ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

citizens of every portion of the commonwealth responsible for damages sustained in this way. That the legislature will do so whenever the necessity for such a measure shall arise I can see no reason to doubt; for we may look to what they actually have done in regard to the city and County of Philadelphia, as an earnest of what they will do in every other part of the state, if the necessity should arise.

Why, then, should the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia urge the adoption of his amendmeut at this late hour in our session? And, if he felt such great anxiety about it, why did he not bring it before the convention at an earlier period? I have no doubt that he has other amendments also in store for us. And can any gentleman believe that there will be any amendments made to the ninth article of the constitution? Does not every gentleman in his conscience believe that it is labor in vain to attempt to engraft any amendment upon it? We all believe And that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia should, under such circumstances, persist in introducing these unavailing propositions, only, as it seems to me, that he may annoy our feelings with long speeches, is too much for our patience to endure.

[ocr errors]

Mr. EARLE rose, and said. I deny the right of the gentleman from the County of Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) to call me to task for my conduct in this body, or for doing that which my sense of duty dictates. I deny his right to assert that I offer any amendments here, for the purpose of annoying the convention I deny his right to make such as assertion, and I say that it is not true.

Mr. Earle was thereupon called to order by the PRESIDENT, (Mr. Porter, pro tem) for chargiug Mr. Fuller with having asserted what was untrue, and was ordered to take his seat.

A motion was made by Mr. MERRILL,

That the delegate be permitted to proceed.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the motion?

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

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks. Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster. Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cochran, Cox, Craig. Crain, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Ingersoll, Jenks, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Sherry, Merkel, Montgomery, Payne, Porter, of Lancaster, Read, Riter, Rogers, Russell, Serrill, Sill, Thomas, White, Young-59.

NAYS-Messrs. Bedford, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Cleavinger, Crawford, Crum, Darrah, Fleming, Foulkrod, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, High, Houpt Hyde, Kennedy, Krebs, Magee, Mann, Miller, Överfield, Pennypacker, Ritter, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Woodward, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tem-42.

So the question was determined in the affirmative, and leave was accor dingly granted.

Mr. EARLE, thereupon resumed.

I think that the gentleman from the county of Fayette, (Mr Fuller). was clearly out of order. Although the Chairman did not see fit to call him to order. I think that his insinuations were incorrect, improper and indecorous.

The CHAIR said that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, must confine himself to the question before the convention.

Mr. EARLE resumed. I must say, that the statements of the gentle man from Fayette, were not consistent with the fact.

The CHAIR again called Mr. Earle to order.

Mr HIESTER rose to a point of order. The gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) had assailed the motives of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Earle) and had not been called to order by the Chair, for so doing. It was clearly the right of the gentleman to vindicate himself.

The CHAIR said, that the language made us of by the gentleman from Fayette. (Mr. Fuller) did not appear to the Chair at the time to be out of order; if it had so appeared, the Chair would have interposed. Nor had the gentleman from Fayette, been called to order by any other member of the convention.

After some desultory conversation on the point of order;

Mr. FULLER rose in explanation. He denied that he had assailed the motives of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, by stating that that gentleman introduced propositions with a view to harrass the convention.

What I intended to say, continued Mr. F., and what I believe I did. say, was to this effect:--that if any gentleman would bring in a proposition, having evidence that the convention would not adopt it, it must appear as if it was introduced to annoy the feelings of the members. Mr. EARLE resumed.

A very brief reference to the past will show that the statement made by the gentleman from Fayette, as to the introduction of the amendment before the convention is not correct in point of fact. On the sixth of May, at the very commencement of the session of this body, I offered the following proposition;

"Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended as to require that the legislature shall provide by law, adequate and exemplary penalties to be imposed epon all those who shall by mobs, violence, or otherwise interfere with the right of freedom of speech, of the press and of public discussion, in relation to all questions of public or general interest; also, that the legislature shall provide by law, for the compensation of all persons or their heirs, relatives or representatives who shall be injured in person or estate, in any mob or riot consisting of more than persons, unless such mob shall have been directly instigated, aided or encouraged by the person or persons so injured."

This resolution, continued Mr. E. was laid on the table at that time. If my memory does not deceive me, I subsequently brought it up as an amendment to the first article of the constitution, when on first reading in committee of the whole, and the very gentleman who officiates at this time (Mr. Porter, of Northampton) said, that the proper place for its introduction would be the bill of rights. There was not, moreover, a very full attendance of members at that time, and I had strong hopes that the

amendment might be adopted when a greater number of delegates were

present.

For these reasons, I deferred the introduction of it until such time as the ninth article should be up. It is in the recollection of every gentleman who hears me, that the ninth article of the constitution, never was taken up in committee of the whole, and this is the only chance which I have had to renew the proposition. All, therefore, that the gentleman from Fayette, has said, is incorrect, and I could not have had any improper motive in what I have done.

