parents, and cemented by their blood, shall be found tottering and falling, involving in one common ruin, the rights, liberties and property of our eitizens. To such a result I can never intentionally contribute, and hence I have been impelled to the statement of my convictions on the important subject before us. I find the constitution and laws of my country to be thus, and I would be faithless to the trust committed to my charge, were I to fail in so declaring them. While I freely accord to others the right to think and to act for themselves, and give them the credit of purity of motives, although differing from me, for I know the human mind does not and cannot in different persons, always arrive at the same conclusions, even from the same premises, I claim for myself the belief that I am pursuing right ends by right means; and so believying, I commit this question to the decision of this body, and my own course in relation to it, to my constituents, and to posterity, satisfied myself that my own conscience will never reproach me, for having faithfully and fearlessly done my duty.

H

Mr. MEREDITH said he had listended, with great pleasure, to the remarks of the gentleman from Northampton; and he was so much a convert to his views, that he had determined to modify the resolution now under consideration, so as to suit them. As he should embody the principles of the gentleman's proposition in the proposed modification, he hoped the gentleman from Northamption would withdraw his amend

ment.

Mr. MEREDITH read the proposition as follows:

Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention, that a charter duly granted under an act of assembly, to a bank or other private corporation, is, when accepted, a contract with the parties to whom the grant is made; and if such charter be unduly granted or subse quently misused. it may be avoided by the judgment of a court of justi e, in due course of law, and not otherwise, unless in pursuance of a power expressly reserved in the charter itself.

This, Mr. Meredith said, included all the views which were embod ied in the proposition of the gentleman himself, and, that being the case, he hoped the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, and unite with him in the support of this.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, replied, that the proposition, as modified, embodied essentially what he had offered, and, as it was his wish merely to declare what was the law of the land, in relation to these subjects, he had no objection to withdraw his own amendment, and he did withdraw it accordingly.

Mr. EARLE wished, he said, to offer an amendment so as distinctly to convey the meaning of the proposition. As it was now amended, it would have one meaning to one person, and another meaning to another person. He moved to add the following to the end of the modified resolution: "And when it may be found by posterity, that a charter has been hastily and unwisely granted, and is inconsistent with the rights, the liberties or the happiness of the people, then the commonwealth will have an unalienable right to alter, modify or revoke such harter, in such manner as justice and the public good may require,

and upon the payment of such compensation, if any, as the corporators may justly and equitably claim.

Mr. President, said Mr. Earle, I understood the gentleman item Philadelphia yesterday, in introducing his resolution, to intend toexpress and plainly declate by it, not only the meaning of the constitutions, bo of the United States and of this commonwealth, but also to set forth the principles of policy which, in reference to this subject, are applicable w all nations and ages. The gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter had gone into a view of the various decisions made under the constitution of the United States on this subject, some of which were not at all app cable to the principles involved in the question. The decisions of the courts are in all cases only the declaration of what the law is, and not the moral right involved in the law itself. I do not recognize the au he ity of these decisions as binding upon us. In the first place, I do no admit their authority as being decisive of the question at issue, and in the second place, I contend that they never did decide this question. They never did decide upon the validity of bank chaiters, or upon any private corporations.

The gentleman read a case which he says was one of a private cor poration, but we had the express declaration of the supreme court of the United States, that it was a public corporation, and one which they jus tified, on the ground that it was necessary to carry on the governmen of the United States, under the constitution. They supported the costitutionality of the charter of the Bank of the United States, on ground that it was necessary to the government, in order to enable it t perform its fiscal functions, clearly showing that they viewed it as a public and not a private corporation. It was now admitted too, the congress had no right to create a private corporation out of the limits the District of Columbia, and, of course, the bank could not have been chartered but for public purposes. The supreme court, Mr. Earle contended, never decided the great question, whether a state government could resume a charter upon granting compensation for all damages sus tained by private individuals from its annulment. He had never heard of any decision to the contrary. All the governments in the world go the principle, that, for the common good, the prosperity and rights of individuals may be taken, upon the payment of a proper equivalen There was never, to his knowlodge, a decision against that princiele n this country. It was recognized by the constitution of the United States as a just principle; and, without it, no government could be sustained It was the principle, in part, upon which government was founded. The rights of all were to be enjoyed, that the greatest amount of good would

upon

accrue to all.

