He

the remedy to operate? He would ask the members of this committee, what did a young man, in the heat of youthful blood, and suffering under the sting of real or supposed wrong, what did such a man care about being excluded from office? Or, to go further, what did the aged mán care for it? He would much rather be disfranchised from the privilege of holding office, than he would become amenable to the law, be immured within the walls of a prison for a year or more. Punishment to this extent might already be inflicted under the existing laws of our State. He (Mr. B.) was himself entirely opposed to duelling; he considered it as altogether wrong and unjustifiable--a mere relic of the barbarism of past ages. But he would leave its punishment to the law of the land. The law should be severe enough to prohibit the practice. He, for one, would be willing to go almost to any extent to put an end to it. would even go so far as to give his sánction to a rule, similar to that which had once been established by one of the Kings of Europe, (the King of Prussia if he, Mr. B. remembered correctly) which was, that where two parties fought a duel, and one of them was killed, the survivor should be executed. Mr. B. thought that the establishment of such a rule in this country, would effectually put a stop to duelling; and he was in favor of leaving that part of the law open at all times to legislative action. Let the Legislature make such provisions as would most effectually check this barbarous and inhuman custom among us. He hoped that the committee would not consume more of its time in a discussion which could be attended with no advantageous consequences. If, said Mr. B., we are to go on, day after day, and week after week, adding section to section, and amendment to amendment, we shall have a larger volume of the Constitution of Pennsylvania alone, than this book which I hold in my hand, and which contains all the Constitutions of the twentyfour States of this Union. Complaints have been heard of the time which has been already spent in our deliberations, and I think that we ought not to suffer the introduction of any new matters, which are calculated only to waste still more of our time, to distract our deliberations, and to prolong the session of this Convention to an extent which no man can foresee.

The gentleman from Adams, (Mr. Stevens) had stated, that the acts of Assembly providing for the suppression of duelling, have not had the desired effect; but I think there can be little doubt that they have, in a great measure, answered the purposes for which they were enacted. The instances in which this practice has been resorted to in the State of Pennsylvania, have not been numerous. It is known to all of us, however, that they are more frequent in the Southern States, where constitutional provisions for the prohibition of the practice are made, than they are here among us. If any remedy can be devised, which would operate more effectually for the suppression of duelling than the laws which now exist, I, for one, should most cheerfully see them enacted and carried rigidly into force. But I do think that the provision which it is proposed here to insert cannot have the desired effect; and, for that reason, as well as for others which I have assigned, I shall vote against the amendment, as it has been proposed by the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Hiester) and in favor of the amendment to the amendment, as modified, which has been offered by the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Por

And the question was then taken on the amendment to the amendment, as modified, and was decided in the negative, as follows, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Cham Fers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Craig, Crain, Curll, Dickey, Donagan, Foulkrod, Fry, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Helffenstein, Keim, Kennedy, Lyons, Martin, Meredith, Merrill, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Royer, Russell, Scheetz, Scott, Serrill, Taggart, Sergeant, Presiden:-43.

NAYS-Messrs. Ayres, Barclay, Barndollar, Bigelow, Butler. Chandler, of Chester, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham. Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Fuller, Gearhart, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay, Magee, Mann, M'Call, M'Sherry, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Read, Riter, Rogers, Seager, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Stevens, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, White, Woodward, Young--77.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

And the question then recurred on agreeing to the amendment of Mr. HIESTER.

Mr. DUNLOP said, that with every feeling of respect towards the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Hiester) he (Mr. D.) did not think that the amendment improved the report of the commitee in any respect. The gentleman from Lancaster and himself, had both been members of the same committee to which this article had been referred. This amendment, now offered, was originally proposed and discussed in committee. He (Mr. D.) after a careful examination of the whole ground, had preferred the original report; and, if he was not mistaken, he believed also that that report had, in committee, met the views and approbation of the gentleman from Lancaster. Mr. D. believed he was correct in his recollection on this point.

