it, were to grant him and his heirs forever, the exclusive right, in consideration of the payment of a certain sum, of selling the same in Philadelphia, and it should afterwards be discovered that the article was deleterious and injurious to the people, he (Mr. E.) would ask whether the legislature, acting for their good, would not have a right to annul the law? If the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll) who offered the resolution, said he meant nothing more by it than the general principle that contracts rightly made, and not contrary to the rights and liberties of the people were binding, why he, (Mr. Earle) went with him. If he meant the mere fact that the legislature have the power to make a contract, whether through fraud or folly; or, if he meant on the faith of the commonwealth- Mr. INGERSOLL: On the faith of the commonwealth. Mr. EARLE proceeded. Well, suppose it to be made on the faith of the commonwealth. He denied that any body could bind the commonwealth against their conviction--against the public good. If he (Mr. E.) was descended from Shem or Ham- Mr. INGERSOLL. Or Japhet. He would deny that Mr. E. would have no relief with the other. another had the exclusive right to navigate the Susquehanna. He wished to know whether a contract went with the land, or with posterity, or with those who made it? If we are bound by those who made it, then do we owe a part of the national debt of England, and had better set about paying so much as was contracted before the revoluWe were bound to the Indians on the Susquehanna before we set tion. tled here. The doctrine, however, was ridiculous--absurd from beginning to end. There was not the slightest particle of truth for its foundation. No man could bind his son in an act, except where the moral and Take the case of a slave, equitable obligation arose from circumstances. for instance: according to the law of Maryland, a man is made a slave to one, but you cannot make a contract binding him to any one for a term of years. A slave to one, does not necessarily make him forever a slave to another. The next generation is as free as that beforǝ it. As Jefferson said, in a letter on this very subject, "No man can make a His son, when he comes of age, contract, as such, binding on his son. has a right to accept or reject it." He (Mr. E.) would admit that a charter might be morally binding, and that we had no right to repeal it, unless it involved the public good. And, if repealed, we were bound, in justice, to pay back the consideration. He would not say that a thing was binding, which was There was no truth in the doccontrary to liberty or common sense. trine; but admitting, for the sake of argument, the doctrine to be true, there had not been a freeman from the days of Adam, and would be none. He hoped the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Meredith) would so alter his amendment that almost every member would vote for it. He (Mr. E.) would move to strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert "That contracts, fairly and properly made on the faith of the commonwealth, and not inconsistent with the rights and liberties of the people, are, and of right ought to be, inviolable; but the people have, a all times, an unalienable right to take private property, when needful for the public use, upon paying a fair compensation therefor." The amendment embraced two principles: First. That contracts mus be fairly and properly made. And, would any man, in this enlightened age, deny that this was right and proper enough? He imagined not. Second. They must not be inconsistent with the rights and liberties of the people; and there are certain rights stated in the Declaration of Independence which are inalienable, and no contract can be made, or supposed to be made, which at all conflicts with the inalienable rights of the parties to it-those being rights which they cannot give away. Suppose a man, for instance, to make a contract with another, that be would forever surrender to him his right of conscience, say for a million of dollars-and he pays him the money-the man might be bound in point of honor. Would he (Mr. E. asked) be bound by it? Not at all. He might offer to return the man his money; and if he refused to take it, the man would not be bound by the contract, inasmuch as he was not compelled to do that which was contrary to his obligations to God and his fellow beings. How many there are, in this body, who think the masonic oath contrary to the principles of morality, and would not deem themselves bound by it. He presumed that gentlemen would admit, with him, that all oaths must be consistent with the rights and liberties of the people, or they are not binding. The last branch of the amendment had always been recognized by every gentleman, but yet he thought it right to introduce it. Take the case of this commonwealth, and of the government of the United States, both of which were continually taking property against the will of the owner. Our legislature is in the yearly practice of violating contracts, The owner says: "I will not permit your canal to go through my land;" and the legislature says, "you shall; the public good is the supreme law, but we will pay you a fair compensation. And that is all you are entitled to. You shall not be a judge of the bargain; but we will give you an opportunity of objecting to our offer. Somebody else must say what it is worth." That (Mr. E. said) was a principle which was recognized in all governments; and without it no good government could exist. He hoped that the amendment he had offered would prevail. Mr. INGERSOLL moved that the Convention do now adjourn. The question then recurred on the adoption of the amendment. Mr. MEREDITH declined to accept the amendment. The question was then taken on the amendment, and it was decided in the negative-yeas 43, nays 60. YEAS-Messrs. Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Don nell, Doran. Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Cahen, Myers, Overfield, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Stickel Taggart, White-43. NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, 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, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-60. The committee rose; and, The Convention took the usual recess. MONDAY AFTERNOON, NOVEMBER 20, 1837. The question recurring on the first resolution offered by Mr. MEREDITH, this morning, in the following words, viz: Resolved, 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. Mr. BROWN, of the county of Philadelphia said, that in the morning session he had been desirous to postpone this subject until to-morrow, to But finding that this course was not generally allow time for reflection. a differacceptable, he did not urge it. Since that time, he had come to ent conclusion. He could discover nothing in this resolution which has any relation to any amendment of the constitution; and he would ask the gentleman from Philadelphia, who seemed to have taken the powers of this convention into his charge, where he would seek, for the purpose of discovering any power to pass this resolution. He would like an answer to this question-What right have we to take up any thing for discussion and decision which is not to be submitted to the people? Here, in this resolution, there is nothing to submit to the people. There is nothing contained in it which is within the sphere of our duties. It was altogether different in its character from the resolution of his colleague, which was disposed of this morning, and which provided for the appointment of a committee to inquire if there was any thing on the subWhether we should think ject which should be submitted to the people. it proper to submit any amendment on the subject to the people, was the question to be referred to that committee. If gentlemen who advocate this resolution would now ask for the appointment of a committee to be charged with the duty of preparing an amendment to the constitution, or to submit to the people, for their decision upon it; a proposition declari; that contracts" are and ought of right to be inviolable," he would go wit them on that question. It had occurred to him that this was a proper subject for legal adjudication; and that it was not within the range of o duties to take the subject into our consideration, and to send abroa. our opinions, without giving the people an opportunity of passing up them. He did not believe in the power we possess to fix and settle this ques tion here, in this hall, without sending it to the people for them to accep or reject the proposition. Was it for us to give a new idea for the peo ple to act on? The whole of the question now under consideration ha assumed this shape, and he could not bring himself to vote for it. He would never be forced to vote for any question in this convention, whic was not to be sent to the people for their acceptance or rejection. W are here, appointed and acting as the agents of the people, and they have the right to receive or reject the fruits of our labors which is to be presented to them; and believing this, he looked on the resolution now under consideration as entirely extraneous in its character, and he woul not consent to go into any question irrelevant to the purpose for whitt we were appointed, and the legitimate objects of our deliberations. Ger tlemen might with just as much propriety, introduce into this body, proposition to recognize Don Pedro or Don Carlos. He desired it to be understood that he had taken his ground; and unless he was placed in a position in which his vote would come before the people of Pennsylvania, to receive the test of their censure or approval, he would not be induce to place it on record. Gentlemen might talk, as they pleased about his readiness to destroy vested rights. He desired to see the question put to the people, whethe they are of opinion that vested rights ought to be secured, under all cir cumstances. Let gentlemen then place the question in a position on which public opinion concerning it may he tested. He placed himself on that ground, and he had come to a determination not to vote either for or against the proposition, unless it can be submitted to the people for their decision, after we shall have acted upon it. He would, now that the gen tleman from Philadelphia to whom he had before addressed himself, (Mr. Chauncey) was in his seat, repeat the question he had previously put, whether it came within the range of the powers of this convention, to pass a declaratory resolution, saying that a charter duly accepted was a contract, and that, as a contract, it ought of right to be inviolable, and is He would ask if any proposition acted on by this body ought not to be, and which must subsequently be, submitted to the people for thei approbation or rejection? Until the resolution now before the convention assumed that form, be did not consider himself bound to give his vote upon it, as a delegate in the reform convention, acting under powers which are specified by the authority which called us into existence. On no occasion would he give his vote, until he was called on to do so, in accordance with his own sense of his duty, and then he would act in the case as his best judgment might direct. Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, rose and said, that this was beyond all doubt, a very searching resolution. It was clearly to be seen that i 1. pierced to the core. He was very desirous to see who would vote for it, and who against it. The minds of the people had been so long and so industriously called to the subject, that there could be no doubt, every delegate on this floor was prepared to vote one way or the other. For the purpose, therefore, of bringing this matter to a conclusion, he would call the previous question. A sufficient number rising to sustain the call, the previous question was seconded. Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia county, asked the yeas and nays on the question, and they were ordered. The question was then taken, "shall the main question be now put ?" and was decided in the affirmative by the following vote, viz: YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Cunningham, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-53. NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Butler, Chambers, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Curl, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Hyde, Keim, Krebs, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Read, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith Smyth, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White-48. The question was here taken on the first resolution, as follows: Resolved, 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. The yeas and nays having been required by Mr. REIGART, were as follows, viz: YEAS-Messrs. 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, Crain, Cunningham, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Gilmore, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, Mann, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Russell, Saegar, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Weidman, White, Young, Sergeant, President—66. NAYS-Messrs. Brown, of Northampton, Butler, Earle, Fleming, Hyde, Smith, Weaver-7. So the question was determined in the affirmative. The question being on the second resolution, as follows: 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. Mr. INGERSOLL would, he said, take the liberty to make a single suggestion to the mover of the resolution. If he would insert the word bank before the word charter, its meaning would be perfectly plain. Mr. MEREDITH asked whether, if he modified the amendment as the gentleman proposed, he should have his vote for it. |