Mr. FULLER porceeded. He looked upon the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, as holding out the shadow without the substance It would not operate as any check at all against the apprehended evils. The report of the committee was as good as any that could be had: it requires the action of two successive legislatures. This made the matter perfectly safe to his mind. The question was, whether the people and the legislature shall be protected from the annoyance to which they would certainly be subjected, if the present proposition prevailed. It was well known that for the last ten days a small minority of this body-who, no doubt, had thought it their duty to do so-had tried every means to obtain the privilege of suffrage for a certain class of the community. These gentlemen had told the convention that the time was coming when the people of the state of Pennsylvania would make some change in the condition of that class of people.

66

Now, he would ask if it was unreasonable to suppose that this very party-(and he believed that he used the correct term when he said party") memorialized the legislature for a change in the constitution, so as to extend the right of suffrage to the blacks, trial by jury to fugitives &c., with several other favorite propositions of theirs-all of which had been defeated here by large majorities? Yet he thought it highly probable that the same party would continue to memorialize the legislature in future. And, he would repeat the question he had before asked, if it was right that the legislature and a large majority of the people of the commonwealth should be continually annoyed by propositions to amend the constitution originating with a small portion only of the citizens of Pennsylvania? He contended that the restriction proposed by the delegate from Union, was not sufficient, and that a greater one ought to be introduced. He hoped that both amendments would be rejected, and something else better, proposed. He reiterated his opinion that frequent changes in a constitution proved the destruction of it; and concluded by saying that it was all important that the restrictions should be such as to prevent a small minority from interfering with the majority.

Mr. FLEMING, of Lycoming, said that he had risen for the purpose of making a suggestion, rather than to offer any argument on the subject, which was one unquestionably of great importance. The object which the convention had now in view, was to make such a provision as that future amendments to the constitution might be made with less inconvenience, loss of time, and expense to the people of Pennsylvania. He would inquire of gentlemen who had had more experience than himself, whether any thing was to be gained by the adoption of a provision requiring a particular number of signatures to petitions praying that certain amendments may be made to the constitution? Would it prevent unne cessary agitation in regard to amendments? Most assuredly it would not. It appeared to him even from the little attention that he had paid to the manner of obtaining signatures to petitions that a few industrious individuals might at any time, easily procure the number required by the amendment, now before the convention to authorize legislative action. He asked, if delegates should agree to insert a provision of this character, whether it would not be necessary to add a restriction requiring that the requisite number of signatures shall be procured within a prescribed time? It was his deliberate opinion that such a restriction was indispensible, for

without it, the same petitions might be handed about session after session, until the number of names required was at length obtained. In fact, several years might be devoted to the collecting of signatures, and then the petition be handed in to the legislature as an evidence of the desire of the people to have certain amendments made to the constitution of the state! He would have supposed that if it was the wish of the convention to prevent in future an unnecessary consumption of time in relation to the propo sing of amendments to the constitution, that the requirement of a certain number of petitioners, would have been dispensed with. What was to be apprehended most was, that the alterations might be too often proposed. He, however, did not fear the action of the legislature.

I certainly, said Mr. F., would not consent to make this provision sø loose, as to enable a bare majority of the legislature at any time to submit an amendment to the people. I am inclined to believe that the provision on this subject which is to be found in the constitution of the state of New York, will answer the object we have in view as substantially and effectually as any thing I have heard suggested on this floor; if not more so. And believing as I do, from the suggestions which have been thrown out here, that the requiring a certain number of citizens to petition in the first place, before the legislature can act, will have no tendency whatever to prevent the action of the legislature on the subject. I am not disposed at present to give my vote in favor of a provision to that effect. I am willing, however, to go for any reasonable provision which will accomplish the object we all have in view.

