There will be abundance of time allowed for the consideration of the ninth article, even if we should not remain in session so long as until the 224 day of February. I know that there are some of my friends in this body whose legal engagements call for their presence elsewhere, and I have no objections to accommodate them, if possible, by adjourning at an earlier day than we have now agreed upon. In any event, I believe there will be time enough to do every thing; but if there should not be, let us take more-let us take enough, and let us not force a good thing into a bad thing by putting it in the wrong place and in the wrong terms. I confess that I am anxious about this matter. The principle is a most important one; it is one which ought to be put before the people in the most accep table shape; looking to cool, dispassionate and fair reform.

I repeat, however, that this is not the place for it, nor this the manner in which the desired object will be accomplished. And I regret that after the gentleman from Lancaster, (vir. Reigart) had withdrawn his proposition, the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr Sturdevant) should have thought proper to offer a similar one at this time.

Mr. DUSLOP, of Franklin, said, I concur with the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll) that we should all agree to fix upon the right phraseology for this amendment, but I dissent from him when he says that one or two words will settle the difficulty, if introduced in the right place and in the right manner.

The gentleman points us to the latter clause of the tenth section of the ninth article, which says "nor shall any man's property be taken or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, and without just compensation being made." And here, he says, an effective amendment may be introduced in three words.

66

Now, Mr. President, it is to be borne in mind that there are two methods of taking private property for public use-one by public direction where the work is carried on by the commonwealth herself; and the other, where a corporation is made use of in the management of a work of internal improvement or for some other equally important purpose. We all agree that tendering" compensation and we all agree that "securing" compnsation would be sufficient, at least, I understand that there is no difficulty between myself and the other members of the convention, so far as concerns that point. Will not every purpose, then, be effectually accomplished by adopting the words of the amendment offered by myself?

The question of taking private property for the use of the commor, wealth, and that of taking it for the use of corporations, are two very distinct things. And these two distinct questions can not, in my opinion, be properly disposed of by the introduction of three words in the manner indicated by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia. To do so, would be to blend the powers of the commonwealth with the powers of corporations. Is it not a distinct question whether we shall vest a corporate body with power to take private property, or whether we say that the commonwealth shall secure or tender compensation for property takea for public use?

It seems to me that the question of investing a corporate body with power is distinct from the question of giving that power to the com

such

monwealth herself. It never was expected that the commonwealth should condescend to give security for payment of property thus taken, when the whole power of the commonwealth was pledged.

At first sight, I confess I was inclined to the opinion that two or three words inserted in the manner and place suggested by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, might have accomplished the object we have in view; but after further reflection, I have come to a contrary conclusion. The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, I think, will himself also find upon close examination that a section will probably be required to adjust the matter satisfactorily, and in such a way as will leave no room for doubt or misconstruction. At any rate, it is a point deserving of further consideration, and, with that view, I move that the convention do now adjourn.

But Mr. D. withdrew the motion at the request of

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, who said that he wished to submit a few words in answer to one or two observations which had fallen from the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll.) I allude, contined Mr. W., to his remarks in relation to amendments to the ninth article.

I dissent in toto from the idea that we must remain here until the twenty second day of February, simply because the resolution we have adopted affords us that latitude. And I now give notice that when we have gone though with the eighth article, I intend to move that we proceed to the consideration of the report of the committee on the subject of future amendments to the consitution; and I also intend to use my efforts in every proper way to resist entering at all upon the consideration or discussion of the ninth article. If we open that Pandora's box-

Mr. INGERSOLL. There is hope at the bottom.

Mr. WOODWARD. There is not hope at the bottom of that box.

I say that I shall in every proper manner oppose the taking up of this article, and I shall do so with a view of closing the labors of this body at as early a period as possible. If we now enter upon that article, there is no telling where we may end. I have no idea that I shall be successful in my resistance, but I shall resist nevertheless.

Well, then, my colleauge and myself feel some anxiety about the adoption of this amendment; and if this is not the proper place to introduce it, I know not where the proper place is to be found. At the same time, we

are both willing that its further consideration should be postponed for the present, in order to give time for examination and reflection. I hope, therefore, that it will be postponed; but I hope also that it will ultimately be inserted in this place, and that the ninth article of the constitution of 1790 will forever remain a sealed book to us.

A notion was then made by Mr. DUNLOP,

That the convention do now adjourn; which motion prevailed.

And the convention adjourned until half past three o'clock this afternoon.

THURSDAY AFTERNOON, FEBRUARY 1, 1838.

The PRESIDENT laid before the convention a communication from a committee of the legislature, accompanied with the following resolution,

viz:

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed, to confer with the Convention assembled at Philadelphia to propose amendments to the State Constitution, for the purpose of procuring a sufficient number of copies of the Debates of that body for the members of the Legislature.

Which was read and laid on the table.

SEVENTH ARTICLE.

The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee to whom was referred the seventh article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole.

The question being on the motion of Mr. BELL, of Chester, to postpone the further consideration of the amendment offered by Mr. DUNLOP to the amendment of Mr. STURDEVANT together with the amendment of the latter, and report of the cominittee for the present.

Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, did not see what was to be gained by postponement. He would be in favor of attaching such a clause to this article. It might be as well to go on now, and act upon it.

a majority of the convention now in favor of it.

There was

The question was then taken, and the motion to postpone was decided in the negative. Ayes 35-noes 44.

The question recurring on the motion of Mr. DUNLOP to amend the amendment of Mr. STURDEVANT, by striking therefrom all after "section 4," and inserting in lieu the following, viz:

"No corporation shall have the power of using private property without the assent of the owner, unless compensation shall be first tendered or secured."