'The ori

Mr. STEVENS said, that he preferred the amendment of the gentletleman from Lancaster, to the original report of the committee. ginal report made it the duty of the Legislature, to point out some mode by which the proof of an individual having been engaged in a duel should be established. Under the amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster, the proof was to be established in the usual mode in which all disqualifications for office were to be established, that it was to say, it was left to the body of which a person might propose to become a member. He was in favor of leaving this to be established in the same way; or else legislative provision would render it nugatory as it was at the present

time.

Mr. READ said, that if he was correctly informed, the section as reported by the committee was drawn up by the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Heister.) It was that gentleman's own peculiar measure, and he (Mr. R.) was willing that that gentleman should have it in any phraseology which he preferred. He (Mr. R.) should vote for the amendment. The substance of the two things did not differ, although the phraseology did.

Mr. HIESTER said, that it was true, as had been stated by the gentle

original proposition in committee, in the form in which it now stood. It had met with his own approbation at that time, and it would do so still, in case he could not procure that which he conceived to be still better. He thought that the other was more explicit, for the reasons assigned by the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. Stevens)-namely, that it was left to the body which the person proposed to enter to decide on his qualifications. He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.

And the question on the amendment was then taken, and decided in the affirmative as follows, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Ayres, Barndollar, Barnitz, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia. Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, C ine, Cope, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Forward, Fuller Gearhart, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hyde, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay, Mann, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Nevin, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Read, Rogers Royer, Russell, Saeger, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Smyth, Stevens, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Young--68.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bige'ow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Cleavinger, Coates, Cochran, Crain, Crawford, Curll, Dickey, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Dun'op, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Gamble, Gilmore, Helffenstein, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Lyons, Magee, Martin, Myers, Overfield. Porter, of Northampton, Riter, Scheetz, Scott, Serrill, Smith, Sterigere, Taggart, Weaver, Weidman, White, Sergeant, President-51.

So the amendment was agreed to.

The question then recurring on agreeing to the report of the committee, as thus amended;

Mr. MANN asked for the yeas and nays which were ordered.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, then moved to amend the report of the committee as amended, by adding to the end thereof, the following words: "But the Executive pardon, may remit the said offences and all its disqualifications."

Mr. BANKS demanded the yeas and nays on this amendment to the amended report, which were ordered.

Mr. KERR, of Washington county, rose to ask for information. He would inquire from the chairman of the committee, to whom this article of the Constitution had been referred, whether the Governor of the Commonwealth, under the existing Constitution and laws, would not have the right to pardon in this case, as well as in all others?

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said that, in reply to the gentleman from Washington, he would merely say, that the offence being created by the Constitution, and being declared to be unpardonable, the Governor would. not, in his, (Mr. P's.) judgment, have the right to remit the penalties imposed, unless the power to do so was specially granted in the Constitution itself. He would add that this was the main reason which had induced him to offer an amendment.

Mr. SERGEANT said, that he concurred in the opinion that had been expressed by the gentleman from the county of Northampton, (Mr. Porter) that, if the Convention should determine to insert in the Constitution a

hold office, no pardon could be extended to him, either by the Governor or any body else. The very commission of the act itself, was made to operate as an incapacity to hold office, whether it was criminal or not; or whether the party was convicted or not, if there were any other mode of proving the act but a conviction; so long as that stood against a man, he was disqualified. It was a perpetual bar, which never could be removed; and to my mind, said Mr. S., it is a very dangerous sort of thing, and one which may hereafter cause some of us much anxiety and pain; because, as to duelling, whatever any of us may think of it in the abstract, no man can deny that there are degrees of offence. We all know, for example, that duels are sometimes forced upon men, against their better judgment and against their principles, and yet in such a way that it seems almost impossible for them to escape. In other instances, a man may manage a duel in such a way as to convince every body that he never intended to take the life of his fellow man; although, at the same time, in order to maintain his own character and position in society, he is willing to go out and risk his own life in a duel.

