ence of the past legislation of Pennsylvania, would not justify the suspicion that they would have acted otherwise. They would then, doubtless, have acted on the most correct principles, as they would on every other occasion which might arise. He had risen merely for the purpose of saying that there had been nothing in the conduct of those with whom he had acted on this occasion, to justify the imputation which had been cast upon us.

Mr. MEREDITH rose merely to make a few words of explanation in relation to a remark which had fallen from the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia. The gentleman had said that it was useless to contest the seat of Mr. English in the legislature of the state, because in consequence of party, injustice would not be done to the people.

Now, the gentleman who made this assertion, could not have understood the laws of the commonwealth in relation to the subject of contested elections. When a question of contested election comes up before either house, it does not come up as a party question. We have, on this subject, that which the United States, government has not. We have a copy of the Grenville act which it was found to be necessary to adopt in England on this very subject, and which gave such general satisfaction there.

In congress we see that they are too apt to be led by their political predilections on subjects of this kind, because of the constitution of the body; but, that was not the case in the legislature of Pennsylvania. There, when a case of contested election comes up, there is a committee raised to take charge of the subject, and decide upon it. This committee is balloted for, and struck as a jury to decide the question; and, he had never heard a single individual before complain that injustice had ever been done in this way. The framers of that law provided for all cases, and it is ample for the purpose, and he defied any man to point to an instance in which a contested election was not decided to the entire satisfaction of all parties concerned. This committee sit as a jury upon the whole matter, and it is decided by them upon the merits of the case without the least regard to party; and he was astonished to hear any gentleman cast this imputation upon the legislature of his state. The fact was however, that the gentleman himself did not believe this charge. It was, impossible that he could believe it. With relation to the proposed amendment, it was merely changing a section in the old constitution from what was perfectly intelligible to every body, for one, that to say the least of it, was very ambiguous and liable to misconstruction. He believed the whole question to be a mere question as to the phraseology of the section, and the old section was more perfect by far than the proposed modification.

Mr. STERIGERE also believed that the proposed amendment was more ambiguous than the old section. To strike out the word county and insert district, certainly would lead to misconstruction in some cases, and besides this, it might lead to the difficulty suggested by the gentleman from Beaver, of forming a district out of two counties which were not adjoining each other. He had merely risen to call the attention of the convention to the amendment submitted by himself, which he thought, if gentlemen examined, they would find to be such a proposition as they ought to adopt; and, if the other proposition was adopted, he thought this

one was perfectly consistent with it, and such a one as ought to be attached to it.

Mr. DARLINGTON moved that the convention now adjourn. Lost.

The question was then taken on Mr. STERIGERE's amendment, when it was disagreed to.

The question was then taken on the third section as amended, when it was adopted, yeas 68, nays 42, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cox, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Montgomery, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Russell, Scheetz, Sellers, Serrill, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggert, Weaver, Woodward-68.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Biddle, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver. Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crum, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Gilmore, Harris, Hiester, Hopkinson, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-42.

The convention then adjourned.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 2, 1838.

FIRST ARTICLE.

The convention renewed the consideration of the report of the committee, on the first article, upon its second reading.

The question being on agreeing to that part of the report which relates to the fourth section; it was read as follows:

"SECTION 4.-Within three years after the first meeting of the general assembly, and within every subsequent term of seven years, an enumeration of the taxable inhabitants shall be made, in such manner as shall be directed by law. The number of representatives shall, at the several

periods of making such enumeration, be fixed by the legislature, and apportioned among the city of Philadelphia, and the several counties, according to the number of taxable inhabitants in each; and shall never be less than sixty, nor more than one hundred. Each county shall have at least one representative; but no county hereafter created, shall be entitled to a separate representation, until a sufficient number of taxable inhabitants shall be contained within it, to entitle them to one representative, agreeably to the ratio which shall then be established."

Mr. READ moved to amend the section, by striking out the words, "within three years after the first meeting of the general assembly," in the second line, and inserting the words, "during the first session of the legislature, after the adoption of the constitution."

Mr. R. said, this amendment was absolutely necessary, in order to make this section correspond with the seventh section of the first article. In order to effect the objects of the seventh section, it would be necessary to have a districting, immediately after the adoption of the constitution.

Mr. DARLINGTON hoped, he said, that the amendment would not be agreed to. It was another effort to require a new enumeration of the taxable inhabitants, immediately after the adoption of the constitution, which proposition had been rejected.

Mr. READ said, it was not in order to refer to what had passed in committee of the whole.

Mr. DARLINGTON said, an attempt was made in the committee of the whole, to procure a new enumeration of the taxable inhabitants, in 1839, and it failed. The committee did not sustain the proposition. The amendment now offered by the gentleman from Susquehanna, is designed to effect the same object. I am at a loss to see any reason for a new enumeration at that time.

The gentleman from Susquehanna complained, on a former occasion, that the state had been districted in an unsatisfactory manner, and he therefore wishes to shorten the period for a new enumeration. I doubt the propriety of making general rules, for the remedy of temporary evils. There is no adequate reason, in favor of another enumeration, before the regular one in 1842. I do hope, the amendment will be promptly rejected.

Mr. READ said, he must call the gentleman to order, for referring to what had been done in committee of the whole.

