Again ;-Has not the gentleman reasoned here, hour after hour, of the congregated wisdom of the people of the commonwealth assembled in the legislature? Has he not voted and adhered here to the principle of investing the legislature with a kind of omnipotent power to pass laws affecting the rights of the people, without submitting them to the people, and without a probability existing that the people can change them in a thousand years to come? And yet now he says that it is not proper to trust the legislature simply to make a proposition to the people to adopt a new provision in their fundamental law, which new provision the people are to have the power to change within two years afterwards, if they should choose to do so. The gentleman has been an advocate (so also has the delegate from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) of power being given to the legislature to close up your rivers for the use of any canal company to which a charter may be granted, to take rivers which nature has made for the use of all mankind, and to give to a corporation the exclusice power to hold them; and he has declared, by his vote here, that no subsequent act of the people, however unanimous, can take away privileges thus given. The gentleman has told us that it is safe to trust in the hands of the legislature all this vast power, and yet he declares his opinion to be that it is not safe to trust that body with the power simply to make a proposition for a law; which law, as I have said, may be repealed at any future time. There is an inconsistency in this, which I do not know how to account for or to reconcile. So also it is with other gentlemen. And I ask the democratic gentleman from the county of Fayette (Mr. Fuller) whether he did not vote yesterday to cut us off from the further consideration of the bill of rights, before we had put into that bill any provision by which the legislature should be prohibited from creating a debt of one hundred millions of dollars? I ask him if he did not vote to cut us off from the further consideration of the bill of rights, before a chance was given to me to move the provision which I wished to move, prohibiting the legislature from granting exclusive and monopolising privileges?

The CHAIR (Mr. Sterigere, pro tempore) here interfered, and said that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia must confine himself to the question before the convention. The course of his observations was

not strictly within the rules of order.

Mr. EARLE resumed.

Nothing can be further from my intention than wantonly to violate the rules of order in this convention. I think, however, that the Chair must perceive that I am not transgressing the rules in the remarks I am making. And for this reason. Gentlemen say that, in allowing the legislature to originate amendments to the constitution, we are conferring a dangerous power upon that body. In answer to this, I undertake to shew that that power, if bestowed, is not a thousandth part as dangerous or unsafe as the power which they have already voted to give to the legislature. Surely it is in order for me to do so. Your legislature is to have power to charter a company like the Camden and Amboy rail road company, and to make a contract with them that no other charter shall be granted to carry on the progress of internal improvement through that region of country; and gentlemen here register their solemn opinion hat such a charter is irrepealable, and yet they refuse to the legislature

the comparatively small power involved in the proposition to suffer the legislature, of their own action, to submit amendmends to the approba tion or rejection of the people. They talk about demagogues. I do not know what demagogues are, unless it be men who say that at one time you must trust every thing to the legislature and nothing to the people, and at another time that you must trust every thing to the people, and nothing to the legislature. I say if these are not demagogues, I do not know what manner of men they are.

1

The gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Chambers) has been pleased to tax some of the members of the convention with having introduced frivolous and vexatious amendments. Even admitting his position in this particular to be correct, it has in point of fact nothing at all to do with the argument which I advanced. What was my argument? I said that, if any young member, any ambitious member, or any demagogue, was disposed to harass the legislature with unreasonable propositions for amending the constitution, the legislature might refuse to consider them. And what does the gentleman from Franklin say to this? He says that this convention has been compelled to listen to propositions, some of which have been of a frivolous and vexatious character. And does not the gentleman know, that although this convention must of necessity listen to propositions for amendments to the constitution, yet that the legislature may positively refuse to listen to any thing of the kind. They may reject the matter in toto, and it will be impossible, therefore, for any member to take up the time of the legislature, except it may be with a few preliminary observations. But as to the attack which has been made upon certain members of this convention, that they have consumed time unnecessarily and wantonly in the discussion of frivolous and vexatious amendments, I deny that there is any foundation for it. I say deny it. If there has been any fault in this convention-and I believe that there has been, it has been the fault of rufusing to listen to propositions which gentlemen have brought forward for the purpose of representing the views of their constituents. And it is no argument to say that these propositions have been rejected-some of them, probably, almost as soon as offered. You have no right to cast censure upon those propositions which are rejected, any more than upon those which are adopted; and it may be found, at some future day, that it would have been better and more conducive to the interests and the welfare of the people of this commonwealth, if this convention had adopted some of those propositions which have been rejected, rather than those which have been adopted. When the time of this body was cousumed in the discussion of political questions having no sort of connexion with the purposes for which we have assembled-questions affecting the policy and prospects of Martin Van Buren and Daniel Webster; did the gentleman from Franklin then think proper to interfere? I recollect only one frivolous amendment which has been offered here, and which the gentleman himself advocated; that is to say, a proposition to prevent the members of this convention from holding office under the amended constitution.

