Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, He'ffenstein, Henderson of Allegheny, Henderson of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Kennedy, Keir, Krebs, Long, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Montgomery, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Saeger, Scheez, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Shellito, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Weidman, Woodward, Sergeant, President-99.

So the question was determined in the negative.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, moved to amend the said section as amended, by striking therefrom the words "at the time of the election of constables," where they occur in the third line.

Mr. D. said that he made this motion because he thought it an unnecessary restriction on the people, as to when they should hold their elections. It should be left to the legislature to say when the elections should be held.

The question being taken on the motion to amend, it was decided in the negative.

And the report of the committee so far as relates to the sixth section thereof, as amended, was agreed to.

The convention then proceeded to the consideration of the seventh section of the sixth article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole :

SECT. 7. All officers, whose election or appointment is not provided for in this constitution, shall be elected or appointed, as shall be directed by law.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, moved to amend by adding the following:

66

No person shall be appointed to any office within any county, who shall not have been a citizen and an inhabitant therein one year next before his appointment, if the county shall have been so long erected, but if it shall not have been so long erected, then within the limits of the county or counties out of which it shall have been taken. No member of Congress from this state, or any person holding or exercising any office or appointment of trust or profit under the United States, shall at the same time hold or exercise any office in this state, to which a salary is, or fees or perquisites are by law annexed; and the legislature may by law declare what state offices are incompatible.”

Mr. H. briefly explained the object of his amendment. He would say, let the people elect for twelve months, or any other time they thought proper. According to the terms of the section under consideration, the legislature may provide for the appointment of many other officers in a county than do now hold office. It seemed to him that there should be some restriction in reference to the men who may present themselves as candidates for election in a county. Therefore, he had proposed to insert in the constitution the language to be found in the first clause of his amendment. The second branch of his amendment was in accordance with the sentiment, if not the precise language of the constitution under which the people of this commonwealth had lived for the last forty-seven

years, viz: "that no person should hold an office of trust or profit under the constitution of the United States and of this state at the same time, &c." This provision of the constitution of Pennsylvania was an admirable and beneficial one. And, he trusted it would prove salutary for the future. The last proposition of his amendment left the legislature to say what offices are incompatible. It was to be found in many of the consti

tutions of the state.

It may be alleged, said Mr. H., that the legislature have now sufficient authority without insertion of any clause in the constitution, conferring the power. It might be so, but still the provision could do no harm. It would enable them to say what offices are incompatible with each

other.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said he believed the principle of the amend ment was correct, and that the provision would meet with general concurrence. He had not, however, risen to argue this question, but to apologise for an error he had committed, on a former day, in stating, that in a subsequent section, provision had been made on the subject of the incompatibility of offices. He was wrong in that assertion. A word again as to the place and manner of this amendment, As it was now proposed. it would apply to offices in this section only. If it were made a separate section, it would be applicable to all offices. As the provision was now introduced, a judge might be a member of congress. He would therefore suggest to the gentleman from Lancaster, the propriety of offering the clause, not as an appendage to this section, but as a separate section.

Mr. HIESTER said, that if the gentleman from Susquehanna, was right in his construction of the effect of the amendment, it was not such as he, Mr. H., intended. But he did not know that the view of the gentleman was correct. It was his, Mr. H's., object to make the provision applicable to all officers. He thought the gentleman was wrong in his construction. He would modify the provision in the first line, so as to make it read "any office" instead of an office."

The amendment as modified, was then agreed to, without a division.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said he was unaware that any provision had been inserted as to the incompatibility of offices, in reference to members of the legislature. The act of 1812, excludes them from holding offices, and he would like to see the exclusive principle of this act incorporated in the constitution. The old provision was this:

"No member of congress from this state, nor any person holding or exercising any office of trust or profit under the United States, shall, at the same time, hold or exercise the office of judge, secretary, treasurer, prothonotary register of wills and recorder of deeds, sheriff, or any office in this state, to which a salary is by law annexed, or any other office which future legislatures shall declare incompatible with offices or appointments under the United States,”

But the act of 1812, carried the principle further, because about twenty members had, in 1809, carried home commissions in their pockets.

Mr. OVERFIELD, of Monroe, moved to amend the section as amended, by adding to the end thereof, the words following, viz: "No member of

the senate or of the house of representatives shall be appointed by the governor, to any office during the term for which he shall have been elected."

The question being taken, the amendment was agreed to, without a division.

The report of the committee on the section, as amended was then agreed to.

'The eighth section was considered, and agreed to, in the following form, viz:

SECTION 8. All officers for a term of years shall hold their offices, for the terms respectively specified, only on the condition that they so long behave themselves well, and shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office, or of any infamous crime.

The ninth section was then taken up for consideration, as follows, viz: SECTION 9. Any person who shall after the adoption of the amendments proposed by this convention to the constitution, fight a duel, or send a challenge for that purpose, or be aider or abetter in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of the right of holding any office of honor or profit in this state, and shall be punished otherwise in such manner as is or may be prescribed by law. But the executive may emit the said offence, and all

its disqualifications.