Mr. SCOTT could see nothing, he said, in the seventh article referred to by the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) to render the amendment necessary. The senators from each district were each to be elected for two years, and no district is entitled to elect more than four senators. It will be necessary to make a new distribution of the senatorial districts, before the end of three years, after the adoption of the constitution; but, it would be unnecessary to make a new enumeration of the taxable inhabitants for this purpose. In like manner, as to the representatives, the legis lature would apportion them, after fixing their number, among the several Counties, according to the last enumeration of taxable inhabitants. The effect of the amendment would be to produce a total change in the distribution of members of the lower house. He did not say whether it would

be right or wrong, but he would bring the fact to the convention, that the county of Philadelphia would be greatly the gainer by the new enumeration, as its population had greatly increased. It would be the gainer by one or two representatives.

He hoped the effect of the amendment would be duly considered, before the vote was taken upon it. The amendment of the gentleman would force a new enumeration, and the distribution of members of the lower house, would be made in conformity with it. The amendment, it should also be recollected, was not necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the seventh section.

Mr. READ rose to ask the yeas and nays on the amendment to the amendment; and, while up, he would, he said, remark that it has already been decided, that the present district system is wrong. The seventh section fixes that matter, and, as the convention have decided that the districting system is wrong, there is great propriety in making it conform with the principles which the convention deem to be right.

Mr. DICKEY hoped, he said, that the amendinent would be adopted. He believed it to be necessary, in order to carry out the provisions of the seventh section, and also to secure a just and equal representation to dif ferent parts of the state. It was true, that the amendinent was offered in committee of the whole, and rejected; but, he hoped the convention would now give it a favorable consideration.

He thought he should be able to shew to the convention, that the new enumeration and distribution, now proposed, was necessary, in order to secure justice to all the inhabitants of the commonwealth. Every portion of the people were entitled to an equal representation, and under the present apportionment, they had not got it.

In 1835-6, the last enumeration and apportionment took place, and the apportionment and the representations were not fairly distributed, according to the number of taxable inhabitants. He would draw the attention of the committee to some particulars on this subject. It would be found by reference to facts, that a part of his district had great injustice done to it, by the apportionment. He would ask members to turn their attention to

the facts.

One district, with fourteen thousand seven hundred and seven taxables, was allowed only five representatives in both houses-three in the lower house and two in the senate; while Philadelphia, with fourteen thousand and seven taxables, had nine representatives-seven in the lower house, and two in the senate. Great injustice was done, in this manner, to several counties.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, moved to amend, by striking out "three years," and inserting "one year."

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, said he understood this amendment went to anticipate the regular period for making the enumeration.

Mr. READ replied that it did not, inasmuch as there had not yet been any time fixed under this constitution.

Mr. FORWARD did not look at the matter in that light. His understanding was, that the enumeration would go on, as though the constitution was

not amended at all. Now, taking it for granted, that the amendment was to answer a mere temporary purpose, he could not see what necessity there was for putting it in the constitution.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said if he recollected rightly, this very question was discussed in committee of the whole, while the convention was sitting at Harrisburg. During the discussion, gentlemen went into an inquiry as to whether the amendments ought to be submitted to the people as a whole, or separately. He believed it was decided that they should be submitted as a whole. The simple duty of this convention was to propose and frame for the people of Pennsylvania, certain amendments. The question, then, which gentlemen had to decide was, whether they would make any alteration in the fourth section, relating to the enumeration of the taxable inhabitants of the commonwealth-whether they should anticipate the time set forth in the constitution, for making the enumeration?

The constitution of 1790, confers on the legislature of Pennsylvania, the power of directing when, and the mode and manner in which, the enumeration shall be made. It leaves, also, to them the power of fixing the number of representatives and apportioning them. Notwithstanding the enumeration had been constitutionally made, yet there had been some complaint made of injustice having been done. He did not know whether it was well or ill founded. But, he presumed, that as the enumerations had been made under the authority of the legislature, they had done their duty, and taken care to have the enumerations carefully and accurately made.

It

What was the object of the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read)? It was, as the gentleman from Allegheny (Mr. Forward) said, a mere temporary arrangement in an organic instrument. It was simply to do-what? Why, to induce the legislature to apportion the representatives at an earlier period than had heretofore been done. was not pretended that the enumeration had been made at a time when it ought not to have been made. Neither was it pretended that the enumeration had not been correctly made: at least, he had not heard any thing which went to prove that such was the fact. But, it had been said by some gentlemen that the representatives of the people had abandoned their duty, and gone beyond the powers entrusted to them. Now, if this was the case, then, undoubtedly, the people ought to be apprised of it, and the delinquents should be properly punished.

He would ask, however, if the mode pointed out by the gentleman from Susquehanna, was the proper one? Was this the time, and the course adopted by the delegate, the proper one, to effect the object he had in view? The purpose of the gentleman was to obtain-what? Why, merely a repeal of an act of the legislature of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

This convention was convened to make amendments to the existing constitution. At the commencement of its labors, he and many other gentlemen, came to a settled determination to vote for no alteration of the instrument which should involve a departure from established principles. If the delegate from Susquehanna, or any other gentleman, would say that the proposition did not look to the introduction of a new principle-that