this day denying of a respectable class of citizens the free exercise of the right of conscience. He thought an examination of the report of the committee ought to convince every one that the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia ought to prevail. The section reads, "the freemen of this Commonwealth shall be armed, organized and disciplined for its defence, when and in such manner as the Legislature may hereafter by law direct." Now, he thought this was all that need be required, and all that was necessary. It was leaving to the Legislature the power of providing the manner of carrying out the details as they saw fit. This was giving it the power to say whether the militia should be compelled to parade and exercise in time of peace. He apprehended that there would be no objection to the first branch of the proposition, to abolish or keep up the militia system as it saw fit. The latter clause however, he hoped, would not be adopted. When we come to the bill of rights, where it is proper to insert provisions for the protection of the rights of the people, there this matter may be provided for. For these reasons he hoped the motion to strike out might prevail. On motion of Mr. CAREY, the committee then rose, reported progress and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow, when the Convention adjourned. 1 SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21. Mr. STURDEVANT, elected in the place of Mr. SwETLAND, (resigned) as a delegate from the county of Luzerne, appeared, and took his seat. Mr. COPE from the committee on accounts, made a report, in the form of a resolution, which was read twice, considered and adopted. SIXTH ARTICLE. The Convention resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. CHAMBERS in the chair, for the purpose of considering the report of the committee on the sixth article of the Constitution. The question pending being on the motion of Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, to amend the 14th section of the report, by striking out all after the word "direct," in the third line, being the words following, viz: "Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service." Mr. JENKS said the second section of the sixth article of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, requires "that the freemen of this Commonwealth shall be armed and disciplined for its defence." It has been a subject of general regret, that this Constitutional provision is imperative. The tia trainings in times of peace, are not productive of beneficial results. That they have failed to establish that discipline and subordination which is deemed so essential a qualification to soldiers in actual service. There naturally exists in the minds of American citizens, an aversion to coercion and military restraint in times of peace, when the necessity for military discipline is too distant to be realized. He would not be understood as undervaluing the services of the mititia; he had been a militia man himself in peace and war; he was not ignorant of the splendid achievments of our militia in the late and revolutionary wars; yet these brilliant victories had their origin in that burst of patriotism created by the occasion. They were not the effect of any discipline acquired in our ordinary militia trainings. It was a general remark made by our officers in active service, and experience fully confirmed its truth, that the old militia men brought with them a spirit of insubordination, contracted at militia trainings, which was often difficult to correct and subdue. This is natural. Freemen will not, in times of peace, endure military restraints; and his limited experience had satisfied him that our annual trainings would not fit men for practical service. In times of danger when patriotism is ripe and active, a few days discipline will better prepare men for service, than years of militia training. Love of country and approaching danger, induce our citizens to cheerfully submit to subordination and military restraint. Freemen's arms will successfully resist all attacks upon freemen's rights, come from whatever quarter they may. If then those advantages had not been derived trom militia trainings, which were anticipated, let us give to the Legislature a discretionary power to dispense with militia trainings, or an equivalent therefor in time of peace. The annual trainings to the people of this State, had been most onerous, attended with an expense, which the Legislature, if untrammeled by the Constitution, are not justifiable in imposing upon the people of this Commonwealth. Let us examine this item of expense. By the report of the Adjutant General to the Legislature in 1836, he estimates the number of militia in the Commonwealth at 212,610 men. Those militia men are called on to train twice a year, or pay an equivalent therefor. Estimating their loss of labour and expense they are subjected to, at one dollar a day per man, makes the annual amount of expense and loss of labour to the people of the State, $425,220. In addition to this, there is an annual draft for militia expenses upon the State Treasury, of more then $20,000; last year it was upwards of $29,000. By the report of the Auditor General to this Convention, it appears that the amount drawn from the State Treasury for the support of the militia, other than that received