by the desire of one man-yes, sir, of one active and energetic man, who will undertake to muster the names of three thousand petitioners. Humble as I am, and laying no claims to extraordinary energy of character, I will engage to procure the signatures of three thousand persons to almost any proposition that is any thing like reasonable in its character-for instance, that this convention should adjourn-that the constitution should be burnt up, or any thing of that kind. This is most easily done.

The provision of the gentleman from Susquehanna then is, in itself, destructive of the very thing it proposes to protect-that is to say, destructive of the rights and political standing of the people of this commonwealth, which we are all now, as I believe, righteously endeavoring to guard. If it were desirable to agitate the people in this way, we, the conservatives in this body, have cause enough to lend our aid to this project. For instance, we, who are fond of public schools might, by the very next session of the legislature, procure thirty or forty thousand sig. natures, and call for legislative action upon this very constitution, as it is now amended, and procure a change of the provision now existing. For my own part, I have no desire of the kind. I know what the feelings of the people are when they once ascertain that they are moving in a right cause. Nothing can come against it. It is like some flower that springs up more strongly, if not more beautifully, when it has been trodden upon. So it will be with our schools. We shall find, I trust, in spite of all the amendments which we have made, that the people will still continue to do well-that they will keep on under the provisions of the old constitu tion, and that when a fair opportunity is offered they may change the letter; but the spirit of it has been changed. Let us, however, provide against all agitation by boasting would-be democrats, and tavern politicians. Let us guard as much as possible against party influence, of every kind; and when we present to the people a constitution, let us have it in our power to say, that we think, in some respects at least, that it is worthy of them-and that we think them worthy of having a constitution upon which the legislative action may rest.

The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) if I correctly understood him, seemed to indicate a desire that whenever a road, a canal, or any thing of the kind was wanted, the people should vote upon the law. I have no such wish. All that I desire is, that when we present this constitution to them, whether it be right or wrong, we should present it to them as if we believed it was right, and as if we believed them to be worthy of something that was right.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said that he was not altogether satisfied that either the amendment of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) or his own should be adopted. He very much doubted whether we could make any improvement on the report of the committee. Indeed he was quite satisfied with it as it now stood. But if some restriction of this kind must be introduced, he thought his own much better than that proposed by the gentleman from Union. First, because it was a smaller number; and secondly, because it was a fixed and definite number. The objection to a fluctuating number-a number increasing in proportion to the number of inhabitants to be taxed, was that it required much trouble to ascertain, if at all practicable, if there was the requisite number. If the gentleman from Union would take the trouble to look over the returns of the judges,

to see the number returned at the election, he would find that it could not be ascertained; consequently he would be obliged to send to the prothonotary's office in every county for the purpose of obtaining this information. He would discover that one half, at least, of the returns do not state the number of votes given. They only set forth that A B or C D. had a majority of the number of all the votes given, and was duly elected. Again: if the ruturns were perfect, in all cases, the fact was not ascertained for what offices the required votes shall have been given.

Mr. MERRILL: Yes.

Mr. READ: Then I am answered. However, it was doubtful whether either of the proposed amendments ought to be adopted. That certainly appeared to be the case, judging from the arguments of the gentlemen from Franklin and Fayette. The delegate from Fayette first assumed that there would be an anxious disposition at all times, on the part of the legislature, to agitate the subject, and then

Mr. FULLER explained: I was not of opinion there would be an anxiety on the part of the legislature to agitate the subject. But I said, there would be great anxiety manifested by a small portion of the people of the commonwealth to agitate the subject.

