tings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magar, Mann, Myers, Overfie'd, Porter, of Northompton, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Scheet, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White-47.

So the consideration of the said resolution, was indefitely post poned.

A motion was made by Mr. Mr. MEREDITH,

That the convention proceed to the second reading and consideration of the resolutions offered by him to-day, in the words following:

Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention, that contracts made on the faith a this commonwealth, are, and of right ought to be, inviolable.

Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention, that a charter duly granted by act of assembly, is, when accepted, a contract with the parties to whom the grant is made.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree to the motion?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. MANN, and Mr. REIGART, and are as follows, viz:

YEAS-MessSr. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark of Dauphin, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Cunningham, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester. Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Mackay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacka, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serril, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White-50.

So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. INGERSOLL asked that the question might be taken separately on the resolutions.

And the first of the said resolutions being under consideration,

Mr. INGERSOLL said, that he had risen simply for the purpose expressing a hope that the first resolution would receive the unanimous sanction of the convention. He should vote for it with all his heart; he could see no objection to it. There was something, however, in the second resolution, which did not meet his approbation.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia city, said that he had called up these resolutions for consideration at the present time, because, although he was happy to hear that the first of the two was likely to receive the unanimous vote of the convention, yet something had been said by members in various parts of the house, which, it seemed to him, made it necessary and expedient for this body, before it adjourned, to give the freemen of the commonwealth a view of the opinions here entertained, upon matters so vital to their interests.

I have heard, said Mr. M., this morning and on Saturday last, denunci ations against a portion of the members of this house, charging them

with shrinking from the investigation of a principle, which is agreed upon all hands to be of the deepest importance. I do not choose to follow the gentleman to the quarter from whence he has drawn his compari

sons.

The only reason for these denunciations, is, that we have not thought fit to vote for the appointment of a committee of five or seven members, to inquire into the validity of those principles upon which every man, before he came here, from the first moment in which he was entitled to the exercise of the right of opinion, by exercising the right of suffrage, had, or ought to have, made up his opinion. I desire to shew that I, for one, have no disposition to shrink from an investigation of the principles which have governed me, and which will continue to govern me, in relation to these matters. I desire it to be known that it is not in accordance with my wishes, my feelings, or my principles, that investigations should take place in the secrecy of a committee, in regard to matters which lie at the foundation of public morals. I ask for this investigation now, here in the face of all mankind, with the eyes of the people upon us--with the yeas and nays recorded, and let every gentleman come forward, as I have no doubt he will cheerfully do, and record his opinion here.

The resolutions I have made as perspicuous as I supposed they were susceptible of being made; and, while they lie at the root of the matter on which the parties in this body disagree, I trust they may be found to involve a final decision of the question.

The first declares, "that it is the sense of this convention, that contracts made on the faith of the commonwealth, are, and of right ought to be, inviolable." I do not suppose that there is a man here, who will be willing to record his vote against this proposition.

We all know that by the constitution of the United States, an instrument which is not amenable to our control, nor open to our recommendations, it is expressly prohibited to the states, to pass any laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

But, Mr. President, this will not satisfy me. I am unwilling that it should go forth as the voice of Pennsylvania, that it is under the constitution of the United States alone, that contracts are to be held sacred, at least by us. I regret to say, that we are too much in the habit of thinking that it is under this alone, that we hold this sacred principle. I deny it; sir, I deny it. I deny that the sanction of this principle is to be found in that, or in any other written constitution, alone. I claim it as a principle which lies at the foundation of public and private morals; and I claim it as a principle having a far higher sanction than can be given to any principle by an ordinance of men; and I say, therefore, that these contracts are not only inviolable under the constitution of the United States, but that of right they ought to be inviolable. And I ask, is there a gentleman here who will record his vote against this proposition? because, although it may be proper for those who have been hunting the freemen of this commonwealth from post to pillar, and from bush to thicket, to carry out their party views, and even to push them to extremities. now, when the people have risen in their might, to claim the rights which are their own, I would like to see the man, of whatever feelings, opinions, or party he may be, who will dread the result of those feelings and

