TUESDAY AFTERNOON, NOVEMBER 21, 1837.

The Convention resumed the consideration of the second resolution, submitted by Mr. MEREDITH, as modified, and which reads as follows,

viz:

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 corporations is, when accepted, a contract with the parties to whom the grant is made, and if such charter be unduly granted or subsequently misused, it may be avoided by the judgment of a court of justice in due course of law, and not otherwise, unless in pursuance of power expressly reserved in the charter itself.

The question being on the motion of Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, to amend the resolution, as modified, by adding to the end thereof, the following words, viz :

"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 inalienable right to alter, modify or revove such charter, 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. BROWN, of the county of Philadelphia, concluded his remarks. He regretted that the committee had not indulged him a few moments longer before the adjournment this morning, in order that he might have concluded the personal part of his remarks. He would not now recur to that part of the subject. He then referred to an expression in debate which fell from the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'Dowell) which had been laid hold of to found a charge against him of being an enemy to corporations, and in order to shew that the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Dunlop) was not inimical to corporations he quoted a section from an act in the statute book of Pennsylvania, giving corporate powers to Isaac Worrel and James Dunlop, in carrying on a manufactory of certain articles of hardware. He had never before known why the remarks of the gentleman from Franklin cut so keen, but, it appeared from this act to be suffi ciently explained by the fact that he was a manufacturer of edge tools. He did not know but that this may be one of the incidents in sharpening the arts of gentlemen. These two gentlemen seem to have a considerable interest in selling shares, and the right of monopoly was granted to them until the year 1850. This was a reason why the gentleman from Franklin should wish chartered rights to be guarantied. He referred to this circumstance because he did not fully understand the nature of the transaction.

On the subject of caucuses, he wished to say a word or two, to set the opinions of gentlemen right. The resolution of his colleague had not been brought forward in the manner which had been stated. He (Mr. B.) had never acted as the secretary of a caucus, and he wished the gentleman who made the charge, to bring forward the proof. He was authorized to say that the subject now under consideration was never before

any caucus. So far as regards the action of a caucus in framing the resolution to protect ourselves, the imputation was utterly basele There was nothing of the kind. The question came up on its or merits, and not from any design to press the question in the absence: those who are opposed to it. He saw that three of the gentlemen on th other side voted for taking it up, and there was only three of a majority therefore that argument was shown to be entirely without foundation. had no reality in fact, and the charge that the proposition was taken fr the purpose of a surprize, had no foundation on which to stand. I therefore, the resolution had been opposed on this basis, there was no authority for the opposition, and another reason should be found. Gertlemen had said the adoption of the resolution would have the effect al unsettling the basis of the currency. It was also said that if the charters were to be repealed, and the rights which had been granted were taken away from the corporations, specie payments would never be resumed. He admitted that he was no lawyer. He had said so before, and after such an acknowledgment, he was surprized that gentlemen professing to be animated with a spirit of courtesy and good feeling-did not take the admission as an apology for his ignorance. He then read the restrictive clause in the old bank law. He did not, it was true, understand law, bui he understood something of English, if not of latin, and he would say that in this clause he found the power reserved to annul charters, in case they were violated or abused, no matter how the corporators acted. Under this very clause banks had sprung up, and gentlemen were invited to take shares, and the stock rose above par. Why was this! It was because every one relied on the justice of the legislature, and t was only when one institution arose which was beyond legislative power, that new guards were introduced, but the justice of the legislature should be directed against it. Under this new guard, why would not the institu tions flourish, and why could not the stock be taken? He would ask of any who take stock, if they had even supposed themselves to be alarmed by this uncertain tenure? It was a new idea, and the sense of justice in the community was adequate to refute it. If you doubt the legislature, if you begin to admit a distrust of that body, you double the justice of your cause, and then the necessity for the guard which we desire to impose becomes apparent. He was anxious that the public mind should be disabused in this point, and therefore he had appealed to the old acts of Pennsylvania. Before these new lights broke on gentlemen, they were not afraid to trust the legislature. Were they afraid that these new lights should shine in too detectingly, and shew the injustice of their cause?