The provision to which I have referred in the constitution of the state of New York, is in the following words :—

“Any amendment or amendments to this constitution, may be proposed in the senate or assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such propos ed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legislature then next to be chosen; and shall be published for three months previous to the time of making such choice; and, if in the legislature next chosen as aforesaid, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by twothirds of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people, in such manner and at such time as the legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the legislature voting thereon, such amendment, or amendments shall become a part of the constitution." [See amended constitution, state New York, art. eight, section one.]

This, continued Mr. F. appears, in theory at least, to obviate all the obstacles which lie in the way of proper changes being made in the fundamental law of the land, and, in my view, is preferable to the proposătion now before us. I should like to hear the opinions of other members of the convention upon it.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, said. I believe, Mr. President, that we have now arrived at a question of nearly as much importance to the people of the commonwealth, as any that has ever been brought before us during the whole of our long and laborious existence as a convention. I cannot

VOL. XII.

tax my memory with any single question in passing upon which more care and deliberation have been required than ought to be exercised in the present case.

In prescribing the manner in which future amendments to the constitution may be effected, we have to keep two objects steadily in view. The one is not to throw around the constitution barriers which will be impassable to the people; and the other, and equally important object is, not to leave the constitution too easily accessible, and consequently, too open to innovation.

Now, what is required by the amendment to the amendment as proposed by the gentleman from Susquehanna (Mr. Read?) It requires that the assent of three thousand of the taxable inhabitants of Pennsylvania shall be procured, before any proposition for amendment to the constitution, can be considered in either branch of the legislature. In my estimation, this is quite too low. If we take a view of the number of taxables in Pennsylvania, we shall find that it amounts to over three hundred and nine thousand, and to require the assent of only three thousand out of three hundred and nine thousand is next to nothing. Take an instance. How easy would it be, in the city and county of Philadelphia, to get up three thousand names to a petition to the legislature to make an amendmentthus making it appear that the amendment was desired by the body of the people of the state, whereas, in other parts, the people might regard it as not wanting at all. Propositions, thus got up, would then be sent to Harrisburg, and, probably, half the session of the legislature might be lost in discussion upon it.

But my friend from the county of Lycoming (Mr. Fleming) has brought to the view of the convention, the provision on the same subject in the constitution of the state of New York, and seems to be of opinion that that is more free from objections than any other amendment of the kind that we can adopt. I apprehend that he is mistaken in his estimate of the advantages to be derived from it; for it will be observed that, under the constitution of that state, the amendments originate with the legisla ture-the very thing, as I have been led to suppose, which this convention is anxious to avoid. There, an amendment passes one legislature, and is recommended to the attention of the legislature next succeeding , who pass upon it by a vote of two thirds-after which it is submitted to the people for the first time. Now this, as I have said, is the very thing which I supposed the convention is anxious to avoid. I, at least, am so. I wish that the legislature should, in the first instance, under stand that the people want such amendments, and that the number of those who call for them should be clearly ascertained. If I understand the matter, the requisition of the gentleman from Union (Mr. Merrill) is not 100 great. I would rather see it made larger than smaller. But the gen. deman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. Earle) objects to this as a novel thing. It is rather singular that such an objection should be raised in such a quarter. I am at a loss to conceive what it portends. should suppose that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia would be the last man in this body to complain of any thing being new; for be has brought us more new things here than any other mau.

Mr. EARLE asked leave to explain. He had not intended himself to object to the proposition because it was new; he had merely applied the argument to those who did object to new things..

I

Mr. SMYTH resumed.

Even if this were entirely a new measure, that would matter nothing if it were in itself expedient and proper. At all events it is our duty, in view of the wants of the people and the safety of our republican institutions, to act in this matter with very great care and caution. I do not know of any one subject which has been, or may be before us; in which a hasty or false step might be attended with more pernicious results. I am, therefore, extremely solicitous that we should weigh the matter well, before we come to a decision. Is the number designated in the proposition of the gentleman from Union (Mr. Merrill) too great? I think not. On the contrary, I am inclined to the belief that it is lower than might be supposed to be requisite by our constituents. In any event, I am not in favor of placing the number lower, but I will go higher if any gentleman will introduce an amendment to that effect. And whenever a proposition for amendment to the constitution comes before the legislature in such an imposing form, it will be the duty of that body to take it up, and to give to it their serious consideration.

