandon the power of the sword without establishing the power of numbers, a revolution would be the consequence. He wished to prevent such a result by establishing the power of numbers. But the gentleman from Chester, said there was danger of sudden exitement among the people, that they are liable in a hasty moment to go wrong.

Now supposing the people to adopt an amendment that two-thirds of the legislature have submitted to them, was that as safe a course, accord