it by him who earns his daily bread by the sweat of his brow, that the property of the society of Friends, is to be defended? They have undoubtedly rights as well as other men, but I apprehend it is not the duty of this Convention to enact laws which shall exempt them entirely from being called upon to defend the soil on which they live. I think it would be wrong to do so. There may be some cases of mal-conduct on the part of officers appointed to collect fines. But this is not the fault of the law; and if any thing is wrong, if any individual is convicted of improper conduct in his office, the law is open to the injured party, and will redress his wrongs. It is right that the law should do so, but I cannot consent to surrender or set aside the fundamental law of the State. It is a law on which much depends. It is our duty to prepare ourselves in time of peace, for any contingency of war that may hereafter arise. We know not what is to come; we cannot tell "what a day may bring forth," and I apprehend this Convention will not willingly give up that part of the Constitution of the State which says, that the militia of the State shall be armed and disciplined at the will of the Legislature. I think it is a fundamental law which we ought to preserve, and for the reasons which I have stated as well as for others, which are satisfactory to my own mind, I shall oppose this section.

I have been at the trouble, continued Mr. S., of taking an account of the different States which have passed laws nearly similar to those which have been adopted in Pennsylvania. These States are Illinois, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, Indiana, Maine and North Carolina. All these States have taken care that there should be incorporated in their fundamental laws, an article empowering the Legislature to arm and discipline the Militia, whenever they should think it necessary to do so. For my part, I am desirous that the section now proposed should be negatived, and that the entire section of the old Constitution should stand as it now is.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, said he had listened with much attention to the remarks which had been made by the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Biddle;) and he (Mr. Bell) could not but regret that the question of conscientious scruples had been thus prematurely introduced into this debate. He had supposed that the discussion of a question so delicate, and so deeply interesting to one of the most respectable religious sects in the State of Pennsylvania, would have been reserved until the Convention had reached the ninth article of the Constitution, commonly denominated" the bill of rights." He would not now say on which side he should be found. In all likelihood, however, he would be found advocating, with his friend from the city of Philadelphia, the rights and conscientious scruples of this highly respectable body of our citizens. But for the present he should vote in favor of the motion to strike out all after the word "direct," reserving himself for the discussion when it should come up in its proper place.

On the subject of militia trainings-of the organization of the militia, and the necessity of a Constitutional provision for these objects, he thought there could not be two minds, nor did he believe that the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia would find another member of the Convention who would go with him in the views he had expressed. To

"to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia;" but it was conceded by every one that the States have concurrent power. It was known also that Congress had not exercised its power, and that the States had found it necessary to do so. In Pennsylvania especially, the Legislature had constantly found it necessary to exercise its power. And why should we, simply because the Constitution of the United State contained a provision on the subject, strike out that which was contained in the Constitution of our State; thus introducing a doubt at least, whether the Legislature had the power or not. In the Constitution of 1790, such a provision was found necessary; still he admitted that the manner in which that provision had been introduced, imposed a duty on the Legis lature of Pennsylvania which had better be left unperformed. He agreed with the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Biddle) that the militia system of Pennsylvania, was fraught with evil, and that when the Legislature had been called on to put a stop to these trainings, they had turned to the provision of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and had pointed to that as imperative. But it was not necessary, in order to get rid of this difficulty, to strike out the whole section. He should at a proper time move to amend the report of the committee, by introducing the words "may be by law" armed, &c.; thus leaving it optional with the Legislature to enact laws or not, as they might think right. He should, therefore, vote in favor of the motion of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown.)

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, was of opinion that the question of conscientious scruples belonged properly to the ninth article, known as the Bill of Rights; and that the question of military trainings belonged to the article now before the committee. The two questions were distinct. The committee had been referred to the provision contained in the Constitution of the United States, as furnishing a reason why there should be no provision introduced into the Constitution of Pennsylvania in relation to the organization of the militia. It would be observed that the Constitution of the United States did not take the whole military power into its own care; it merely authorized Congress to direct the manner in which the militia should be organized, armed and disciplined; but left the actual training and appointment of the officers, two most important points, to the States themselves. Congress, however, had not exercised all the powers given to it. [Mr. M. then read the first section of the act of Congress, passed 8th May, 1792, from first volume Story's Laws of the United States, page 252, in support of his position.]

Mr. M. then continued:

Thus under the Constitution and laws of the United States, there was not any full provision for the existence of a Militia. Take every power which the laws of Congress had given, and there would be no militia at all. And the question then recurred, was a militia necessary? No man could doubt it. Those who would be oppressed by the invasion of the country were those who should defend it. A free country should never desire any higher defence than that of its own citizens-that of the people -call them what name we pleased, the Prætorian Guards, or the National Guards-still nothing less than the whole people defending their country, could make it sure that they would be defended. We ought