for their support in time of war, from 1790 to November 1836, is The amount of militia fines imposed during the same period is, Deduct exonerations, $722,157 15 112,715 78 Amount of exempt fines for the same period, $292,223 36 Making the whole amount of mititia expenses accruing since the adoption of the present Constitution, $1,127,148 69, exclusive of the expenses incur Commonwealth, and the expenses attendant upon milita trainings; and much of this enormous amount comes from the poor whose labour is their all, and the sole means of providing their families with bread. But this is not all. There is a view of this subject to be taken, of much more importance than the mere matter of dollars and cents. Militia trainings are found to be the prolific source of vice, and the permanency of the Republic depends upon the virtue of its citizens. All history tells us that no Commonwealth can exist when the morals of the people are corrupt. It is then the sacred duty of legislators, by closing, as far as practicable, all avenues to vice, and to give to our institutions that permanency to which their excellency entitles them. If then there is no necessity for militia trainings in times of peace; if they may be dispensed with advan tageously to the people, or if they have failed to secure discipline and organization, the objects of their institution, then it is desirable to give to the Legislature a discretionary power to dispense with them in times of peace. It would annually save much valuable labour and many thousand dollars to the Commonwealth. The poor man would be relieved from the burthen of militia trainings which now affect him as a heavy and most unequal tax. And those who are conscientiously scrupulous to bear arms, would not be harrassed by those violations upon their consciences which the collection of militia fines inflicts. The occasion sir, ought to be pressing indeed which could justify an interference with the rights of conscience. Those rights which were reserved to the citizens by William Penn, the founder of the Colony of Pennsylvania, recognized by the Constitution of 1779, and incorporated in the bill of rights in the present Constitution. If sir, by the continuance of this provision in our Constitution, a most respectable body of christians be oppressed, it would be most despotic; remove the Constitutional trammel from the Legislature, and public sentiment would constrain them in times of peace to dispense with militia trainings. Mr. FULLER moved to amend, by striking out the whole of the section, after the words "section 14," and inserting in lieu thereof, the words following, viz: "The freemen of this Commonwealth shall be enrolled and organized, to be disciplined for its defence as may be provided by law." The chair decided the motion to be out of order, as it did not propose any amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia. Mr. FULLER suggested that as it had been read, the amendment ought to be accepted by the gentleman from Philadelphia,as a modification of his proposition. [Mr. Brown here expressed dissent.] As his suggestion was not accepted, he hoped that the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia, would not be agreed to. Mr. BROWN suggested that the gentleman could offer the proposition as a substitute, for so much of the section as would remain, when his amendment was agreed to. Mr. FULLER signified his intention to do so, and asked the gentleman to withdraw his motion to enable him to substitute his proposition. He would make it obligatory on the Legislature to enrol and organize the mili believed would meet the views of a majority of the committee. The Constitution as reported read thus: "The freemen of this Commonwealth shall be armed, organized and disciplined, when and in such manner, as the Legislature may hereafter by law direct." The word "when" was the point on which the whole question turned. He had doubts whether the language of the Constitution was sufficiently explicit. It might become a subject of debate with the Legislature, whether they had the authority to discipline the militia. His object he explained to be, in the first place, to make it obligatory on the Legislature to have the militia enrolled and organized. He would then leave it to the Legislature to regulate the discipline, as they might think best. The Legislature would, at all times be governed by the will of the people, and therefore this discretion might be safely left in their hands. He thought this would meet the object of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia. The obligation to enrol and organize, and the power of the Legislature to discipline the militia, he could never give up. Enrolment was merely for the purpose of gaining the knowledge of the number of citizens capable of bearing arms, and there was a distinction between enrolling and organizing. He desired, before he resumed his seat, to throw out an idea concerning the society of Friends. The ground of complaint made by this society, was that the Legislature was tied up by the Constitution, and could not act to relieve them from the penalty of declining personal service, if disposed to do so. The amendment would release the Legislature from this fetter, and leave them at liberty to grant such privileges as they might think fit. It would therefore answer every purpose that the society of Friends wish, by placing them in the hands of the Legislature. If he could gain his object by the course, he would move to strike out the section as reported, and then substitute his own proposition in a modified form. Mr. CUMMIN Congratulated himself that the whole of the proofs and arguments he had brought forward were uncontradicted. He now rose to wipe away a stain which had been cast upon him. The gentleman from Chester, and the gentleman from Philadelphia, had charged him with saying all who do not go out to the field are infidels. He did not say so. Mr. BIDDLE, If the gentleman from Juniata, alludes to me, he must suffer me, with the greatest respect, to disclaim having applied any such expression to him. Mr. CUMMIN said, he did not allude to the gentleman from Philadelphia. He then read an extract from the memorial of the society of Friends, to show that it was the language of that document, and not his own, which the gentleman had laid hold of. He had said that it was the belief of the society of Friends, that all wars are anti-christian. Then he had said, in his comment on this belief, that in this view, all who voted for wars are infidels, because there could be no third party. There could only be christians and infidels. It was wrong to charge him with applying the word infidel to any. These memorialists used the language themselves, and he must stand acquitted of the charge. The charter of William Penn, contradicted what these petitioners advanced, and expressed what he (Mr. C.) had said. The State of Pennsylvania was established on warlike principles. The grant was made to William Penn, on account of warlike exploits achieved by himself and his family. [Here Mr. C. read the first grant of William Penn, and they were unable to show from a single sentence in that grant, that he intended that any portion of the people should be exempted from paying their just dues to the government. Pennsylvania being a military State, they who were the descendants from its founder ought not to be contending for any such principles as these petitioners asked. Mr. C. then read a further extract, being the 16th section of the grant, in order to refute the idea that there was intended to be any exception granted to any class, from paying an equivalent for personal service. It was considered enough if the society who had conscientious scruples, got rid of the personal service. There was not a word in the law to support them in their claim to be released from the payment of this equiva lent. What will the petitioners say to this clause? Can they get over it with all their sanctity of pretensions to be elevated above the other citizens of America and Europe. Their pretensions are unfounded, and it is a shame for them to ask for that which is denied to all our other citizens. Common sense should teach them otherwise than to ask such privileges. By the 16th section of this charter, power is given unto "William Penn, his heirs, and assigns, by themselves or their captains, or officers, to levy, muster and train all sorts of men, of what condition, or wheresoever born in the Province of Pennsylvania, for the time being, and to make war, and pursue the enemies and robbers aforesaid, as well by sea as by land; yea, even without the limits of the said Province, and by God's assistance, to vanquish and take them, and being taken, to put them to death by the laws of war, or to save them at their pleasure; and to do all and every other act and thing which to the charge and office of a Captain General of an army belongeth or hath accustomed to belong, as fully and freely as any Captain General of an army hath ever had the same. It will be seen therefore, by this paper, that William Penn never took such a ground as is now taken by these petitioners; and as he had said before, he would say now, that until their men can show that an attempt has been made to prevent them from worshipping God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they have no right to complain, and certainly we have never made any such attempt as that to interfere with their conscientious belief. The power is granted in this charter to William Penn, to act as Captain General, and to train all men-pursue the enemies of the State,-vanquish and take them, and put them to death by the laws of war. Is this not a contradiction of these petitioners to all intents and purposes? He should like to know how gentlemen would get out of this. It was just, right and proper that all men should be subjected to the laws, and that all should pay their proportion toward the maintenance of the government, and the defence of the Commonwealth. We had the highest authority for this, yea, even authority from on high. The scriptures said “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers," and "they that resist shall receive damnation." These men, then, ought to submit to the powers of the government, and the laws of their country, if they wish to be the followers of the Prince of Peace. Their resistance is rebellion against the laws of the land, which is worse than wichcraft. The language of the Scripture was strong and emphatic,and in direct contradiction of the prayer of these petitioners. The language of the charter, too, was in contradiction of their prayer. William Penn never gave them the grant which they here contend for. |