Yet

opinions, if they heard him to say, that contracts ought not, of right, w be inviolable! A contract not of right inviolable, sir! To what a have we come!

a pass

But to what a pass had things come, when any body of men-sitting in the very heart of Pennsylvania-sitting here, could deliberate, solemny and gravely, whether agreements, public or private, are to be inviolate Whether they are to be sacred for the future-whether those legislative acts, authorizing contracts and engagements to be entered into, and which had made our state so prosperous, are to be, for the future, held is respect! He wished to shrink from no investigation on the subject. He wanted no committee to satisfy his mind about it. He believed that Do committee could be appointed but what would come to a conclusion favorable to recognizing all contracts. We have already heard that one legislature has a right to annul the acts of its predecessor. He desired that gentlemen would put their names on the record. And, in saying so, he begged not to be understood as speaking with warmth or in ill-temper. He did not mean to say that gentlemen would not hold the opinions they had expressed; but he wished the people of the con inonwealth to know these opinions. He entertained no doubt but ta the people would respect those great and important principles which lie at the foundation of their government. The second resolution was a corollary of the first, and he apprehended it would not meet with the same unanimity. From the expression of feeling that he had witnessed on this floor, he was led to suppose that there was something in it which might possibly not meet the gentleman's (Mr. Ingersoll) approbation He felt quite sure that if the gentleman saw the matter in the light which he (Mr. M.) did, he would support it--would yield his assent as cherr fully to that resolution, as to the first. He (Mr. M.) regretted this d ference of opinion between the gentleman and himself; but, while he did so, he had no desire to aggravate, by any remarks of his, that differ ence. But, it was the people to whom we must appeal. They mes decide the matter; and he was willing to stake what feeling he enter tained on the issue. He supposed, too, that every gentlemen prese was willing to do the same. If it was said that a contract is inviols ble, then the question would arise-what is a contract? If it was in undeniable truth that a contract is inviolable--that a solemn promise made by the legislature to certain parties, and accepted by them, andthey proceed to perform the duties, without any violation of the terms agre on, he was, then, entirely at a loss to see how such an agreement d not come within the meaning of the word "contract." He knew not what difference of opinion there might be among gentlemen as to the tera contract; nor did he know what distinction might be drawn between the constitution of the United States and that of the several states in regard to it. But when he looked to the consequences resulting from agreements, and the faith reposed in the party granting, he could not entertain a doubl that promises made and acted upon, were as binding on the legislature, under the great moral law of our nature, as on any other body or set of men whatever. An agreement or contract was equally as valid and bind ing-whether made by the house of representatives, senate and governor on one side and a poor man on the other, as it would be if made between two private individuals. These were his (Mr. M's.) views on the sub

