And I have no doubt that the people will prefer that their amendments should come through the legislature, from time, to time as necessity may dictate, and in such manner that they may vote for it singly and alone. If they should be in want of amendments, they will consider that as the best mode of obtaining them; not to wait twenty, thirty, or fifty years, with amendments all the time accumulating upon them, at last to be submitted to a convention. I repeat my conviction that this will be one of the most popular amendments which we shall adopt. Why should we adopt this two-thirds principle? Why should the opinion of one member from the county of Philadelphia, for instance, be considered to weigh as much as the opinions of two other members from a different part of the state? Where is the necessity for the adoption of such a principle here? There is none. And if there is none, by what course of reasoning shall we justify its adoption? It is a fundamental rule-it is a principle lying at the very root of all republican government, that the majority ought to govern; and to say, therefore, that a majority of two-thirds shall be required, is to demand that which is in direct violation of the principles which we profess. Mr. President, I am here to adopt amendments to the constitution, according to the best lights which we have before us. I am anxious to do that, and that only, which, according to my best judgment, will promote the welfare and the best interests of the people. Suppose that the legislature which authorized the call of this convention, had required that no amendment should be made to this constitution, unless upon a vote of two-thirds. Who would have entertained such a proposition? And what right have we to say, that the votes of two-thirds of the legislature shall be required? Sir, this question of amendment is one which a majority of the legislature ought to determine at all times— leaving it to the people to say, whether the action of that majority is right or wrong. And I shall give my vote accordingly. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said he regretted that the gentleman from Lycoming, who had prepared the amendment, was not now in his seat. I regret it, continued Mr. D., because I think that if he were here, he would, notwithstanding the animadversions of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'Dowell) lay just claim to as much democracy as either of those gentlemen can boast of; and I believe further that he would undertake to prove the true democracy of the provision he has offered. Mr. M'DOWELL asked leave to explain. He had said that the doctrine set forth in this amendment was anti-federal and anti-republican; but he did not say that it was anti democratic Mr. DICKEY resumed. I hope the members of the convention will bear in mind the fact, that this amendment now before us comes from the constitution of the state of New York-that it was framed by the democracy of that state, having the sanction of the distinguished gentleman who now fills the presidential chair of this Union-the father of the democracy of the present day. It should not be denounced, therefore, as anti-democratic and anti-republi can. Few federalists, if any, were in the convention which framed that con stitution, and the opinion on the subject of reform was almost unanimous. How was it then-I ask the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown)—how was it that the empire state, by a convention in which such men as the President of the United States sat as members, adopted this provision? How could it have been adopted by them if it was antidemocratic or anti-republican? He would ask the gentleman if he would go so far as to control the action of the majority of the people, by the insertion of a provision of this kind? He would say, why not leave it at the option of a majority of the people to call a convention when they deemed one to be necessary? Where did the delegate get authority to say that it was antidemocratic to pass anything by a vote of two-thirds? It was easy enough to see why the legislature of New York required two-thirds to sanction the submitting of amendments to the people. We all know that the most common law cannot be passed without the sanction of the executive, unless by a vote of two-thirds of each branch of the legislature : for the governor can negative the action of a majority of either house, or of both houses. But, a vote of two-thirds, according to the argument of the gentleman from Bucks (Mr. M'Dowell) and that of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) was anti-democratic. In the proposed amendment, the assent of the governor was not required to the amendments to be submitted to the people. Hence the approval of two-thirds of the second legislature was necessary before they could be submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection. Mr. D. argued that the doctrine contended for by the gentlemen from the county of Philadelphia and the gentleman from Bucks, was entirely erroneous, and that every act of the legislature must receive the signature of the governor before it becomes a law. He trusted he had shown that the veto power was not anti democratic. He doubted whether under the constitution of 1790, the action of the legislature was necessary to bring this convention together. He believed that the people could have convened it without the legislature acting in reference to it. And they should be left free to do so for the future. Among other objects of the veto power, it was to prevent the adoption of crude and hasty legislation, and also to protect the people from being troubled with demagogues, and amendinents proposed