in the ballot box, were against it, yet he thought that it was a fair inference that the 40,000 who voted for Governor, but did not vote on this question, were indifferent. And, it was fairly presumable, that if they had voted, there would have been 13,000 majority for amending the Constitution.

Gentlemen had argued, as if it necessarily followed, that because 40,000 persons did not vote for or against a Convention, who did vote for the election of Governor, that they would have voted against calling a Convention, had they voted at all. If that principle were carried out with regard to the election of President of the United States, or of Governor of Pennsylvania, how would it result? If those who did not vote for RITNER were to be counted against him, then JOSEPH RITNER was not legitimately Governor of Pennsylvania. There was no other mode of ascertaining the sense of the people, than by an appeal to the ballot boxesthan by the votes which were there deposited. The voice of the people could only be known, pro or con, by their votes. Then, there was a most decided majority given for calling a Convention-whether large or small, no matter. The people of Pennsylvania had decided, not that the Constitution should be amended, he admitted, but they had decided -and that decision was binding upon us-that we should submit amendments to the Constitution for their consideration.

He had something to say in relation to the act of Assembly, which gentlemen had brought to bear upon this subject. The Legislature, in its grace and favor, told us- "You, the Convention of the people, shall have the power, when assembled, to submit your doings to the people, in part, or as a whole".

He had reflected much on the subject, and had come to the conclusion that the Convention could not submit the amendments to the people in any other way, than en masse. A moment's reflection would satisfy every one of the reason why. He granted that the Convention might make ten, twenty, or thirty amendments, in the form of amendments, to the old Constitution, and if they were all submitted separately, and a vote taken upon each, and if they confirmed them all, or negatived them all, we should then have a perfect instrument. But, let gentlemen reflect, what would be our situation, supposing that the amendments were submitted separately, and a part of them should be approved, and a part rejected? Why, then, we should have a part of a Constitution only, to supersede the old one, and it would be an imperfect instrument.

He thought, then, it would be apparent at once, that such difficulties would occur from the adoption of that course, as it would render it absolutely necessary that the amendment should be submitted as a whole. The only question which they had to decide was-whether they would take the old Constitution as it is, or a new one. Then, what, he enquired, became of the gentleman's (Mr. MERRILL's) niceties--his distinctions about a new Constitution, an amended Constitution, and amendments to the Constitution? Why, they all went for nothing.

On motion of Mr. SERGEANT, the committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1837.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a memorial of the Democratic Anti-Masonic Convention, assembled in Harrisburg, praying the Convention to provide in the Constitution for the abolition of secret societies, which was read, and refered to the special committee, to whom that subject had been committed.

Mr. TAGGART, of Lycoming, presented a petition from citizens of Clearfield county, praying that the appointment of certain civil and judicial officers, should be taken from the Governor, and that they should be elected by the people, which was laid on the table.

Mr. COPE, of Philadelphia, from the committee of accounts, made a report, which was read a first and second time, and agreed to.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, offered the following resolution, which was read a first and second time:

Resolved, That on Monday next, and daily thereafter, until otherwise ordered, the Convention will hold afternoon sessions, and meet each day at half past three o'clock, P. M., for that purpose; and that the Convention will regularly adjourn its morning sessions at one o'clock, P. M.

The question being on agreeing to the resolution,

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend, by striking out the words "half past three", and inserting the word "seven". The motion, however, was immediately withdrawn.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, did not think the Convention would gain any thing by afternoon sessions. The business they were sent here to perform, required much deliberation; and time and attention were necessary to enable them to act understandingly. They were in the practice of meeting early in the morning, and sitting till dinner time; much correspondence and other public business was on their hands; and this and all their private affairs had to be disposed of after 3 o'clock. He hoped the resolution would not be agreed to.

Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, was in favor of the resolution, notwithstanding the objections of the gentleman from Chester. They could not be better employed than in listening to speeches, calculated to throw light on the subjects on which they were engaged. A debate, which seemed to be almost interminable, on a single proposition, had occupied all this week. Either this discussion must have been profitable to gentlemen, or it was an useless waste of time. The afternoons might be very well devoted to these discussions. Half the session had elapsed, and they had not yet touched the business for which they had been sent. He hoped they should meet twice a day.

