And the resolution, as amended was agreed to, and the report ordered to be printed, and laid on the table.

NINTH ARTICLE.

The following reports from the majority and minority of the committee on the ninth article of the constitution, were read

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, from the committee to whom was referred the ninth article of the constitution, made the following report:

The existing bill of rights as it stands, except that the twenty-sixth or last section thereof, shall be numbered twenty-seven, and that the following be introduced as section twenty-six.

"Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms shall not be compelled to do so, nor pay an equivalent therefor, except in times of exigency or war."

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, from the minority of the committee to whom was referred the ninth article of the constitution, made the following report, viz:

The undersigned, a minority of the committee on the ninth article of the constitution, submit the following as provisions, which in their judgment should be inserted in the bill of rights, in addition to those reported by the committee, to be called sections twenty-seven and twentyeight, and the section reported twenty-seven, to be numbered thirty.

SECTION 27. No perpetual charter of incorporation except for religious, charitable or literary purposes, shall be granted, nor shall any charter for other purposes exceed the duration of

years.

SECTION 28. No charter of incorporation for banking purposes nor for dealing in money, stocks, securities, or paper credits shall exceed the duration of years nor shall the same be granted where the dollars without the concurrence of

capital authorized exceeds two successive legislatures.

SECTION 29. The legislature shall have no power to combine or unite in any one bill or act, any two or more distinct subjects or objects of legislation, or any two or more distinct appropriations, or appropriations to distinct or different objects except appropriations to works exclusively belonging to and carried on by the commonwealth. And the object or subject matter of each bill or act shall be distinctly stated in the title thereof.

J. M. PORTER,

R. M. CRAIN,
HENRY SCHEETZ.

The convention then took up the ninth article for consideration, and the following was read:

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE,

SECTION 1. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, said he wished to call the attention of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Martin) to what he was about to say. It would be recollected that the convention had deter mined

The CHAIR, (Mr. Porter) remarked that it was not in order to make any observations at this time, as there was no motion before the convention.

Mr. DARLINGTON said, that he had risen for the purpose of making an inquiry

The CHAIR again called the gentleman from Chester to order, and requested him to take his seat.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, said he would appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The CHAIR observed that the gentleman must reduce his appeal to writing.

After some confusion and excitement,

On motion of Mr. Scort, of Philadelphia, the delegate from Chester was allowed to proceed with his remarks.

Mr. DARLINGTON then said he wished to learn from the Chair whether it was in order for him (Mr. D.) or the delegate from the county (Mr. Martin) or any other gentleman to move the insertion of the word ". white" in the first line of the section after the word "all." He moved to amend by inserting after "rights" the following: "of which no one may be deprived by reason of his opinions or his complexion, differing from that of the majority."

Mr. D. remarked that if the delegate from the county of Philadelphia had proposed the amendment, to which he (Mi. D.) had alluded, so as to make this section correspond with another part of the constitution, he would not have moved this amendment. He was in favor of the bill of rights (or ninth article) as it stood in the constitution of 1790, because his opinion was that "all men are born free and equal." The reason why he had opposed this amendment was, because he would not have any man deprived of his rights on account of a difference of colour, or opinions, or anything else.

Therefore it was that he was in favor of saying "that all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights," of which rights they shall not be deprived on any account whatever. And the language of the bill of rights could be altered in other parts of it to agree with this amendment. Let the article be altered, it the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia thinks proper to offer an amendment, and say that "all power is inherent in white people," for such is now the principle already decided by this convention.

This convention has solemnly decided that all power is in the hands of those who are of the Anglo-Saxon race. I look to symmetry. I look to the spirit of the constitution being carried through from beginning to end; and if it is the sense of a majority of the people of this commonwealth that civil and political rights shall be enjoyed only by a portion of her citizens, let the constitution at least be consistent; and let that principle be carried out through every clause of the instrument. Let us

say explicitly, and in terms which admit of no doubtful construction, what we intend to do; and instead of securing by the constitution the right of trial by jury to all the people, let it be secured to all white people, and let others be deprived of it. Let us declare the truth plainly in this, which is the fundamental law of the land. Nay, let us even go further, and alter the language of the Declaration of Independence, so as to make that comform to the peculiar opinions and notions of the day. Let every thing be in harmony. If it be true, as is here alleged, that the power of this government is the power of a portion of the people only, let that doctrine be made known from the house tops; let it be proclaimed on the summits of your mountains, and in the hearts of your vallies. Let the people know how the truth is. If, on the contrary, the language of your bill of rights contains the true sentiment-if it is true, as is there stated, that "all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inalienable and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness;"-if, I say, all this be true, then I ask you to go further-to adopt the amendment I have proposed, and to secure these rights to every individual, no matter what may be the cast or colour of his skin.

Mr. HAYHURST, of Columbia, said, that as he did not believe that the people of Pennsylvania required any alteration in this article of the constitution, and as he did not think that the debate, however extended it might be, would lead to any change, he would ask for the immediate question.