by them, which they do not care one straw about, and do not want. We have had some as bright specimens of radicalism from the county of Philadelphia since May last, as ever came from among a free people. If we consulted our records, we should find that more wild propositions have emanated from the county of Philadelphia than from all the rest of the state; and the delegation from that county have consumed more of the time of the convention with wild projects not approved of by the county, and long speeches, than all the rest of the convention, and thus occasioned a vast expense to the commonwealth. And the delegate from the county, (Mr. Brown) who last addressed the convention, had gone far beyond any other member, and yet had not the boldness to pronounce the veto power anti-democratic. Mr. D. hoped that the amendinent of the delegate from Lycoming would be adopted. Mr. BROWN replied that we could not exactly characterize expressions and language that might be used in this body in the same manner within these walls, as without them. He, therefore, could not comment here on what had fallen from the gentleman from Beaver, as might be done elsewhere. However, if the delegate would turn to the records he would find that so far as he (Mr. B.) was concerned, that he had not offered six amendments since he had been a member of this convention, and he was free to say that he was ashamed of none of them, and not one hour had been consumed in debating any of them. How many hours, he would like to know, had been spent in debating propositions offered by the delegate Beaver; propositions, too, that were only calculated to disgrace the body. As to whether his (Mr B's.) proposed amendments had been approved by the citizens of the county of Philadelphia, the gentleman from Beaver was at liberty to ask them. Now, whether his (Mr. B's.) amendments were radical or not, or approved of by the convention, was to be ascertained by inspecting the journal. When up before, he had spoken of the two-thirds principle as being anti-democratic, and he might have said then as he did now, that it was taken from the constitutions of many of the southern, western, and other states, viz: South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Delaware, New York and Michigan. He believed that the same provision as we are now about to put in the constitution of Pennsylvania, was to be found in all those constitutions, and some others. He cared not whether this kind of democracy came from New York or elsewhere, it did not accord with Pennsylvania notions of democracy. He, therefore, could not give his assent to any such principle as was proposed. He trusted that the amendment would be rejected. Mr. CHAMBERS, of Franklin, said that he had advocated and voted for amendments which had been submitted by gentlemen without inquiring whether they were democratic, federal, or republican. He had voted for them without considering from what side of the convention they came. It had happened that he had frequently voted for those which had been offered by his opponents, and against those of his political friends. With regard to the amendment of the gentleman from Lycoming, (Mr. Flem ing) he would remark that it recommended itself to his attention. It was one of a highly important character, and well deserved the consideration of the convention. The proposition to introduce an article into the constitution providing the mode and manner in which future amendments shall be made to the constitution, was certainly entitled to the most serious attention and deliberation. He trusted, therefore, that we would not act hastily on the subject. Although he had been elected to this body as a conservative, and he considered himself one, still he had enteriained the opinion that amend ments might be made to the constitution, which would be improvements, and he had voted for them. There had been many amendments, however, proposed, which he could not vote for. He was for having the amendments adopted, whether they met his approbation or not, put in the most acceptable form. With regard to the proposition then pending, providing for the making of future amendments to the constitution, he would say that although it might not be exactly what he could desire, he should be satisfied with getting it put into the best shape he could. He was disposed to vote for such amendments as he thought would meet the approval of the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He entertained the opinion that the people would reject the amendments which might be adopted by this convention. But, whether they did or not, they, at least, should be put in such form as would make them unexceptionable, as respected phraseology and the grammatical construction of the sentences. Believing that the amendment of the gentleman from Lycoming was an improvement upon the report of the committee, therefore, he was in favor of it. What, he asked, was the objection to it? Why, we had been told by the gentleman from Bucks (Mr. M'Dowell) that we were requiring too much, when we asked that two-thirds of the people should express their opinion in favor of a change of the form of government, before their petition should be entertained. This, however, was not the object in view; two thirds of the legislature and not of the people, were required to effect a reform or change in the constitution. It was an entire mistake to confound the representatives of the people with the people themselves. He would repeat that the argument of the gentleman from Bucks was founded upon a wrong assumption-that the legislative assembly was the people themselves. The legislature of the commonwealth is a limited department