Mr. RUSSELL, of Bedford, moved to amend the resolution, by adding the words "and that the Convention will regularly adjourn its morning sessions at one o'clock".

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia, believing that no good effect would be produced by meeting after dinner, moved the postponement of the resolu tion. The committees had not yet reported, and it was their practice to meet in the afternoon to mature business for the Convention.

Mr. MANN replied, that he was not aware that there would be any business before the committees after the present week, and asked for the ayes and noes on the question of postponement.

Mr. HIESTER stated that the greater part of the committees had already reported, and probably the whole of them would have reported during this week. He did not know how long gentlemen intended to sit. He thought, when he came here, that the Convention would be able to get through the business in two or three months, but, from the course of debate which had been commenced, and to which he would not be understood as making any objection, as he derived much instruction from the discussion, unless they should meet in the afternoon, it might be six months, or twelve months, before they would get through. He thought two hours might be profitably devoted in the afternoon.

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, considered his colleague and the gentleman from Montgomery, as having given sufficient reasons for the postponement of the resolution. They had both stated that the standing committees had not yet reported. He knew himself that one of the committees had not yet had time to report. The resolution ought to be postponed until after the reports of the committees had come in. Afterwards, it might, with more propriety, be brought forward, and if it was then deemed expedient to adopt it, that objection would be removed.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia: The reason given for postponement was that the committees which had the various articles of the Constitution refered to them almost three weeks ago, to report merely amendments, had not yet done so. If a committee of nine, had not been able to agree in three weeks on amendments to an article, how long would it take 133 members to agree on all the amendments? That was a sum for his friend over the way. The judiciary question, fixed for Monday next, would occupy all the week, and the other reports would take three or four weeks afterwards. The committees, who had not reported might sit in the evening.

Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, rose to express a hope that the resolution would be postponed The gentleman on the other side had set the Convention a sum in the rule of three, which would in due time be worked out, if his friend from Bucks (Mr. M'DowELL) did not take it in hand. It was a bad argument, that because a committee had not reported in three weeks, it would not report in four. He knew of one committee which was not yet prepared to report.

Mr. EARLE: It will before Monday.

Mr. CHANDLER did not think it would. It was intimated that while the judiciary question was under discussion, the committees might go out. Was an important discussion to go on, and were the committees to be sent out, during its progress? He wished to be present, and to hear the discussion. For fifteen years, he had heard this question mooted, and he was yet at a loss as to the best course to be adopted, and he desired that the committee to which he belonged might not be sent out of the room. The committee was not yet prepared to report, and would not be ready by Monday, or Tuesday, nor, perhaps, by Wednesday. When it was prepared and had reported, the members would be permitted to sit here and listen to the gentlemen on the other side, and some might be well pleased to listen. The gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. INGERSOLL) had brought with him from home a mass of references, but he (Mr. C.) would like to look into these authorities, to see for himself, and not take on credence what had fallen from the gentleman-for although that gentleman