Which motion was sustained by the requisite number of delegates rising in their places.

Some desultory conversation here ensued as to the effect of the call for the immediate question, as compared with the call for the previous question.

Whereupon, Mr. HAYHURST, consentaneously with the other delegates who had been in support of the motion, withdrew the call for the immediate question, and demanded the previous question.

Which said demand was seconded by the requistte number of delegates rising in their places.

And on the question,

Shall the main question be now put?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FARRELLY and Mr. BIDDi e, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Ayres, Ranks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clapp. Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Donagan, Doran, Fleming, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen. M'Sherry, Miller; Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Saeger, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturde-, vant, Taggart, Todd, Weaver, White, Woodward, Porter, of Northampton, President

pro tem.-84.

NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers. Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Coates, Cope, Darlington,

Denny, Dickey, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Hopkinson, Long, Maclay, M'Dowell, Merrill, Merkel. Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Serrill, Sill. Thomas, Weidman, Young-35.

So the convention determined that the main question should be now taken.

The CHAIR stated that the main question was on agreeing to that part of the report of the committee, which says that no amendment is necessary to be made in the first section of the ninth article of the constitution.

Mr. FARRELLY, of Crawford, said that he would appeal from the decision of the chair on that point. His belief was, that the question was on the amendment of the gentleman from Chester. reasons upon which he grounded his appeal.

Mr. F.

gave his Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, entertained the opinion that the delegate from Crawford was in error.

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, thought the gentleman, (Mr. Farrelly) was entirely mistaken in the views he had taken of this matter. In his, (Mr. D's.) opinion, the man question was on agreeing to the ninth article. He, however, cared not which way the question was decided. He was satisfied with the bill of rights as it stood.

The CHAIR read the rule in reference to the manner of proceeding.

Mr. DUNLOP said two or three words in favor of the course contended for by the Chair.

After a few words from Mr. STERIGERE in favor of the decision of the Chair, Mr. FARRELLY withdrew the appeal, and it was renewed by Mr. EARLE, who gave his reasons for this course. He was followed by Mr. CHAMBERS in explanation of the rule; which was, on the motion of Mr. EARLE, read by the secretary. The President then gave the grounds on which he based his decision, and Mr. EARLE thereupon withdrew the appeal.

The question was then taken on the report of the committee on the first section, and it was agreed to without a division.

The convention then proceeded to the consideration of the second section, which is as follows:

SECT. 2. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness: For the advancement of those ends, they have, at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government, in such manner as they may think proper.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, objected to voting on the question. That it was inexpedient to amend the section. The question taken must be on the whole or a part of the report. The president of this body had no right to amend the report of the committee, and if he did, delegates ought not to sustain him.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, called the gentleman to order, and stated the reasons why he did so.

After a few words between Mr. EARLE and Mr. READ,

The question was taken on the adoption of the report of the committee on the second section, and it was agreed to.

The convention next proceeded to the consideration of the third seotion:

SECT. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can, of right, be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, moved to amend, by striking out all after the word "conscience,” in the sixth and seventh lines, viz: the words " and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship."

Mr. C. said that he had moved to strike out these words because they were inconsistent with, if not in direct contradiction of, the language of the second section of the sixth article of the constitution. He was sorry the subject was not in abler hands. He, however, would argue it in the best manner he was able. In the section to which he had just referred, it was there laid down that "The freemen of this commonwealth shall be armed, organized, and disciplined for its defence, when and in such manner as may be directed by law. Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service."

Now, what, he asked, were we to understand by "freemen"? The freemen of the commonwealth And there was a clause also in the same section with regard to conscientious scruples-that a man should not be compelled to do military duty, if he entertained any, but should pay an equivalent instead. The words which he had moved to strike out, were, in his opinion, at variance with the language of the section which he had just read. It might be said, perhaps, that these conscientious scruples belong to every citizen of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But this he denied. What other religious society, besides the Quakers, had sought or prayed to be exempted from military duty, and refused to pay an equivalent, as they said in their memorials. He would contend then, that there was a contradiction between the language of the two sections, which ought to be reconciled. This convention, under a full sense of what was due to its own character and dignity, would not overlook and leave uncorrected this contradiction. He cared not what might be the mode of worship adopted by any set of men, they could not, in his judgment, be exempted, for any reason whatsoever, from the payment of an equivalent for the non-performance of military duty. But, strictly speaking, no man could really be excused-could give an equivalent for his services. What could be an equivalent for a man's services in battle-as, for instance, in the defence of Baltimore, when bombarded by the British? What, he asked, would have been an equivalent for the services of the man who shot Gen. Ross, when in full march on Baltimore, and which would probably have been in flames in a few hours afterward? Nothing.j

He knew that it was contended by many that all men may refuse to do military duty by the payment of a tax. This position he utterly controverted and most positively denied. He contended that the society of