Under all the circumstances, I think that the proposition offered by the gentleman from Union (Mr. Merrill) is as fair and reasonable a one as we can expect. At all events, it is a question which requires our most serious consideration, for I believe that much of the stability of our institutions may depend upon the manner in which we provide that future amendments to the constitution shall be made.

For these reasons, I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Union, and am willing to vote for it. But I cannot go in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county said that he concurred in the opinion that this was a very important question. I believe also, continued Mr. B., that there will be some wisdom and some integrity left in the legislature of this commonwealth and in the people of this commonwealth, when this shall cease to be a convention, and when we who are the members of it shall be laid in our graves. I am not one of the number of those who believe that all intelligence, all wisdom, and all integrity are centered in this body, or in this generation of men. There may be, and most certainly there will be, such qualities in other bodies and in other times.

Believing this, I think it is my duty to create proper facilities, by means of which the people of future times may be able to amend their fundamental law. I do not believe that those whom I represent here desire me to throw obstacles in the way of amending the constitution, and I will not do it. If we cannot now agree upon a clause through which the people can, with proper ease, amend that instrument, I, for one, would not put in any thing at all of that kind, but would leave the matter to be acted upon by the people of the state in such manner as they may think proper.

The second section of the bill of rights, which we are now again about to ratify, is couched in the following language:

"That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness: For the advancement of those 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.'

9.9

This, continued Mr. B., is the language of your present bill of rights. Now, in the constitution of 1776, there was an amendatory clause placed, by which that instrument could be amended before a council of censors. The people found this to be an obstacle; they disregarded it; and they called a convention to frame the existing constitution of 1790-thus acting in open violation of that provision. They have a right, as all free people have, to possess such a form of government as the people may require And yet what are we now told? We are now told that the legislature should not even consider any proposition of amendment to the constitution, unless a given number of citizens shall petition for it. Well, sir, upon this rule, who is to say whether the persons who sign these petitions are citizens or not? Who is to examine their names to see that they are not counterfeit ; I suppose they are to be legal votesregistered voters-and that it is to be seen that they all voted at the preceding governor's election. How is all this to be ascertained? duty is it to be to see to it? Why cannot we trust the legislature to ori. ginate these amendments without petition, as we can and do trust them in any ordinary act of legislation. Can we trust them to create banks in such numbers as they may think proper? Can we trust them to create a debt of twenty millions of dollars? Can we trust them to say, how the justices of the peace shall be elected-whether by townships or wards? Can we trust them, I ask, with all these important matters without petition, and yet be afraid to trust them in this? It seems to me absurd, in the face of such facts, to require that the names of a certain number of petitioners shall be collected together, before the legisla ture shall take the matter into their consideration.

Whose

But there is an absurdity of a still higher order. The legislature can not only commence action on all these important matters to which I have referred, without previous petition, but they can also determine them without petition-and yet here is a subject on which you are about so to bind down that body as to allow them to do nothing; for the plan which you now propose to adopt amounts in effect to that. Look at it. You propose that no propositions for amendment shall be considered except on petitions previously presented and signed by a given number of voters; then one legislature is to act upon them, and then another, and then they are to be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection. And all this parade and process must be gone through, before an amendment can have any obligation or force. I am willing that you should exercise a just and proper caution, as to the manner in which you dispose of this power of amendment.

I concede that it is a great and important trust. But there is no need that you should throw unnecessary obstacles in the way, and the more so when I reflect that all amendments must ultimately be acted on by the people. This is, in itself, a great security. And I am unable myself to see the force of the reasoning which we have heard, as to the great waste of time which may be expected to result from leaving in the legisture the power to originate amendments. I do not believe, that the members of that body will suffer their time to be frittered away in the