Let us look at it in another point of view. That which draws a man into a duel, although it may not justify, may very much extenuate his effence, or his supposed offence. Are these circumstances to carry no weight with them? or are they to be altogether disregarded? Is this alone, in all the vast catalogue of human crime, to carry with it such infamy as never can be removed? I am myself entirely opposed to this whole system of duelling. I should be most happy to see it abandoned throughout our land. But, whilst I entertain these sentiments, I cannot bear the idea of fixing upon a man-under all the extenuating circumstances of anger, of passion, or of inadvertence in youth, or any other age, by which the act may be attended-I cannot, I say, consent to fix upon him for one single act of his life-compulsory as it may have been, extenuated as it may have been--a stigma such as we impose by declaring that, in consequence of that one act, he shall be for ever incapacitated for holding office under our government.

In reference to the practice of duelling, I hold opinions similar to those we have heard expressed this day. I consider it a barbarous custom. I am even willing to say, as has also been said here, that to kill a man in a duel, is murder. And, indeed, there have been many instances of duels, which have resulted in death, in which I have not hesitated to say, that justice required that the survivors should be hanged. But these were cases peculiar, and not frequent. But why should the penalty for this offence be made everlasting, when, you forgive every other crime? Gentlemen say that the insertion of this provision will operate as a preventive. If I could believe that it would have that effect, I would agree with all my heart that it should be inserted; for a provision which would accomplish that object, is the very thing we want. But punishment you cannot get. Every effort to inflict punishment for this crime-and all admit that it is a crime-has done nothing in the way of prevention. You want to prevent it; well, if you can devise any mode by which you can do so, I will cheerfully co-operate with you. But how can you do this. Will this provision operate as a preventive? Will the fear of being deprived of the power to hold office, have the influence to prevent

difficulties of this sort? Why, at a time of life when they do not dream about office; when they do not even know that such a thing as office is to be aspired to. It is, for the most part, young men, heedless men, whose thoughts have never been seriously turned to inquiries of this sort; but who, in a state of excitement-under the influence of a terrible opinionterrible to themselves at the moment-are involved in sudden difficulties, which oblige them-yes, sir, that is the proper term-oblige them to vindicate their own honor, by recourse to a certain established and barbarous usage. I do not believe that any man in the world ever sought a duel. I may be mistaken in this opinion. There may, for aught I know, be men in the world, of natures cruel, and hardened enough, to seek it. But, sir, the instinct of life is opposed to it; and I cannot believe that with men in general, the time which elapses between the challenge, and facing each other on the ground, is much happier than the time spent by a criminal between the time of his sentence, and that of his public execution. It is an overbearing error in public opinion which is the cause of all this evil. Young men are ambitious to acquire a character and standing in the world. This they do by conforming themselves to what their associates think is right; and, at one period of their lives, they are very apt to be persuaded that they cannot maintain their rank, unless they yield to this custom. And, at such a period, office is no object to them; they do not think any thing about it. But, as time advances with them, they acquire reputation; they gradually sober down; they begin to obtain the confidence of the community in which they live, and when an opening does at last present itself to their view, what are you going to declare? You are going in this, the fundamental law of your land, to declare, that if a man shall once have been concerned in such a thing as a duel-even though no injury should have resulted--even if he has seriously repented of his fault, and has come to a solemn conviction, as you have done, that the whole thing is wrong, and that he will never be engaged in a like affair again, and will do all that may lie in his power to discourage others from the practice--still this provision is to stand for ever as a barrier between him and every office of honor or profit existing in this Commonwealth. Is this rational? Is it just? Is it righteous? I am ready to go so far as to say, that the practice should be prevented, if prevention is possible; but let us not become wild, and rash, and extravagant, and by such means commit errors on the other side. We may find hereafter, that cases, precisely such as I have described, will occur; and where we may have abundant occasion to regret that, in a Constitution which cannot, as our law now stands, be altered save by the call of a Convention, we have fixed a canon by which a single error-which has been fraught with no serious results-which has never cost a drop of blood-shall operate for ever as an exclusion from office, even though he was but a boy at the time who committed the offence, and however worthy in all other respects he might prove to be. It appears to me, monstrous.

A man may be guilty of such an error in his youth, and yet, in after life, may turn out to be a most valuable and estimable citizen. I know some of this description, and have no doubt that there are many members of this Convention who are acquainted with such instances. I must be permitted to say, for myself, that I never was engaged in this custom.