Gentlemen had called him to account because he had said he was the friend of corporations. He believed them to be good, when they were well guarded. They were beneficial when they were open to all, when they were not subject to the caprice of the legislature, but to that univer sal examination by which their utility might be tested. He believed they had been serviceable, and that they may again be serviceable, but this was no reason why he should bow to one corporation which had set itself up above all control. He bowed to no Juggernaut, little or great. He was willing to give the country such institutions as would work for the publie good, and would leave it to those who may live after us to regulate them as the circumstances of the country may require. He was not one of

those who believed that all wisdom is centred in the past or in the present generations, and that we can look for no wisdom or integrity hereafter.

The gentleman seems to think that the public voice is now sweeping all before it, and that none of the ungodly will be able to stand. We are all godly who are here, for we have been sent here by the people. If the gentleman alluded to recent events in New York, he (Mr. B.) was not disposed to take the same view of those events. The government of that state had protected corporations, and had lately met for the purpose of shielding them from responsibility, and we had as yet to learn what is the voice of New York. No man could be elected there now who would go for that question, any more than they formerly could have been, and there may be a redeeming spirit then which may bring on a new era in the history of corporations.

Recently in Vermont, there has been, a law passed making corporators liable and responsible in their individual capacity. There was a similar party in this hall who had voted for a similar provision in this constitution. It is the opinion, the voice of the people, and he cared not if it came to the rescue, if it was the voice of the people, which is the voice of God.

If, in New York, the legislature had taken up the corporations and carried them too far, he cared not how far the people had gone for the purpose of retrieving the error, and bringing them back within their proper limits. Gentlemen went too far when they assumed that the people had gone for strengthening corporate privileges. They should shew in what instances the party put out had weakened or restricted corporations, and then show whether this change has been made on that account. The term ungodly was too harsh, except it was confined to a political meaning. It is for the people, the whole people, to judge, as they will judge, of what they want and what they do not want. He was willing that they should flourish every where, that their voice should prevail, and, those who oppose it should be swept from the face of the earth.

If the gentleman from Philadelphia would so shape his resolution as to submit it to the people, to say what restrictions they wish, he would be willing to vote for it; but he was not willing that we should shape it into its final action, without taking their opinion on it, and thus take the responsibility of deciding for them, whether they are disposed to sanetion the measure or not. And if the gentleman was desirous to raise the further question, as to legislative control, even in reference to the past, he would be willing to go with him in submitting it to the people to determine whether the legislature has a right to repeal any existing charter. And he would submit to their decision, although the ungodly might be swept away before it. But it was not intended to put this question to the people; but in this convention to take it on ourselves, like the convention of 1790, to speak for the people, without having the popular voice. When the gentleman desires to put his proposition on record, let him put it in a shape in which we may test public opinion, and see if the people respond to it, or not. If the gentleman meant to rely on the past, he (Mr. B.) would call on gentlemen, in whose districts the elections had taken place since the last meeting, to say if the ungodly had been swept by the voice of the people from the face of the earth.

He would call on his friend from Bucks, (Mr. M'Dowell) to say whether there were none on the ungodly list in his county, and would put the same question to his friends from Washington and Bedford.

[Here Mr. M'DoWELL said there were no ungodly in Bucks county.] Mr. B. continued. He was glad to hear it. He had used the word in a political sense only, and hoped it would be taken in no other. We had been told that the people might run mad. He, however, did not believe it. He thought that in Pennsylvania, the people were right, and he would like to be shewn why they would not go for a repeal of it, apart from legislative action on the matter. He much feared that the firing of cannon had somewhat turned the heads of some gentlemen, and that they had mistaken the reports for the voice of the people. He had, in days that are past, heard the report of cannon in the city, seen the barrels of drink spread about the streets, and witnessed the flags flying in every direction in commemoration of the political victory gained over their opponents, and which threatened to sweep the ungodly from the earth. But, when the jubilee was scarce over, a deep voice (not a small still voice) was heard from the people, and they had ever since been in the ascendant-having beaten those who had but a short time before been their victors. He was much mistaken-he mistook the signs of the times, if that voice would not be heard again and again in this beautiful hall. Yes! good old Pennsylvania would be heard from her hills and vallies. Here democracy was still the same, and would be long triumphantwhen national republicanism and federalism had all gone down. The motto of democracy was-equal rights and equal justice-free govern ment meeted out to all-to the rich and the poor-the greatest good to the greatest number. That was the motto of Pennsylvania democracy. and it would be triumphant; it must be triumphant.

