Page images
PDF
EPUB

out its long protracted sessions, we have had various editions of these pro fessions of trust in the people. I believe that the people of Pennsylvania have discovered before now-or, that if they have not, they soon will discover that those who profess most loudly to trust the people, really desire to persuade the people to trust them. We had last night a declaration of the party principles of one gentleman here. It seems that there is at least one member of this body, who professes to be of a party, and to act upon party principles. That gentleman said, that the desire of his party was to do the greatest good of the greatest number. Whether the gentleman intended to say the greatest good of the ruling party, I do not know, though, from something that fell from another gentleman, I should suppose that this was discarded as a heresy.

Mr. FULLER asked leave to explain. any party principles in this body. were in allusion to the reform party. Mr. MEREDITH resumed.

He had never said, that he had The remarks which he had made

It was not to the gentleman from Fayette that I alluded. I know he has been a great advocate of reform. I have confidence in the correctness of his mind and disposition; and I hope that the day will come, when he will believe that the reform which is most wanting in this commonwealth, is a reform of the principles which he professes and ad

vocates.

I intend, Mr. President, to record my name in favor of the amendment of my colleague from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Scott.) This I would do, even if I were assured that no other member of this convention would record a similar vote, and I wish this body to say whether they will, or will not, leave to the people the decision of these amendments in the form in which alone they ought to be decided. What is the reason that the people are to be denied the right of voting against any one of these amendments? What is the reason that they are to be compelled to swallow every thing that we may give them, or else to leave the constitution without any amendment at all? Why is it that the people are to be denied the opportunity of saying, we do not like the alteratien you have made in the judicial system? Why is it that they are to be denied the opportunity of saying, we do not like the change in relation to the county officers? Why is it that they are not to be allowed to say, we prefer that our senate should be elected as heretofore, until we see something of a character to satisfy our minds that a change would be for our benefit; but at the same time, we are desirous to adopt a clause which shall enable us, from time to time, to amend our constitution in such manner as we may please? Upon what ground, I ask, are we to say to the people that this privilege shall be denied? Upon what ground are we to say to them, you must either accept or reject the whole;-you must take the whole, or none. Sir, is this the course whieh we have adopted in our own deliberations? Have we not acted upon each amendment separately? Are we not about to go to the third reading of them, without putting the whole in a lump? Would we listen, for a moment, to a proposition compelling us to vote in a lump, for or against all the amendments to all the articles? No gentleman would venture to bring forward such u proposition here, and why should we venture to put it to the people? I want to know whether there is sufficient republican spirit left in this

body, to let us go to the people on republican principles, to let us treat them as if they were capable of governing themselves-as if they were capable of giving an opinion for themselves? Why cannot we hear the opinion of the people themselves on these various propositions, instead of listening to denunciation against men who will not swallow the whole, as being anti-republican, anti-democratic-men opposed to the will of the people and fearful to repose any confidence in them? Why cannot this be done? Will any man tell me that he fears, if this is not done, that certain favorite amendments of his own will not be agreed to? If this is the reason, let it be made known, and the sooner the better. We shall then be able to understand precisely where we are. But until that reason shall be assigned, I have yet heard of nothing which would carry even a plausible excuse to the people why we should put the amendments to them in such a manner as to compel them either to take the whole, or to reject the whole. Why did the legislature expressly give to us the power to submit our amendments, distinctly and separately to the people? The eight section of the act of March, 1836, has the following provision:

[ocr errors]

'And it shall also be the duty of the said judges and inspectors, to receive at the said election, tickets, either written or printed, from citizens qualified to vote, and to deposit them in a box or boxes, to be for that purpose provided by the proper officers, which tickets shall be labelled on the outside "amendments," and those who are favorable to the amendments, may express their desire by voting each a printed or written ticket or ballot, containing the words for the amendments;" and those who are opposed to such amendments, may express their opposition by voting each a printed or written ticket or ballot, containing the words "against the amendments ;" and a majority of the whole number of votes thus given for or against the amendments, when ascertained, in the manner hereinafter directed, shall decide whether said amendments are or are not thereafter to be taken as a part of the constitution of this commonwealth: Provided however, That if the said convention shall declare it to be most expedient to submit the amendments to the people in distinct and separate propositions, it shall be the duty of the said judges, inspectors, and clerks, to receive ballots prepared accordingly, or in any way which said convention may direct."

Now, continued Mr. M., why was this full power thus expressly given? Why was it, except under the anticipation, that if the amendments should turn out, as they have turned out to be, numerous and important, to making various principles in the constitution, distinct from each other, and capable of a distinct classification, in that case the right of the people, to vote upon them, according to such classification, should not be taken away? It is true, that if our amendments had been confined to the few and simple points, to which gentlemen, in the first instance, declared that they would be confined, it might have been proper to have submitted the whole of them in mass. But the fact has turned out differently. The most vital parts of the constitution have been changed. I do not contend that it is necessary to put every amendment distinctly by itself; but that the amendments which relate to the same principles, should be put in classes separately, and that the citizens should have the opportunity of saying what part of the old constitution they wish to retain, and what part they wish to alter. This, I apprehend, is a matter of

right, and although we have at this moment the power to put the amendments differently before the freemen, still, I say, it would be an outrage upon the inherent rights of the people of this commonwealth, which they will not be slow to perceive, and which, I trust, they will not be slow

to resent.

The gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) consoles himself with a very easy way of answering the arguments of those who are in favor of the motion that the amendments shall be voted upon separately. He answers them by saying, that they are against reform, and that they think the present constitution is good enough. So far as concerns myself, I deny now, as I always have denied, that it is competent for any gentleman to shew by my votes, that I am opposed to reform, as reform; or that I wish to maintain any single provision in the constitution, simply because it is there.