Mr. READ said, taking it for granted, as stated by the gentlemen from Fayette and Franklin, that there would be some local operation felt on the subject, yet it was not to be forgotten that experience had fully proved there was and always had been an eternal reluctance shown by the people to act on this particular subject. He thought there was no danger to be apprehended in relation to the legislature acting on it. They certainly were not likely to do so, unless perfectly satisfied from the petitions presented to them that there was a general feeling of uneasiness in reference to the supposed required amendments. Supposing that there should be a local feeling in Philadelphia, Lancaster, or any where else, and that three thousand or five thousand names are obtained, and that some ambitious politicion, as the gentleman from Franklin had supposed, should introduce into the legislature a petition founded on this local feeling— what would be the consequence? Why, he might obtain the permission of the legislature to make a speech of an hour or two, but his proposition would be immediately indefinitely postponed, unless there happened to be a general feeling throughout the state in favor of some amendment being made. He would contend that it was not in the power of a smal minority, or of any small section of the commonwealth to agitate the subject for half a day in the legislature. Nor was it, in his opinion, at all likely that such an event would occur unless the body to which it was introduced, were confident that among their constituents there existed an anxions desire to agitate the subjecl. He (Mr. R.) doubted, therefore, whether either the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Union or his own, ought to be adoped. But, if the convention chose one or the other of them, they should most certainly, determine on having a definite number of petitioners, and not a floating number, and that number should be a small one. He felt quite sure that the legislature would not act on any proposition for amending the constitution, unless there was a very strong and general feeling in favor of legislative action in reference thereto. As he had already remarked, he did not think there would be any danger of continual agitation, or of local agitation in regard to amending the fuu

damental law. He would modify his amendment so as to roquire five thousand, instead of three thousand.

Mr. BANKS, of Miffin, said that he had thought, on reflection, that he might be able to bring his mind to agree to the amendment proposed by the delegate from Union. He, however, had not been able to do that. And with regard to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Susquehanna, to the amendment, he had come to the conclusion that it was best not to restrict to any number of petitioners. Being desirous of obtaining any knowledge or light that might be shed on this important subject, he had, with that view, examined the amended constitutions of New York, of Tennessee, of Virginia, and of North Carolina, and also the constitutions of the states of Arkansas and Michigan, but he had not been able to find any such provision as the one to which reference had been made.

Let gentlemen examine the constitution of the United States, and they would find no restriction imposed in relation to this subject. It was not stipulated in any of the constitutions of the states, or in the constitution of the United States, that ten thousand or twenty thousand petitioners in favor of amending that constitution, or of any of the states, would author. ize the legislative bodies in proposing amendments.

The amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna required the number of five thousand petitioners; but he (Mr. B.) did not see why one thousand had not an equal right to ask that the constitution shall be amended. He did not see why they should not be heard as patiently and with as much respect as ten thousand, as any other number.

Sir, (said Mr. B.) I have not been so instructed in the affairs of Pennsylvania; I have not been so instructed in regard to the rights of the people of Pennsylvania, as to suppose that any man is to be allowed to prescribe rules for me-to tell me that my voice shall not be heard upon any question, affecting my interest and happiness in common with the interest and happiness of my fellow citizens, until a certain number shall have joined with me in asking redress or remedy. This is a state of things that does not fall in with my views of a republican government. If I, as an individual, think proper to ask the legislature to grant me any thing, it is my right to ask repectfully, and it is the duty of the representatives to hear me. Yes, sir, and they will hear me.

Mr. READ here rose, and said he would withdraw the amendment he had offered.

So the amendment to the amendment was withdrawn.

And the question then recurring on the amendment of Mr. MERRILL, as follows, viz:

"Provided, that no such amendment shall be considered in either branch of the legislature, unless upon petitions signed by the citizens of the commonwealth, in number not less than one twentieth of the number of votes which shall have been polled for governor at the then next preceding election."

Mr. BANKS resumed.

I am glad that the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) has withdrawn his amendment, though I am not so vain as to attribute its withdrawal to any remarks which have fallen from me. If I can succeed in

satisfying the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) that in justice to the people of this commonwealth, he ought also to withdraw his amendment, I shall think that we have gained something.

Now, why is it that one twentieth of the voters-of the taxables if you please--of this commonwealth should be required to sign a petition before any amendments shall be considered by the legislature?

