stated, that this fifth section was adopted on second reading in convention without that full consideration which had been previously given to t fourth. I am aware that the gentleman from Susquehanna is of opinithat a different construction would be given to the fourth section. He under the impression that the terms, "each county shall have at least representative," would give to each county, under the constitution. 1838-9, a representative. I do not place such a construction upon t words. I do not believe that any new construction would be given; if we send this section out to the people unamended, many counth the state would be then unrepresented.

The contradiction which exists between the fifth section thus ado and the fourth section of the constitution, is this:-The constitut 1790, declares that each county shall have at least one represent but no county hereafter erected, shall be entitled to a separate rep tation, until a sufficient number of taxable inhabitants shall be cor within it, to entitle them to one representative, agreeably to th which shall then be established." Now, under the operation of the ing provision, it is well understood that the counties which might ganized after the adoption of the constitution of 1790, should not separate representation, until the taxable inhabitants should have ar to the lawful ratio, whatever that might be.

Henee those counties not having the ratio, are not entitled to a representation. In this new section which was adopted on seco ing, and as I say, without proper reflection, it is declared that than three counties shall be united to form a representative distr two counties shall be so united, unless one of them shall contain one half of the average representative ratio of taxable population. three counties shall be so united, unless two of them combined, tain less than one-half of the representative ratio aforesaid."

I propose to illustrate this contradiction between the two s reference to a few facts.

The county of Union has a population of about four thousan the provision of the constitution of 1790, the ratio was about dred.

The county of Mifflin is short; it is short by more than on

The county of Juniata is short, but it has over one-half of t' may be the intention of the delegate from the county of Philad Earle) to give a representative upon a large fraction, that is more than one half; as for instance, to give to the counti Mifflin, and Juniata, each a representative upon a population ratio-yet greater than one-half of the ratio, whatever that I would be impossible for this state of things to be brought ab fifth section, inasmuch as it is inconsistent with the sixth Constitution of 1790, which has not been altered; it would as matters now stand, to give to Mifflin, Union, and Jun'. representation.

And here it was that the difficulty originated. For my thought there was nothing improper in any committee, a purpose of correcting the phraseology, stating these facts to

For what?

Not because they have failed to discharge their duty? Nothing of the kind. For my own part, I am not willing to give any vote which goes to show, even by implication, that I have not the fullest confidence in the committee. After they have had the matters referred to them under their consideration, and have actually exposed the errors which existed in such amendments to the constitution as had been before them, what fault can you find with them? or what have they done which did not come within the legitimate sphere What have they omitted to do, of their duties? If the convention should think proper to clothe them with greater power, I, for one, am willing. I am willing to give the committee power to make such a report as they may see fit-subject of course to the revision and reconsideration of this body. We see that the committee have acted with perfect unanimity; at least 1 infer that such must be the case, because there has been no minority report made this morning containing a different state of facts from that presented by the venerable gentleman, (Mr. Hopkinson.) So that, in every point of view, it appears that this committee are discharging there duty as faithfully as possible, and I see no reason why they should be discharged. I shall, therefore, vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) and in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward.)

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, said he felt no disposition to protract this debate, but that inasmuch as, on the motion of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Sturdevant) the convention had resolved that the question should not at once be taken-and as it was undoubtedly a question of great importance-he would in as few words as possible, express the opinion he entertained upon it.

I shall go, continued Mr. B., against the discharge of the committee. I do not know who are the nine gentlemen composing that committee, nor who is its chairman, but I look at the nature of the report they have made to this body, and to the extent to which they have acted, in what they believed to be the discharge of their duties. Viewing the matter in this light, I think it is not judicious to give to this committee the power to throw into this convention a new constitution about the second day of February, the time of our final adjournment. They have, in fact recommended almost an entirely new constitution. So far as the first article is concerned; they have recommended that whole sections be stricken out. Surely, there is no great chance that we shall get through with our labors by the time appointed, when we find new things thus thrown wholesale into the convention! But, I say, let their report come; let us have the worst at once. Experience has taught us that every attempt to bring before the convention any report calculated to satisfy the members of this body, or to bring its labors to a more speedy termination-I say, experience has shown us, that every such attempt has proved a total failure. I believe that the cause of failure is radical somewhere in this body; I am not at liberty to say where it is, even if I know where it is, and if you cut this committee down to the number of three, as is proposed by the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) I do not believe that you will gain any thing by it, or be any nearer to the object you have in view; for a committee of three, will bring in a similar report to a committee of nine; and a committee of two will bring in a similar report to a committee of three.