Mr. SHILLITO, of Crawford, said, he would make a remark or two. He was well pleased with the argument that had taken place this morning, and thought it had, in all probability, proved instructive to us all. It might be of great benefit to many. The result of the argument had shown that the existing constitution was not that matchless, perfec instrument that it had been proclaimed to be by some of the delegates of this floor. On the contrary, it had been proved to be deficient, and doubtless an opportunity would be offered to enable us to put in the costitution such an amendment as we desired. If a legislature, elected by the people could come into this hall, and do acts which the people never thought of and never asked for, it was full time that the constitution was altered. He hoped that the arguments would induce the convention to put some guards in the constitution, which would prevent these abuses hereafter. They would be of great and essential service. The people were rising up in their majesty, and would not only fight for themselves, but their children also. It was absolutely necessary that guards should be inserted in the constitution, in order that henceforth we and our chi dren might not again be subjected to the will and machinations of a pow erful, overshadowing, dangerons banking institution. What satisfaction. he asked, was it to him, that a man should become a member of the legis lature, and do an act which made him (Mr. S.) a slave, and then be turned out? It was poor satisfaction, indeed. He wanted more. hoped that the convention would so amend the constitution, as to pre

He

vent any future legislature from chartering a great banking institution like that now in existence, with a capital of thirty-five millions of dollars! Let us repeal the law. Who could appear in a court of justice against thirtyfive millions of capital? Money enough to buy every man in the state. And, yet we were told, that if aggrieved, to go to a court of justice! He hoped that such guards would be put in the constitution as would prevent the legislature from establishing such an engine of tyranny, as was the present mammoth banking institution, which the people of Pennsylvania had not asked for. The people would not be fooled again with it.

The PRESIDENT called the gentlemen to order.

Mr. S. proceeded. He had not troubled the convention much since he had had the honor of a seat on that floor, and the little he had to say he had endeavoured to make as comprehensible as he possibly could. He was no lawyer, neither was he learned in language; but he knew right from wrong. And, he was by no means sure that the legislature had a right to incorporate the present Bank of the United States. However, as he had already said, his desire was to prevent a future legislature from doing a like act. Let us submit to what cannot now be helped; but, for God's sake, let us not hand down to our children any thing having the slightest tendency to abridge them of their freedom. It had been said that the bank charter was not obtained by fraud. We could not get the evidence as to whether it was or not. Of course the parties interested would not swear against themselves. We know (said Mr. S.) that the people do not want the bank; and they will not be at ease until they get rid of it. They think it is an encroachment on their dearest rights, and they will, whenever an opportunity offers, immediately put it down. They want no bank. But should the time ever come when they desire one, I will be found the last man to act in opposition to their wishes. But the particular friends of the bank are afraid to put the question of "bank" or "no bank" to the people. If the question were put, and they assented, I should be satisfied.

Mr. HAYHURST, of Columbia, said: Mr. President, I can scarcely hope, at this late stage of the debate, to make any impression on this body, or to make one proselyte to my opinion: but if I fail to make an impression, I shall at least put my reasons for the vote I shall give, on record. When the gentleman from the city (Mr. Meredith) called for the second reading of his resolutions, I voted against their consideration, because, they do not purport to be an amendment of the constitution to be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection, and hence I believe they are not legitimately within the sphere of our action. On the contrary, I thought and still think any expression of opinion by this body, gratuitous and uncalled for. A majority however having determined on the consideration, I felt myself relieved from the responsibility of voting on questions not within the province of this body, and therefore, voted for the first resolution cheerfully. The first resolution contains, in my opinion, nothing more than an affirmation of the very spirit and meaning of the constitution of the United States, and therefore, the principle would exist unimpaired even if we had negatived the resolution. It contains the doctrine which I have always held and still maintain; and as it cannot be construed to mean more or extend farther than the constitution of the United States and of this state, I am free to vote