It would never be supposed that any community would be so ineffably stupid as to put themselves and their interests so completely at the mercy of a private corporation as to be unable to carry ou the objects of their associations. A charter, granted in a hasty and incautious manner, and construed not by the grantors, but by third party, a tribunal having more sympathy perhaps with the cor poration than with the people, might, if it was absolutely irrevocable

།

and subject to no change or modification,, destroy all the ends of the wisest and best founded government. It was impossible that, upon any just principle of government, the people could be denied all redress against the inconveniences and mischiefs arising from the hasty granting of what are termed chartered rights, to promote corporations. The Dartmouth College case had been cited; in that case, there was an attempt to take private rights without compensation. In the Yazoo case, private rights were taken with compensation.

But, suppose for a moment, that the court had decided that the legisla ture could not resume rights granted to private corporations, upon proper compensation, it would not settle so g eat a principle as this. A principle of such vital importance to the well bein and even to the existence of society and free government could not be surrendered upon the dictum of a court. Judges were liable to err, and, in even petty cases of law, which came before them, it was well known that they often fell into error and disagreed too from each other. How then should a decision of a court, and of a single court, which often varies its decisions upon principles of law and constitutional construction, carrying with it such mighty weight as to repeat an eternal principle which belongs to every govern

ment?

Every lawyer would admit that our supreme court had erred again and again, and very widely, even in small cases of meum and tuum, as well as in cases of law and equity, and should we undertake to declare that an erroneous decision, or any decision of a court so liable to error, should settle a great moral and political question, and settle it forever? Christians go to the Scriptures for a moral rule, and the Turks to the Koran : but we were to have set up over us a new code of morality, as well as of law in the oracular decisions of courts of justice. For one, he would bow to no such authority and recognize no code of morals thus declared and established. The decisions of the courts had often been directly in the teeth of the constitution of the United States-directly and palpably. Were such decisions to overrule the fundamental and written law of the land? If the courts were to decide every thing, why not let them go on in a career of judicial usurpation till they upset the whole government as well as son.e of the main principles of all free governments. a constitution of the United States, which provides that " congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press." But congress did pass the alien and sedition law which abridged the freedom of the press, and not only every judge on the bench of the supreme court, but every branch of the government, at one time or another, declared that act to be constitutional. But did this dicision of the supreme court make that law constitutional which was violative of the constitution? Did the decision set aside the constitution? No. The people of the United States declared that the act was not constitutional, and they turned out the men who made it overturning and changing all the branches of the government until the obnoxious and unconstitutional law was repudiated. Mr. Jefferson treated the law as unconstitutional, and congress had since remitted or rather returned the fines which were imposed under it.

We have

He (Mr. Earle) took it that we were not to yield our judgments to legal decisions. It would lead to the most ruinous and absurd consequences to adopt them as authorities, even were they of a stable and permanent char