Let, then, this committee stand; let us know the worst, and let us have it before us; and the sooner it is done the better. I am anxious that we should get through with our business as soon as possible, and I am not disposed to do any thing which may have a tendency to prolong the period of our final adjournment to a still more distant date. We have, it is true, been many months together; but I hope better things are in store for us, than the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Sturdevant) indicates as the opinion of many good people of this commonwealth-that is to say, that we shall not finally separate until the year 1845.

Let us, then, meet this matter at once; let us have the report of the commitee, and then let us dispose of the subject as a majority of the convention shall think proper. This is what we shall have to do at last, and we may as well come to it first as last. I should have been glad if the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) had adhered to his original proposition to go into committee of the whole. The convention consists of one hundred and thirty-three members, and surely, we are competent not only to decide whether the incongruities and inconsistencies which have been spoken of do actually exist, and, if so, that is the best mode of rectifying them. Still, however, I respect the opinion that, inasmuch as a committee has been appointed, I hope they will give us their report.

Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia county, said, that nearly two hours had now been spent in the discussion of this question, and he thought every delegate must be prepared to give his vote. He would, therefore, call for

the immediate question.

Which motion was seconded by twenty-nine other delegates rising in

their places.

And the question being taken,

Shall the question be now put?

It was determined in the affirmative.

And the question was then taken:

Will the convention agree to the amendment?

Which was decided in the negative,-ayes 43, noes 47.

So the amendment was rejected.

And the questiou was then taken on the adoption of the resolution, as modified, and was decided in the affirmative without a division.

So the resolution was adopted.

And the report was recommitted to the committe with the instructions indicated in the said resolution.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

The question recurring,

Will the convention agree to the first division of the amendment to the said report, as follows, viz: " Until otherwise directed by law, the courts of common pleas shall continue as at present established. Not more than counties shall at any time be included in one judicial district, organized for said courts?"

Mr. MERRILL moved to fill the blank with the number “four."

Mr. WOORWARD moved the number "five."

Mr. FLEMING moved the number "six.”

And the question on the highest number-" six," was taken and lost. And the question on the next highest number-"five," was taken and decided in the affirmative.

And the blank was filled accordingly.

And the question then again recurring, on agreeing to the first division of the amendment to the said report,

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, said that if he understood the clause now under consideration, the first part of it was a fit subject for the action of the committee appointed on the schedule. It declares, (said Mr. F.) that the courts of common pleas shall continue as at present established, until oth erwise directed by law. This, certainly, is matter proper for the sched ule.

As to the number of counties to be contained in the district, I think it is a matter which may be safely left to the action of the legislature. I do not, for my own part, see the necessity of imposing this restriction here. I suppose the legislature will not be inclined to enlarge the boundaries unnecessarily; and it seems to me, therefore, that the restriction may be well dispensed with.

In regard to the second branch of the proposition of the gentleman from Luzerne but which is not now immediately under consideration-I concur with my learned friend upon the right, that it is a matter which should be left in the hands of the legislature. We are conferring no power upon them, and we are imposing no restriction.

And the question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative without a division.

So the first branch of the amendment was agreed to.

And the question then recurring,

Will the convention agree to the second division of the said amendment, as follows, viz:

"But two or more districts may be united in one circuit, and the president judges of the respective districts so united be required to hold the courts of common pleas in every county within the circuit, in such order and rotation as may be prescribed."

Mr. WOODWARD said, that he hoped the convention would indulge him in making a few observations, before the question was finally taken on the adoption of the second division of the amendment he had proposed.