Mr. HIESTER, rose and said :-Mr. President,

Although it is true that in this commonwealth, public opinion has nearly abolished the savage and barbarous practice of duelling, yet we all know that it still exists among us.

That the amendment now under consideration, as reported by the committee of the whole, will tend further to extirpate it, seems to me to admit of no doubt. Among what class of society is it that we find this practice still to some extent prevailing? Is it among the middling or lower classes, against whom your laws are most readily enforced, or is it among those who from their wealth and elevated rank in society have it in their power to, and most generally do evade the punishment of the law? No one will controvert that the continuance of the practice is confined almost exclusively to the latter class. And the very circumstance of its not being practised by those who, some would designate the ignoble and the vulgar, is the reason why those who consider themselves the well born and the exclusive gentlemen of the land, continue to be the eulogists and advocates of the practice. They seem to think that such sentiments imply the possession of chivalrous feelings, and of bravery. And that to repudiate duelling would be an indication of cowardice and a want of chivalry.

Now sir, advocating duelling, or even meeting your antagonist in single combat, is in my apprehension not always a mark of true courage. For experience has shown that men who have been wanting in courage to defend their country's rights in the tented field, and some who there actually disgraced themselves, have notwithstanding that, been driven into duelsI go further sir, and maintain that the veriest coward may be, and often is driven into such acts of desperation. In a community where public opin

ion sanctions duelling, it often requires a greater degree of genuine courage to refuse to fight, than it does to engage in it. That moral and true courage which prompts and sustains a man in braving pub.ic opinion, and doing what his conscience dictates to be right, is a rare virtue; and much less common than animal courage, or that which will prompt him to commit the rash and reckless acts, in accordance with the sentiments of those with whom he may be associated. But, however, this may be-under the benign influence of the Gospel dispensation, which pervades our happy country, and in this enlightened age, I trust that in this convention at least, there will be few found, who do not admit the propriety of resorting to the most effectual means, for the total abolition of such an inhuman and unchristian like practice among us.

The question then recurs, will the introduction of this amendment into the fundamental law of the state, tend to promote that object? In my view, Mr. President, it will go far to effect it. For as I have attempted to show, duelling in this state, so far as it still exists, is almost exclusively confined to those who are, or consider themselves, of the higher order of society. And those are the very persons who are most aspiring, and who often strain every nerve to possess themselves of your offices of honor and profit. If then by your organic law you cut them off from attaining this grand object-and for the very attainment of which there are perhaps more duels fought in our country, than for all other causes united, will it not be likely to do more towards its entire suppression than any other thing you can do for the attainment of that object.

But it may be said that we have penal enactments, which if enforced, would accomplish the same purpose-and that if they are not sufficient the legislature have the power to pass such as will be effectual. The reply to this is, that the section does not contemplate the prohibition of the enforcement of the existing laws, or such as may hereafter be passed for the suppression of duelling. On the contrary, it expressly reserves to the laws their full operation. But in addition, it provides for cases which your laws cannot reach. As for instance, when such acts are committed by your citizens out of the limits of the state, your laws cannot reach the offenders, and they go unpunished under our state enactments. And this is the manner in which those acts are generally perpetrated. If however, this section is adopted you have a provision that will embrace not only the cases referred to, but all others. And by which a negative punishment at least (if it may be so termed,) or a privation may be inflicted-and one that cannot be evaded, and may be brought to operate against all such offenders.

While I believe that the punishment, or rather deprivation contained in the section will be effectual, in preventing duels, I cannot consider it too vigorous or severe. Who that seriously reflects on the heinousness of such offences, is prepared to say that they do not merit, at least the punishment (if such it be) which is contemplated in the amendment reported by the committee of the whole. When death ensues in a duel, is it any thing less than wilful and deliberate murder! For generally each one goes out with the fixed purpose of killing his antagonist. And can it be considered too severe a punishment to deprive a man, or his aiders and abetters from holding office, without the pardon of the executive, who deliberately and

with the consequences staring them in the face, rush into the commission of crimes that are an abomination in the sight of God and a christain community?

A motion was then made by Mr. FLEMING,

To amend the said section by striking therefrom the word “ fight,' where it occurs in the third line, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "be convicted of fighting;" and by making the word "send" read "sending" and the word be," in the fourth line, read “ being."

66

And the said amendment being under consideration,

A motion was made by Mr. Doran,

That the convention do now adjourn.

Which motion was agreed to.

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

noon,

MONDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 29, 1838.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

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

The amendment to the ninth section offered by Mr. FLEMING, being under consideration,

Mr. FLEMING said, his object was to provide that the penalty should not be incurred before legal conviction; at the same time allowing the power to the executive to remit.

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

The question was then taken and decided in the negative, as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Bonham' Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers, Clapp, Cleavinger, Coch ran, Craig, Crawford, Crum, Dickey, Dickerson, Farrelly, Fleming, Gamble, Grenell Harris, Hastings, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dau¡ hin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll Keim, Kennedy, Long, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen, Merkel, Porter, of Northampton' Seltzer, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, White, Sergeant, President-42.

NAYS-Messrs. Bigelow. Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Indiana. Cline, Crain, Cummin,Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donnell, Earle, Fuller, Gearhart, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Hyde, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Mann,