acter. But, it is well known that these decisions were fluctuating with the times and with men. The people of the commonwealth of Pennsyl vania, would not consent to be bound by such authority. The authority of all the world is against the doctrine. The people will always go by sense of right, and, in following that course, they could not submit ther government to such an arbitrary, irresponsible, erroneous, and fluctuating authority. What is the authority of a few individuals, even when they are wise, learned, prudent, disinterested and honest, against the commor sense of mankind? It would weigh scarcely as a feather in the balance. But, we find authorities of this kind divided in opinion on this and on all other questions. We find various and different doctrines, sustained by an equal strength of intellect, and to which of the contrary authorities are we to yield? Of all questions of a public nature we find the great men ranged on both sides. After all, we are thrown upon the general judg ment of mankind-upon that alone must we rely, and in no country have the people ever established the doctrine that any one public body or department of the government shall establish institutions which the people, in all subsequent time, shall be bound to abide by and to tolerate, however hostile they may be to their best interests. Never has the doc. trine been established that a legislative body, elected for a limited time, shall establish corporations with exclusive privileges which all posterity shall never be able to repeal or modify. Such a doctrine would be fatal to the existence of limited and free governments. It would destroy all the guarranties of a limited constitution. It remits the people to revolution as the only remedy for hasty legislation.

Suppose some state legislature or congress should, in violation of the constitution, grant patents of nobility, and the supreme court, as in the case of the alien and sedition laws, should affirm their constitutionality, can these patents never be annulled? Must the order of nobles be perpetuated among us, contrary to the genius and objects of our government, because the authority of the decision of a court can be cited in support of the grant? To what absurdities would not this doctrine lead us! Its alleged that the people have their remedy in a revolution. But how can they thus seek redress? Must they have bloodshed as well as revolu tion? He admitted that, if the people went to war, and had the good fortune to conquer those who would oppress and defraud them, they would then be placed in a situation to obtain redress. They could then annul the obnoxious act. But suppose the people do not choose to fight and acquiesce in the power assumed by the majority, then there is a revolu tion in the form of the government without bloodshed. Every change in a government is, to a certain extent, a revolution, and every alteration in a constitution is a peaceful revolution. If a revolution cannot be peata bly effected, the main object of a limited government is lost. Under all governments the people may revolt. That is a natural right But limited constitution is intended to secure to the people a mode in which they may more easily protect themselves from the arts by which tytanny is always preferring to ensnare them.

In England, (said Mr. Earle) where the king grants a charter, he can by his own royal word revoke and repeal it. When the parliament gran a charter, they may revoke it also. Since authority had been so much relied upon, he presented to gentlemen the example of English law and

usages in relation to charters. This is the law and the practice in England, where, as it has been alleged here, charters are held to be so sacred. How much more ought the same doctrine to prevail here, where charters are suffered to be granted only with a view for the ultimate benefit of all, and where exclusive privileges are at war with the whole constitution of society. But the doctrine of authority cannot be sustained here. The supreme court may decide the question over and over again, in any way they choose, and it will not affect the question. The right of the people to resume powers and privileges which they may grant to corporations is indisputable and will never be yielded. Some of the arguments of the gentleman from the Northampton, went to support the views which he Mr. Earle) had offered. The gentleman says that it is necessary to put in the constitution a provision which will prevent the people from being cheated by the means of a legislative grant of chartered tights to private corporations. This yields the whole argument.

If a charter be found to be inconsistent with the happiness of the people it must be repealed; or it cannot continue to exist. The legislature which grants the charter, makes a contract which binds only itself and not its successors. It cannot bind the people in all future time. He would refer to the authority of Mr. Jefferson on this subject. In the 4th volume of his works, page 275, speaking of the debts contracted by the government, he contends that each generation of men is, in succession, entitled to the possession of the earth and to subsistence from it. That was the doctrine of the best and wisest statesmen and political writer that ever lived. He held that one generation cannot make its successors slaves for life. Each generation is itself but a life tenant of the earth.

Mr. E. would also, he said, read farther from works of Mr. Jefferson on this subject: In page 241, of vol. 4, in discussing the question of forming a constitution for the state of Virginia, which question was there agitated, he urges reasons for the adoption of some provisions on this subject, with a view to prevent legislative usurpation by one generation over a successive generation. Referring to the tables of mortality in Europe, he shows that of any one generation the majority are dead in every nineteen years.

"Some men look at constitutions with sactimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age, a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did, to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well: I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government, is worth a century of book-reading: and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlighted, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the