ject, and respecting which he had no desire to provoke any debate. He hoped that a larger vote would be had in favor of inserting something in the schedule than there was on the resolution. He had been opposed to bringing up the question in the shape of a resolution, thinking that a clause in the schedule, similar to that in the constitution of 1790, might become necessary hereafter. But, the step which had been taken here in regard to the resolution just postponed, had satisfied his mind that this was a mere appeal to party feelings. The course which the debate had taken, was calculated to create an impression among the people, that a majority of the convention were in doubt on some one of these principles. The bare appointment of a committee ought to have induced us to wait until they had reported and made known their principles, and, no doubt, gentlemen would have made up their minds coolly and deliberately, instead of being kept, all the interval, in a state of feverish excitement, as we had been. It was now, however, too late to regret that the subject had been introduced. When the resolution was laid on the table, he had hoped it would be left there. But, as it had since been discussed, and various principles been advanced, he trusted that before we returned to He would ask our constituents, we would put the public mind at rest. whether, in regard to the two principles, there was any difference of opinion on the subject. He apprehended not. He thought that we should, at least, be able to say to the people, (whatever might be said in debatewhatever might be said in party animosity) that on great and sound principles, the majority hold such opinions as are calculated to allay all fears, and settle the public mind in reference to contracts. They believed all contracts to be inviolable, and that a contract made by the legislature of the state, in the form of the constitution, with a body of individuals, or a And, the day single individual, is as inviolable as in any other form. when these principles shall be denied, the brightest jewel will have been torn from the crown of Pennsylvania-her brightest honor will have faded -when the time shall come that she can no longer point, with pride, to the maintenance of public order and public justice-to her unshaken fidelity to public engagements-to her great principles of public morals, which lie at the root, any government must become worthless and be destroyed. He knew that the time was far distant in this commonwealth; but he could wish that many of the delegates charged with the duty of reforming the constitution, held the same sound opinions as are held by the great mass of the community, and which, too, they would continue to hold.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, said, he presumed with his colleague on the right, that all the members of this convention would subscribe to the general doctrine which the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia advocated, and which induced him to support the first resolution. He, (Mr. E.) however, thought he could convince the gentleman that that resolution, taken as a general rule, was not true, in point of fact. He would say there was not an intelligent man but what must admit that it went farther than the monarchist or aristocrat-that it outWellingtoned Wellington, out-Polignac'd Polignac, out-Webstered Webster, out-Hamiltoned Hamilton. The doctrine contained in that resolu tion was not to be found laid down by any writer on national law. The most tyrannical writer-the writer most opposed to public liberty, that ever lived, never advanced a doctrine so monstrous.

What was

the doctrine? It was, that contracts, no matter what, are inviolable. How inviolable, he asked? Five minutes, five days, five years, or ten thousand years? Does the gentleman mean to fix no time-no limita tion? What kind of a contract, he asked, did his friend from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll) mean? Suppose that his colleague should make a contract, and pay into bank one hundred dollars, that he (Mr. Earle) should be henceforth a slave to him and his posterity. would that contract be binding on him, (Mr. E.?) He would ask his colleague this question-supposing that our forefathers had omitted to insert the bill of rights in the constitution, and the legislature had mad contracts in derogation of natural rights, would those contracts have bee binding to endless ages? Could they never have been abolished! I was a doctrine which could not be maintained. Our rights were un doubtedly imperfect, and he presumed there was no one would venture to say that, in every sense, the liberties of the people were guarded. Our legislature possessed the power, under the existing constitution. to commit a thousand acts which might bear oppressively on the people. Could the doctrine be advanced, in this enlightened age, that, because the legislature had once done wrong, in granting a charter, that the people were without a remedy? Take the case of Spain, the gover ment of which country had made a contract with the Catholic clergy that they should have the revenues for a certain period in considera. tion of the aid granted by them. Should it happen that a change too place in the government, politically or religiously, would it be said that the Catholic clergy had a claim on the government? He presumed not Take the case of Ireland, which had out-Wellingtoned Wellington; . the case of England, and the change which had taken place in the country from the Catholic to the Protestant faith, which changed the reve nues of the country into other hands. Had they not a right to do it! There was Ireland, too, a country cruelly oppressed, and made to pay tithes to the Protestant church, for the support of the Protestant clergy, to whom they, as Catholics, never listened. Yes! they paid their tithes to enable the clergy to indulge in rioting and dissipation. Would the Irish, then, not have a right to resist this oppression, if they could' Most undoubtedly they would.

Some years since, the legislature of New York, thought they had a right to grant exclusive privileges. They passed an act granting the exclusive privilege to Robert Fulton of navigating the waters of the Hudson river by steam. The supreme court of the United States decided the act to be invalid-not that the legislature had not the righ to pass it but that the navigation of rivers was under the control of congress.

Now, suppose the Pennsylvania legislature to pass an exclusive act-one dollar being paid annually as a consideration-or, as Chief Justice Marshal said was formerly done--one pepper corn for the exclusive privilege to make all the shoes and boots-would not the legislature have the right to pass such an act? Surely they would. He would ask the gentleman whether the public good was not the supreme law? And whether all maxims that contradicted this, were not false?

Suppose that an individual were to introduce a new article of manu facture into Pennsylvania, and the legislature, by way of encouraging