Taking as a standard the number of votes polled at the last electionwhich was supposed to have brought out the people in great numerical strength-one twentieth would be about ten thousand voters.

The gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Chandler) has argued, if I did not misapprehend him, that there were at least three thousand good men and true in the city of Philadelphia, and who possibly might petition the legislature to do something or other--whether to amend the constitution or not, I do not know. I have no doubt that it is the desire of the people of Philadelphia, to do what is right towards others as well as themselves, although of course they will always keep in view their own rights as the people of the county do. It is their duty to do so.

Well, sir, if there be three thousand men in the city of Philadelpia, who present their petitions to the legislature on any subject, would it not be right that their petition should be considered? Have they not a right, as freemen, to demand that it shall be heard? I ask the gentleman from the city whether he would not regard any constitutional restriction upon that right, as onerous and oppressive to the people? And I ask him whether, if such restriction were to be placed in the fundamental law, he would not give his vote to expunge it. Let us make the experiment, and the gentleman, I doubt not, will be among the first to enter his protest against it. He will say, this is what I did not understand; for, if I had understood it, I never should have said, that three thousand good men and true in this city should not be heard, simply because they could not get seven thousand more to join them ;-for this is the effect of the provision before us. 1, for one, shall be unwilling to go home to my constituents, and give them such an account of my stewardship, and I will not do so if I can possibly avoid it. Whether the gentleman from Union who proposed this amendment and who comes from the same district as myself, but represents a greater one, is willing to go home to his constituents, and to say to thern-" my good fellows, you sent me into the convention to extend your privileges; I have done so, it is true, in certain particulars—but I have tied you down in other things-and those, too, of a most important nature; for I have given my assent to a new provision in the constitution, that you shall not again elect a member to a convention to make changes in your fundamental law, by which even the legislature will not be suffered to propose amendments to the people unless ten thousand men shall first have petioned for them"-if, I say, the gentleman tells them this, what answer may he expect to receive? I apprehend it would be such as the gentleman would not like very well to hear.

The examples of which I have spoken are such as come from wise men -the framers of the constitution of other states. History, it is said, is philosophy teaching from example; and the history of our government from its foundation to the present time, contradicts the position which has here been assumed by the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) and other

gentlemen, wise as they are in the things of their generation;-I mean the position that there is great danger of innovation, if the people have ready opportunity to amend their constitution. Those gentlemen have mistaken, as I conceive, what the true interests of the people require in this respect. At all events, either they are mistaken, or I am.

The framers of the constitution of 1790 took no such limited view. And shall we give less to those who are to take our places, than the fra mers of that constitution gave to us? Shall we do less for the cuase of human freedom than they did? My object is to enlarge, not to circumscribe freedom. The action of freemen should not have limits prescribed for it, and, for the most part, I believe that nothing should be done calcula ted to cast restrictions upon it.

A motion was then made by Mr. FLEMING to strike out the report of the committee, and insert in lieu thereof the following, viz:

66

Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be propo sed in the senate or house of representatives; and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed 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 two-thirds 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 leg. islature shall precribe; 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 amend ments shall become part of the constitution."

The CHAIR said, that as the gentleman from Lycoming had offered his proposition as an amendment to the report of the committee, and not as an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) it could not be received at this time.

The question then recurring on the amendment ;

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, said, I wish to notice the remarks of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) who has applied the argu mentum ad hominem to me. I will endeavour, in return, to apply it to

him.

I have said that the legislature will not take up amendments for con sideration, unless such propositions were worthy of being considered. Now, I will endeavour to prove, by application to the gentleman himself-that bodies of this kind are more apt to refuse to consider that which is worthy, than to trouble themselves with considering that which is not worthy. The other day when a certain committee was appointed to report about the amendments, and to prepare them for a third reading, I offered an amendment giving the committee the power to correct the phraseology. The house, by au overwhelming vote, refused to consider the proposition; and only a very short time afterwards, the committee, finding that they were not invested with sufficient power, came into the convention and asked us to give them that very thing.