We have been told that if we do not require the signatures of one twentieth of the voters to petitions asking for amendments, before the legislature is allowed to enter upon the consideration of them, you give scope to young ambitious politicians, and to demagogues. Where, let

;

me ask, would the demagogues and the young ambitions politicians flourish, if not in getting up these petitions? Where can you find a more advantageous field for their action? Where is the place in which these demagogues are to agitate and disturb the people in the manner spoken of by the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr Chandler)? The place will be among the people themselves; and if you want to have the state and the people disturbed by things which ought not to disturb them, you can not acccomplish the purpose better than by adopting the very amendment proposed by the gentleman from Union, requiring the assent of one-twentieth of the voters, before the amendment shall be considered by the legislature. The aspiring politician, the demagogue, will push the plan year after year-not suffering the people to rest upon it, and, probably, in the course of time he will get up the names of one-twentieth of the voters; and thus the legislature will be bound to submit the amendment to the people when probably it ought not to be submitted. This will be the effect of the amendment of the gentleman from Union and I do not believe, therefore, that the mode here pointed out is by any means the best which can be adopted. I believe that it will be better to leave it to the wisdom of the people, assembled by their representatives, to discuss the matter, before a subject is proposed to the people. Let all such propositions originate with the legislature, and let them there, in the first instance, be fairly discussed, if they should be considered entitled to discussion. By this means you will have both sides of the argument. The matter, whatever it may be, will be published to the people, and the people will act understandingly upon it. But if they hear only one side, as they are likely to do under the amendment before us, those who sign the petitions will feel themselves committed to the measure without having heard both sides of the argument. Did not the gentlemen from Fayette (Mr. Fuller)-and I come now to apply the argumentum ad hominem to him--did not that gentleman, I ask, think that the legislature ought to have passed the law providing for the call of this convention, one year sooner than they did? and yet it is notorious that a year before, there was not one-third of the number of petitioners required by the amendment of the gentleman from Union; and that, immediately before the law was passed, there was only one-half of the number that he now considers requisite.

What is the provision in the constitution of the United States in re lation to amendments? The fifth article declares that "the congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution; or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress."

Thus, continued Mr. E., we perceive that under this provision amendments may be incorporated into the constitution of the United States without having been submitted to the people.

You can frequently get up the names of more petitioners when the

VOL. XI.

object in view is not good, than when it is; because you can procure the services of more active men to answer some political end. We have had more petitions against the school law than ever were presented on any other subject; and I venture to assert, that if a man would bring forward a petition for the disfranchisement of some particular sect, a few bigotted men could get up the names of ten thousond signers in favor of the object of that petition. To be sure, the other one hundred and ninety thousand of the voters of the commonwealth would, in the end, overrule this portion. I do not believe that the people, as a body, are bigotted, but a portion of the people are always so; and when you have got up this number of petitioners, the legislature will feel themselves bound to consider the proposition for amendment, and to discuss it, whatever its nature or character may be; for here you make it their imperative duty to do so.

I believe, as I have said, that the much wiser way will be to leave the matter to the legislature; let it be discussed in both houses, and let the discussion go fairly and fully before the people.

The gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Chambers) among other things of rather an extraordinary nature which characterized his observations, has intimated that my colleague from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. Brown) had been inconsistent in his course here, because at one time he had used his efforts to restrict the power of the legislature; whereas, in the present instance, he was willing to let then go on and have the whole power in their own hands. It never has been the desire of my colleague that the legislature should possess the power to form a constitution, of themselves; but only that they should have the power to act upon the constitution from time to time as necessity might arise-to suggest amendments to the people, and leaving to the people the power to pass upon the fact whether the constitution shall, or shall not be changed in the particular feature proposed. This is the utmost extent of power for which my colleague has contended.

The gentleman from the city of Philadelphia (Mr. Chandler) has taken up the argument in reference to the neighbouring state of New Jersey, and has said that she was a small state with a well-administered government, and that though the legislature could propose amendments to the people, yet that changes were not improperly made in that constitution. This he attributes to the fact that New Jersey is a small state. What a discovery we have here! Who ever before heard that it was more difficult to get up agitation in a state extending over a small territory, than in a state covering a larger extent of territory? This is a new doctrine to me, and it is not correct in point of fact. It is, on the contrary, more easy to get up an agitation over a small than a larger extent of territory, and it is more easy to bring about changes in the form of government. And yet no alterations of any consequence have been made in the constitution of the state of New Jersey since the time of the revolution. There have been, it is true, a few but slight changes. Again, as to the number of petitioners, what has been our own experiThis convention decided in committee of the whole at Harrisburg, that the word "white" freemen should not be inserted in the third article of the constitution. Well, what followed? We came to the city of Philadelphia, and we received some petitions praying that the right

ence?

of suffrage might be limited to "white" freemen; and gentlemen there said, no doubt conscientiously, that they were convinced that the people of the commonwealth required that this change should be made. Requir ed, how? By the voice of ten thousand petitioners? Not at all. Did we get ten thousand petitioners? Nothing like it. We had only about fifteen hundre. We had nothing like a twentieth part of the taxable population even in Montgomery and Bucks; in which counties, as we know, that question was most agitated. When we look at these things, do we not at once perceive that every individual who has his own private interests to attend to-finding himself called upon to take money out of his pocket to print a petition, and to give a portion of his time to procure signatures to it; do we not perceive that he will be inclined lightly to make such sacrifices? I do not believe that the gentlemen from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) or the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) could ever have got up any thing like the number of one-twentieth of the voters, even for a convention to change the constitution of 1790. The state of New York found it necessary to make some alterations in relation to the salt tax, and some alterations having reference to the city of New York. The city of New York was secured in certain corporate privileges, amendments to the constitution. They had not to go and secure the names of one-twentieth of the citizens to a petition for these objects. It would have been unreasonable, and such a proposition never would have been adopted. Now, all that I ask is that if the legislature of Pennsylvania should hereafter find that the shoe pinches in any of the amendments which we may make, they shall do as the legislature of the state of New York did unanimously, recommend certain alterations, without being put to the necessity of sending persons round among the citizens to secure the names of any number of petitioners. Mr. MERRILL, of Union, said that, before the question was taken, he would say a word in reply to some of the objections which had been raised against his amendment. The gentleman from Susquehanna (Mr. Read) seems to be of opinion that there will be some difficulty in ascer taining the number of the voters. I do not see, continued Mr. M, how there can be. I propose that the petitions should be signed by onetwentieth of those who voted at the next preceding governor's election; the votes are deposited in the office of the secretary of state, and it would, therefore, be an easy matter to procure the requisite information.

As to the appeal made to me by the gentleman from Mifflin, (Mr. Banks) I have only to say, in reply, that I am ready at any moment to meet my constituents, and to give an account of my stewardship here. I have no fears upon the subject. I hope the gentleman is himself equally well prepared to adjust accounts with those whom he represents in this body.

The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. Earle) has replied in a tolerably fair way to my argument, although in some respects I do not think he has treated it with perfect candour. It was the first time that I have ever addressed any remarks to the course of argument of gentlemen here, and I hope it will be the last.

One word as to the power which I would give to the legislature. Those who are acquainted with the course I have marked out for myself, as evinced here and elsewhere, are well aware of the fact that I have