always deserved credence for his facts, it would not always be conceded to his opinions and, for himself, he would like to look into the fathers of the political church, and judge how far they sustained the gentleman. Considering the amount of labor to be done, and the necessity for intervals of refreshment for themselves, and those engaged in their service, he hoped the resolution would be postponed.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, hoped the resolution would be postponed.He knew there were some modest gentlemen, who were tired of the discussion on the fourth article. But that discussion had grown up and expanded, because there appeared to be no opposition to it-because there was none. The gentleman who had discussed it, took the liberty of traveling all round the world, and giving the Convention a dissertation on matters and things in general. But they would not do this when the main questions came to be debated. They who complained that this discussion was too long would not complain when they should come to subjects, on which there would be opposition. The present debate would soon come to a conclusion. He hoped this resolution would be postponed. Morning was the best time for discussion, He objected to meeting in the afternoon. Who ever had been in a legislative body knew the inutility of meeting for deliberation and discussion, after eating a hearty dinner.Members might as well speak to the wall in the afternoon. If there was any deliberative body which ought to discuss the subjects before it, and to weigh well every word, it was this Convention. It ought to do well what it has to do, since it is not so very much. There was an old and a trite maxim which gentlemen would do well to bear in mind. "If you do a thing well, no one will ask how long you have been doing it". He would like to be able to render to his constituents a good account of his time and labor, and to shew them good reasons for spending so much time here. He would be willing to lengthen the morning session, and to set until two or three o'clock, he could go without his dinner as long as any gentleman could, but he should oppose afternoon sessions to the end of his life. He was still more against sitting in the evening. Who ever had seen an evening session, had seen a burlesque on legislation. The resolution as it had been modified, was worse than in its original form. It compelled the Convention to rise precisely at one oclock, although it might be in the middle of a speech, or just as the ayes and noes were about to be called. He hoped gentlemen would be satisfied with the morning, and make that morning as long as they pleased. But he was unwilling to sit in the afternoon at all. The health of members ought to be some consideration. They were coming to the warm weather of summer, and they would not consult their health if they were to sit here, during those hours which they ought to devote to exercise. It would be absolutely necessary to health, to take exercise. Some could not live without it, and others would wish to employ the afternoons in reading, for a good deal of reading was necessary to enable them to perform their duty as it ought to be performed.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said, there seemed to be a feeling against the length of the speeches which had been delivered, and the wide range they had taken. He had listened to those speeches with as much delight as benefit, and he wished for time to enable him sedulousy to apply himself to the business which would come up for consideration. One of the most

momentous subjects which would agitate this body, would come up on Monday next. On that day the discussion would begin, but when it would end no man could tell. More solid food would then be administered to gentlemen than that with which they had heretofore been fed. New points would be submitted, which would require reading, deliberation, and discussion. There was an old adage which might not inaptly be applied" more haste, worse speed". If the Convention were to meet in the afternoon, it would spend its time to no purpose; the work would be ill done, and gentlemen might fall unhappily into a ridiculous position before the public eye. Instead of saving time, time would be lost.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, would vote in favor of afternoon sessions, and against postponement for a different reason from any which had been yet assigned. He desired to give those, who wished it, an opportunity of trying the experiment, as experience would only teach them what these after dinner sittings were. After a week's trial, he believed no one would be disposed to continue them.

Mr. SHELLITO, of Crawford, suggested that it would be well to reconsider the resolution giving them so many newspapers, which it occupied all his time to address to his contituents. So much time was taken up in sending away these papers, that he could not find any leisure to listen to the speeches, and he wished to understand what he was doing.

Mr. MANN said it might be better to let the resolution remain in the form in which it was originally offered. He did not think it quite so judicious to fix the precise time for the adjournment of the morning session. He was sorry to hear remarks of a character calculated to detract from the high standing of this body. The fumes of digestion, he trusted, would not operate so as to prevent a proper attention to business. The days were long, and gentlemen would have sufficient time for reflection in the evenings.

Mr. CURLL, of Armstrong, expressed a hope that the question would be taken, and that this discussion would not be allowed to consume the whole day.

The question was then taken on the motion to postpone, and decided in the affirmative-ayes 68, noes 51, the vote being as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cope, Cox, Crain, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickey, Donnell, Doran, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Gamble, Grenell, Helffenstein, Hopkinson, Hyde, Konigmacher, Long, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Meredith, Merrill, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Read, Riter, Rogers, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Snively, Stevens, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, White, Sergeant, President-68.

NAYS-Messrs. Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Clapp, Coates, Cochran, Craig, Crum, Cummin, Darlington, Darrah, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Earle, Fuller, Gilmore, Hamlin, Harris, Hayhurst, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, High, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Magee, Mann, M'Call, M'Sherry, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Sellers, Scheetz, Sill, Smyth, Swetland, Taggart, Woodward---51.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, offered the following resolution, which