The gentleman tells us, in a voice of prophecy, that the amendment will not be adopted. By what process does he undertake to pronounce beforehand, whether it will be agreed to or not? If he is thus capable of telling us in advance what propositions will be adopted and what rejected, we might as well, on the first day of May, have adopted every thing which he might have said the convention would adopt, and rejected every thing which he might have said the convention would reject, and thus have saved the heavy labor through which it has been our lot to pass ;--and so we might have adjourned the day after we first met. I have yet hopes that the amendment may be adopted. I regret to have troubled the convention so long, and should not have done so, if my motives had not been assailed this morning, without any attempt at interposition on the part of the Chair.

And on the question,

Will the convention agreed to the second division as modified?

The yeas and nay were required by Mr. HIESTER and Mr. EARLE, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Denny. Dickey, Dickerson, Doran, Earle, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Jenks, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Russell, Saeger, Serrill, Sill, Thomas, White-39.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris. Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Myers, Överfield, Payne, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Woodward, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tem—63. So the question was determined in the negative.

And the report of the committee so far as relates to the eighth section, was agreed to.

The convention next proceeded to the consideration of the following section:

SECT. 9. That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or information, a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage That he cannot be compelled to give evidence against him

self, nor can he be deprived of his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend by inserting in the first line after the word "criminal," the words " and civil."

Mr. B. said, my object is, that any person shall be heard whether in criminal or civil prosecutions.

Mr. BROWN, withdrew his amendment.

No amendment having been made to the ninth section, the report of the committee thereon was agreed to.

The convention then proceeded to the consideration of the following section:

SECT. 10. That no person shall, for any indictable offence, be proceeded against criminally by information; except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; or by leave of the court for oppression and misdemeanor in office. No person shall for the same offence be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any man's property be taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, and without just compensation being made.

Mr. GAMBLE, of Lycoming, moved to amend by inserting in the eighth line, after the word "being," the word "first," and by adding after the word “made,” the words "or secured."

Mr. STURDEVANT, of Luzerne, asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said that the amendment might be attended with a great deal of difficulty, and that there was no necessity for it. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) the other day to the seventh article had secured the payment of damages. It would be inconvenient before constructing works to pay the damages. The compensation could not first be made. In justice to the proprietary, the damages must first he assessed. And, who, he asked, could doubt that the state of Pennsylvania would pay damages? This amendment would often prevent men from obtaining a proper compensa

tion.

ver.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, said every one who examined the amendment must see the propriety of what had fallen from the gentleman from BeaThere existed no necessity for inserting it, as a section had been added to the seventh article which would effect the objects that the gen tleman from Lycoming had in view. Suppose the exigences of the state, to require that the militia be called out, must every man's horse be paid for in advance? He hoped the gentleman, would not press his amend

ment.

Mr. CLINE, of Bedford, thought the amendment might have a tendency to impede the public improvements, and therefore he would vote against the amendment.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said he thought that the delegate from Lycoming would see the necessity of withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. GAMBLE, then withdrew the amendment.

Mr. PURVIANCE, of Butler, moved to amend by insertiug after the word

"nor" in the sixth line, the words" shall any human being be arrested or imprisoned, or be deprived of life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land."

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, suggested that the gentleman had better insert the words "black peers."

99

Mr. PURVIANCE said he could not yield to the suggestion. Every man whether black or white was entitled to trial by jury-ought to be tried by a jury of his peers.

Mr. HIESTER, said that he hoped the gentleman from Butler, would withdraw his amendment. It was only yesterday that the second attempt had been made to establish this principle, and it was a total failure. Twice, then had we been fairly beaten. He for one, was ready to submit to the will of the majority; and as it was evidently against the adoption of the principle proposed, he thought that the gentleman had better withdraw his amendment. If, however, the gentleman insisted on pressing it to a vote, he (Mr. H.) would give it his support.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, said that in his opiuion the amendment would create some confusion in the arrangement if adopted. According to the wording of it, it would seem that a man was first to be tried by jury before being arrested.

Mr. AGNEW, of Beaver, wished the delegate from Butler, would modify his amendment so as to read as did the modified amendment of the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Scott.) He could not have supported the first part of it because he had no desire to put any thing in our constitution that would be likely to conflict with the laws and the constitution of the United States. But he would have given his vote for the second branch of the amendmeut. He was decidedly of the opinion that when life or liberty was at stake, the individual ought to have a trial by jury.

Every man should have that right. Was it possible, he asked, that a man was to be dragged into bondage, without being allowed an opportunity of showing that he has a right to the liberty he was enjoying, when arrested? He (Mr. A.) was unwilling to infringe that compact called the constitution of the United States. If slavery was recognized by that instrument-let it be so. But we should not, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, recognize slavery. We have a right to say, and should assert that right, that trial by jury shall be granted to every man, no matter what may be the colour of his skin, whatever the constitution of the United States may say.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, agreed with his colleague that the question was settled yesterday under the call of the previous question, and some who went off, no doubt, did not dare to record their names against the sovereign power of the state of Pennsylvania to control her own judicature, saying that no justice of the peace or judge-as described by the President, hewn out of a block of wood-should pass on the life and liberty of a human being. If he believed the act of congress of 1793 to be the paramount law of the land, he should vote to put into the constitution a clause prohibiting the legislature of Pennsylvania from interfering to protect the liberty of the coloured man. He hoped the day would come when,

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »