Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

off this repeated discussion and amendment of the same kind, by moving the previous question.

The amendment, in substance at least, now moved by the delegate from Chester, has been submitted on more than one, two, or three occasions, and as often rejected. If then, when such amendments were offered, he claimed the right which he might claim under the rules of the convention, of rising and cutting off useless discussion, and worse than useless amendments, which never could be productive of any good to the people of the commonwealth, and was sustained in the motion which he made by the necessary number of delegates, agreeably to the rules, he had a perfect right to do so, and it was no want of courtesy in any gentleman to exercise this right.

If a majority of this convention are in favor of hearing a discussion on this amendment, they will say so when the question is put upon ordering the main question, and they will refuse to order it; and in that case, he should be perfectly content with the decision, and sit and hear what is to be said upon it. But, on the other hand, if a majority of this body, like himself, were disposed to terminate this discussion, and cut off this amendment, they would sustain the previous question, and order the main question to be put. Then, if the majority of the convention do this, the delegate from Chester would have no right to complain of a want of courtesy on his part.

Mr. STERIGERE considered the motion made by the gentleman from Beaver, under all the circumstances of the case, an unprecedented outrage on all parliamentary proceedings and practice. He had never, in the whole course of his legislative experience, seen a similar outrage committed, and he would take this occasion to say, that gentlemanly courtesy was a part of the rules of this body, as well as of every other legislative body.

We, as well as the congress of the United States, have been likened to a bear garden, and if practices, such as we have seen here, on more than one occasion, prevail in this convention, we will much more merit the comparison, than the congress of the country. If every man is to scramble here for the floor, on particular occasions, like school boys after nuts, or like capitalists after some particular stocks, on the opening of the subscription books, and to exercise no courtesy towards each other, then older and more modest, and less active members of this body, will be entirely deprived of their rights, by the young, the active, and the more watchful members of the body.

He would ask the Chair and every other gentleman here, whether the universal practice had not been, when a member moved that the committee rise, that he should be entitled to the floor when the committee again met; and when the convention again went into committee, the chairman universally announced that gentleman as being entitled to the floor. Under the same practice and the same courtesy, the gentleman from Chester ought to have had the floor after his amendment was read. The gen tleman from Beaver, however, rose before the last word of the amendment was read, and moved the previous question, thereby depriving the gentleman from Chester of the floor, which he was entitled to by all courtesy, and by all parliamentary practice. He himself, had no desire to debate

this question now, and he had risen for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Chester to withdraw his amendment, and submit it at the end of the article, where he might have a direct vote upon it, even if the previous question were moved.

On strict technical grounds the President may be right, but I trust the convention will sustain the appeal.

Mr. DENNY said the decision of the Chair was correct, but this was. one of the occasions on which the previous question drew very tight.

Mr. BELL spoke in support of the appeal.

Mr. HOPKINSON said the question was not one of courtesy, but of fact. Was the gentleman from Beaver entitled to the floor when he moved the previous question? That was the question.

Mr. CHAMBERS briefly supported the decision of the President.

Mr. DICKEY again spoke in defence of the propriety of the course he had thought it his duty to pursue, and insisted that the call for the previous question, under all the circumstances of the case, was strictly in sccordance with all parliamentary rules.

Mr. KONIGMACHER, of Lancaster, moved that the convention adjourn. Lost.

Mr. EARLE said two or three words expressive of his opinion, that the question of appeal had been discussed long enough, and ought to be at once decided.

Mr. FORWARD opposed the appeal.

Mr. FLEMING warmly argued that the decision of the President was entirely erroneous-that a breach of courtesy, at least had been committed in calling the previous question, and that the appeal ought to be sustained.

Mr.PAYNE said that the gentleman from Lycoming, had trusted the question was one of courtesy, between the gentleman from Beaver, and the gentleman from Chester. But we should remember what courtesy was due to the President. The question was whether the president had decided correctly or not, according to parliamentary usage.

Mr. BROWN of the county, said he did not often ask courtesy from any gentleman. Those who will grant it, will do it without asking. He trusted that the appeal would be sustained. There were some rights and interests, out of the walls of this hall, and he trusted that we should not forget what was due to the people of Pennsylvania. He put it to every member of the convention, whether something must not be done by us on the subject of corporations? Shall we suffer the decision to go abroad, that nothing is to be done on that subject? Are we to be told that the corporation question is settled? We debated the subject of currency and politics, but have made no decision upon the question of corporations. Are we to be told that the corporation question is settled? that we have driven it from our forum, and that we will do nothing with it? He hoped not.

Mr. WOODWARD hoped, he said, that the appeal would be sustained. Mr. SCOTT expressed the opinion, that the previous question was in order, as the Chair just decided.

Mr. BANKS rose to ascertain one fact. If he understood the rules of order, it was the duty of the President to announce to the convention, every amendment after it was submitted, and read, and being now before the body for its action. He had no recollection that this had been done after the reading of this amendment, and he believed the gentleman from Beaver rose and interrupted the Chair, and prevented the Chair from making this anouncement. That being the case, he should vote to sustain the appeal.

Mr. SHELLITO would vote to sustain the appeal, because the universal custom had been to give a gentleman who offered an amendment, the floor, after it was read, to lay before the convention the reasons which induced him to offer it.

Mr. STERIGERE rose to say, when he characterized this proceeding as an outrage upon all parliamentary practices that he had no allusion to the President of the body, in that remark. What he meant was that the gentleman from Beaver had committed an outrage on parliamentary practice. Mr. DICKEY called the gentleman to order.

Mr. DONNELL inquired of the Chair whether he had announced the amendment after it was read by the secretary, and before the gentleman from Beaver rose.

The

The CHAIR said that he did not recollect whether he had or not. usual practice had been to announce amendments in this way: "the following amendment is moved and seconded," and in this way the amendment before the convention was announced.

Mr. WOODWARD recollected distinctly that the Chair had announced this amendment as just stated by the Chair.

The question was then taken, "Will the convention sustain the appeal?"

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DICKEY, and Mr. Cox, and were as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cummin, Donagan, Donnell, Fleming, Foulkrod, Mann, Miller, Read, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Sterigere-18.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Earle, Farrelly, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Payne, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively,,Stickel, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-91.

So the question was determined in the negative.
Mr. M'CAHEN moved an adjournment. Lost.

Mr. BELL withdrew his amendment for the present, giving notice that he would renew it in such a manner that it could not be cut off by the previous question.

The Convention then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1838.

Mr. FOULKROD, of Philadelphia county, presented two memorials from citizens of Philadelphia county, praying that measures may be taken effectually to prevent all amalgamation between the white and coloured population, in regard to the government of this state.

Which was laid on the table.

Mr. GAMBLE, of Lycoming, presented a memorial of like import, from citizens of Lycoming county.