He had voted against propositions which were designated as reform amendments, but which he did not so regard. On the contrary, they would introduce much evil into the constitution. He had decided upon them according to the dictates of his honest and unbiased judgment. The word "conservative" did not apply to him in the sense in which it was sometimes used, but to those who were opposed to all reform-who would reject every thing, although they might suppose it even better than what was contained in the constitution. In that sense, then, he could sincerely disavow for himself and colleague, (Mr. Scott) that it had any applicability to them. He (Mr. M.) had voted for some reforms in the constitution-such as he believed to be salutary and calculated to promote the happiness of the people of this commonwealth. But he protested against the principle practically set up here, that because the tenure of good behavior is a republican principle, that, therefore, the people are to be deprived of all the signs, and all the forms, and the spirit of a republican government. It appeared to him that some of the votes which had been given for two or three days past, were as great infringements on the whole spirit of our institutions, as could be inflicted by any act of the most tyrannical minorities, to whom allusion had been made. He insisted that the motion of his colleague, (Mr. Scott) was in accordance with the true republican spirit. He (Mr. M.) desired that the people should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions clearly and distinctly. He trusted that the motion to recommit would prevail.

On motion of Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county,
The convention adjourned till half-past three o'clock.

THURSDAY AFTERNOON, FEBRUARY 15, 1838.

In consequence of the thin attendance of members, a call of the house was ordered, and the proceedings were suspended, as soon as it was ascertained that a sufficient number to constitute a quorom were present.

SCHEDULE.

The convention resumed the second reading and consideration of the second resolution reported by the committee appointed to report to the convention when the amendments to the constitution shall be submitted to a vote of the people.

The question being on the motion of Mr. SCOTT, that the amendment of Mr. DARLINGTON, together with the report of the committee as amended, be re-committed to the said committee, with instructions so to amend it as to give the people of this commonwealth an opportunity to vote upon the amendments saparately.

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, said this proposition, coming from where it did, surprised him much. He had heard nothing in the committee on the subject, and therefore he was surprised; and, before the proposition came to be voted on, it became us to look at it more closely than we had done. It is, in effect, a proposition to postpone the day of adjournment from the 22d of February, to an indefinite period-to continue this session to an interminable extent. If recommitted, (said Mr. W.) my word for it, that committee will not return a report by the 22d of February. You cannot get a report till after the 22d shall have come and gone; so, therefore, it involves the fixing of a day of adjournment be yond the 22d of February. If we sit beyond the 22d, the gentlemen who have these new born ideas about trusting the people will have all the constitution to themselves. He had another reason. We find the engrossed amendments amount to twenty-five in number. This is a proposition to submit these amendments separately to a vote of the people. You have agreed that the vote shall be taken at the October election. The people will then have to elect a governor, members of congress, one-fourth of the senators, all the assembly-men, sheriffs, coroners, commissioners, auditors, and other officers. Therefore, throughout the whole of Pennsylvania you will have six distinct and separate offices to vote for, and, in some parts of the state, eight. They, then, who put this proposition on the ground of confidence in the people, will have twentyfive distinct and separate subjects to present for the vote of the people; and will have to provide, in addition to all the others twenty-five separate ballot boxes for the votes on the amendments. You compel the voters to run through all these boxes, thirty-three in number, to get tickets, and deposit for each separately, and the officers of the election to sit and reserve all these tickets, from six in the morning until ten at night; and this you call trusting the people. You thus not only nullify the resolution to adjourn on the 22d of February, but compel the people to vote on

thirty-three different subjects without light to guide them. Look at it with all the witticisms of the gentleman from Philadelphia, and the subject was done more justice to by that gentleman than it would have been by any one else, in this light, and when he calls in all those who live out of the city of Philadelphia to vote for recommitment, and consider the effects of these thirty-three ballot boxes. The gentleman told us the other day that the whole vote of the party with which he acted, so disgusted were they with the proceedings, would be thrown against the amendments, and that the people would reject them. This from his party was very candid. The whole delegation of Philadelphia could not have devised a mode more calculated to disgust the people of Pennsylvania than this. He was not disposed to disgust any one. He would wish to go according to law, which requires that the votes shall be given "For the amend ments, or Against the amendments." The proviso at the end of the law is this:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"Provided, however, That if the said convention shall declare it to be most expedient to submit the amendments to the people in distinct and separate propositions, it shall be the duty of the said judges, inspectors and clerks, to receive ballots prepared accordingly, or in any way which said convention may direct."

He therefore dissented from the opinion of the gentleman from Philadelphia as to the mode in which the amendments shall be submitted. Therefore, he thought they should be submitted as amendments. The tickets should be marked, as designated by the act, “ For," or " Against the amendments." This was not only the most reasonable mode of submitting the amendments to the people, but, viewing the vote on the amendments, in connexion with all the other subjects which would require the action of the people on that day, the only practicable mode of submitting them. For these reasons, then, he hoped that the motion to recommit the report would not prevail.

Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster, demanded the previous question, and, a sufficient number rising to sustain the call, the previous question was ordered.

The question being "Shall the main question be now put?"

Mr. DENNY asked for the yeas and nays on this question, and they were ordered.

And on the question,

Shall the main question be now put?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DENNY and Mr. HIESTER, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS. Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cruin, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Lyons, Maclay, Mag e, Mann, Merkel, Miller, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Weaver-66.

NAYS.-Messrs Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Hays, Henderson, of Allows

« PreviousContinue »