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, hoped this proposition would not prevail. He would be glad if gentlemen in favor of it would suffer it to lie over until the ninth article should come up for consideration. The objection urged was that while the commonwealth tied up its own hands. companies are allowed to take private property. The action of the commonwealth had been as much complained of, as is that of the coinpanies. He would rather have a claim against an individual than against the commonwealth. Let the commonwealth take it into its own hands, appoint commissioners, and give security as individuals do! Suppose such a law to be passed, and the property of the individual to be taken for the public works, can he sue the commonwealth? No: he must go with his petition to the legislature, where it will be referred to a committee, and he must give his time in attendance, in the legislature. An in

dividual may have to travel a thousand miles, and must, after all, depend on a committee of the legislature. When the king of Prussia wanted to take the garden of a poor widow, and she refused, he had no power to take it. So the legislature should have no power to grant to private corporations of private individuals such power. The legislature can have no such power. Whenever the property of an individual is taken for the public use he has the guaranty of the corporation that he will be paid for it. If he is not paid, injustice is done. The property must be obtained on some terms, if the public interest requires it.

Mr. H. then went on to show that the insertion of this section in the constitution would create a conflict between it and the present provision in the bill of rights or ninth article. He contended that according to the language of the constitution, as it now exists, there was no power to take property from an individual without compensation. Every view satisfied him that there was no necessity for the adoption of the amendment now, and he hoped it would remain until the convention should be called to act on the ninth article.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said that he was entirely opposed to any postponement of the subject until the ninth article of the constitution should be taken up. He expressed himself to be in favor of the proposed mendment. He adverted to the terms of the acts incorporating the Cumberland Valley rail-road and the Norristown and Valley rail-road, and stated that under the provisions of the respective charters the companies had so well and skilfully managed their operations as to have avoided getting into difficulties with the land owners. He thought, however, that the land-owners should be secured against any infringement on their rights, while at the same time the public convenience should be consulted. He would require of the corporation, whatever it might be, to compensate the owners of private property, or give security therefor, before appropriating it to their use. Mr. D. related what had been the course pursued between incorporated companies and the owners of private property, with a view to settle and adjust their differences.

He did not believe that there could be a better mode devised than the

present one. It had given general satisfaction, although there had been a few solitary instances to the contrary. The gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) had referred to one, where, after the water had been let into the canal, it ran into and overflowed some adjoining lands. The damage had not been foreseen, before the work was completed, and no contingent allowance had been made in regard to it. The parties, consequently, came to the legislature for redress, as was usual in such cases. And he (Mr. D.) would like to know if the legislature had ever refused to grant it, where proof was shewn by the parties claiming that they were entitled to it? In conclusion he expressed his hope that the amendment of the delegate from Luzerne would be adopted.

Mr. BONHAM, of York, said if any one subject, more than another, demanded and was entitled to the serious attention and consideration of the convention, it was that of Corporate Rights and privileges. He thought there could be no question that the legislature had, for many years past, been pursuing a course of legislation which had seriously affected and infringed upon the private rights of individuals in this commonwealth

A great deal had been said by delegates in relation to vested rights, and of the great impropriety and injustice of disturbing or interfering with hem,

Now, he would say a few words on this point, and show how those rights had been disregarded, at least, in respect to the parties of whom he was about to speak. He had known, in that section of the country in which he lived, men to have had their lands completely destroyed by the introduction of a rail-road or canal running through them.

He recollected that in 1834-5 the legislature passed an act to incorporate a company to construct, or make a rail-road from Wrightsville, on the Susquehanna, in York county, to York and Gettysburg. The act conferred upon them the right to enter upon any lands in the valley for the purpose of exploring, surveying, and locating the route of the said rail-road. He would read the precise words of the act, in question. They were these: "And when the said route shall be determined by the said company, it shall be lawful for the said company, their agents, contractors, &c. at any time, to enter upon, take possession of, and use such land; and also, to take from any land in the neighborhood, gravel, stone, wood, and other materials, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining such rail-road, subject, however, to such compensation as shall be hereafter ascertained," &c.

Shortly after this chartered privilege was granted, a part of the road was put under contract, viz: Wrightsville and York.

While this work was progressing, a great many of the finest farms in that fertile valley were almost entirely ruined, and the owners of which were not permitted to say a word. They could have no redress at that time, whatever they might be able to obtain thereafter. The only hope they had of being indemnified for their losses depended upon the work being carried out into successful operation. But, unfortunately for them when the work was nearly completed, the company failed. And, the rails which lay at the road side, ready for putting on the track, were sold by the sheriff, and bought by another company. The road now remained in an unfinished state, and only one or two individuals received any compensation for the loss they sustained. And, thus had the property of honest and industrious farmers been sacrificed, and their rights violated with impunity. The company being insolvent, the land-holders had no possible means whereby to redress their grievances.

At the next session of the legislature (1835-6) as if determined to usurp the rights, and further to oppress, the respectable, peaceable and industrious farmers of the beautiful valley between York and Wrightsville, (which is not more than half a mile wide in many parts) and utterly destroy their farms-they passed an act incorporating another company to erect a second rail-road, to run parallel with, and near to the first. farmers became highly indignant and exasperated at the conduct of the legislature, and were determined to resist any further encroachment on their rights. And, he sincerely believed that had any attempt been made to execute the work, there would have been blood shed.

The

Now, these were evils, for which some remedy ought to be found. The rights of private individuals ought to be better secured to them than