of the government. It possessed certain delegated, limited powers, and was to be distinguished from the people. While he was free to admit that it was competent for a majority of the people to change the form of their government as they might think proper, yet it was a very different thing to allow a majority of their representatives to effect that object. If the people of the com.nonwealth should say that their representatives should provide for future amendments to the constitution, provided that there shall be two-thirds of the people in favor of such a measure-why, that was a totally different thing. But, we had been told that this was an anti-democratic and antirepublican course of proceeding. What, he desired to inquire, had been the experience, and what the opinion of communities on this subject. Was the government of the United States anti-federal, anti-democratic and anti-republican? Why, in one of the provisions of the constitution of the United States, it was provided that amendments to that constitution must be first proposed by two-thirds of the congress of the United States, and afterwards passed upon by three-fourths of the legistures of the several states. Here was a similar principle, showing, that if the public will was in favor of making amendments to the constitution, by a vote of two-thirds, they should be made. We had been told that a like provision was to be found only in the constitutions of the states of New York and Michigan. Let us examine and see what had been the opinion and action of the people of those states who had revised their constitutions. The principle, as contained in the constitntion of New York, was incorporated in the amendment of the gentleman from Lycomicg. The people of Tennessee had, within a few years past, revised the constitution of that state; which now provides that all amendments which may be hereafter proposed, shall be published for six months before being acted on. And, that, after the constitution shall have been amended, no further amendments shall be made thereto under six years thereafter. The state of Connecticut-a northern statehad also revised her constitution within the last few years. That instru. VOL. XII. ment contained a provision that if a majority of the house of representasives should deem it necessary to alter or amend the constitution, the alterations or amendments should be laid before the next legislature, and if approved by two-thirds of each house, the amendments should be pubfished, and if they met the approbation of the majority of the people, they should be adopted Massachusetts, too, had revised her constitution, and what had she done in reference to making future amendments to her constitution? Why, a provision was there inserted, making it necessary that a majority of one legislature, should, in the first instance, be in favor of amending the constitution, and that the next legislature should give a vote of two-thirds in concurrence of that object, and that the question should then be submitted to the people. Under the constitution of Ohio, it was provided that, although two-thirds of the legislature might be of the opinion that the constitution should be amended, yet that they should direct the electors to vote for or against amending it. In the constitutions, also, of Michigan and Arkansas, was to be found the same principle. The constitution of the state of Arkansas requires that the amendments shall, in the fist place, be adopted by a vote of two-thirds of each house of the legislature-then that they shall be printed during the space of twelve months-then to be ratified by two-thirds of both houses of the next legislature. Those western and northern states which have had their constitutions revised within a few years past, have adopted a principle in terms nearly tantamount to the proposition of the gentleman from Lycoming; nay, even going beyond that, in some instances, and requiring a vote of twothirds of the legislature that first give their sanction to the amendments. This principle is not anti-republigan-it is not anti-democratic-it is not anti-federal. It does not deserve any of the disparaging epithets which some gentleman on this floor have thought proper to bestow upon it. We who are in favor of it, say that it is a constitutional principle recommended to us by the opinion of those distinguished men who framed the constitution of the United States-recommended to us by the statesmen of all parties, who have lent their aid to revise the constitution of the states to which I have referred. It is a principle which gives sta bility to our government; it is a principle which goes to prevent the people from being unnecessarily harassed to vote upon questions affect ing the fundamental law of the land. The great body of the people of Pennsylvania are not politicians by trade; they do not like to be brought to the polls except it be for some important purpose. And I, for one, am unwilling that our citizens should be harassed and brought out to the polls, without there being, at all events, such an expression of popular sentiment, rendered through the medium of two-thirds of the legislature, as will shew that there is some reasonable occasion why they should be called upon to vote. Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, said, I had indulged the hope, Mr. President. that the time had gone by when so much heat, so much party spirit, and so much unfriendly feeling would be manifested in this convention. I find, however, that the hope was delusive-that it has been all in vain. I find that when we come to act upon a matter which all of us must acknowledge to be of the utmost importance, we are rated soundly for |