country, unless we did so. He acknowledged that the militia system, as it exists at present, was a farce. It was mimickry, and hardly afforded the advantage of any military education at all; but still it afforded a nucleus by which a proper education might be gained, by proper direction; it afforded a starting point. The militia of our State would have been in a much better condition at this time, if a feeling had not been excited so strongly in favor of volunteer corps; thus making the militia little better than a dead body. If the law of the State had taken a different course, if it had limited the training to a certain number of years, all would have joined the militia, and there would have been no need of volunteers. But unless we were hereafter to submit our defence to hirelings, it would be indispensably requisite that we should have an organized militia, ready for defence whenever occasion might require. I agree, however, with some gentlemen, continued Mr. M., who have expressed the opinion that it is not necessary that there should be trainings; that there should be no more such ridiculous, not solemn farces, as we have seen acted. An enrollment is all that the law should require, and less, it would be improper to require. The act of Congress of 1792, says, the militia of the several States shall be enrolled, leaving it optional with the States to train or not. But there must be an enrollment, and when the proper time comes, I shall prepare an amendment, providing that there shall be an enrollment of the militia of this State; thus inserting the constitutional provision, but leaving it in the power of the Legislature to say, how much further they will go. I would make the enrollment imperative, because by the law of Congress, and, I believe, by the Constitution of the United States, we were called upon to do so; and in time of peace an enrollment would be all that we should want. Whenever government comes to prepare for war, it might thus be furnished with the number of men who were ready to go forth to the public defence, and with the places at which they were to be found. If the names of all such were enrolled, a starting point might be secured to the government. But beyond this he did not now think it necessary to go; probably it might not be useful to go further at the present time. But ought we to leave the entire provision out of our fundamental law? Should the whole subject be left discretionary with the Legislature? He did not see the propriety of that course. He did not perceive, why, when the Convention was sitting here to revise those constitutional principles which might reign in the State government forever, they should pass over a subject of such importance. It was well known that this State had suffered at times for the want of a coersive power over the militia. The power had not been sufficient, and this was the reason why a resort had been had to volunteer corps. But a defence by volunteer corps, independent of the vast expenses which attended it, would, in carrying on a war, sweep away a whole generation, and convert the whole State into mourners. It was not proper then to depend on volunteers alone for defence in time of war. The Constitution of the State ought to provide for this. But when the question of conscientious scruples should come up, as it would do under the ninth article if the amendment was adopted, the subject would then be disconnected from the militia question, and the Convention would be left free to determine the question whether the services of those having conscientious scruples should be required; and if not, whether an equiv

intention hereafter to propose an amendment limiting the requirements of the provision to enrollment only, and leaving it discretionary with the Legislature to proceed further or not. This would place every man's rights on a fair basis, would put the country in a condition for defence, would meet the demands of the Constitution of the United States, and of the law of Congress, and would enable us to call forth an efficient force when necessary. He hoped the amendment would be adopted.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said that the power to legislate on the subject of the militia, was one of those powers in which concurrent authority existed in the General, and in the State Government. Congress had this power expressly given to them by the Constitution of the United States. But until they did exercise it, and in respects in which they did not legislate in relation to it, it was proper and right that the States should have the power of acting. The authority therefore was retained to the States to legistate on this subject, with the single restriction common to all their legislation, that it should not conflict with the legislation of the General Government, on this subject. This doctrine would be found fully recognised in the case of Huston vs. Moore, and others, decided, first by our Supreme Court, (3d, Sergeant and Rawle, 196,) and afterwards by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very proper, too, that this power should be exercised by the State Legislature. The system which the General Government might lay down for the whole Union, might not be so well adapted to the peculiar habits and feelings of every portion, as if the legislation on the subject had been enacted by their own more immediate Governments.

I am in favor of giving to the Legislature full power to enact such provisions on this subject, as they shall deem right, and only restricting them from infringing the Constitution and Laws of the Union. The existing constitutional provision, in practice, has been held unnecessarily to control legislation, in my judgment. Its language has been held both by the Executive and the Legislature, to be imperative whenever any attempt has been made to dispense with militia trainings of the ununiformed militia, and encourage, in lieu of it, a system of uniformed volunteers. The terms, "the freemen of this Commonwealth shall be armed and disciplined for its defence," have been held to make it obligatory to keep in force laws for the yearly mustering of the enrolled militia. We have thus far been burthened with a system onerous in the extreme, to at least a certain portion, if not all of our citizens, and which has not tended to produce that dicipline in the defenders of our soil, which the Constitution contemplated.— The Auditor General, in accordance with the request contained in a resolution which I had the honor to submit near the commencement of our labours, has given us a statement of the annual expenses of the militia of this Commonwealth, paid out of the State Treasury, from the adoption of the pres ent Constitution, in 1790, until the month of November, 1836, a period of 46 years.

By that statement it appears that the amounts paid out of the Treasury during that entire period, were, $1,327,311 09

And that all the sums paid into the Treasury for militia and exempt fines during that period, amounted to

200,162 40

Or something over $24,500, per annum, actually drawn from the State Treasury.

In this estimate it will be observed that nothing but the ordinary expenses in time of peace, were embraced. It did not take in any expenses connected with the time of war, and incident thereto, but merely the usual and ordinary expenses of the existing militia system. And to this large amount might be added not less than $150,000 per annum, in the loss of the labor of her citizens, whilst engaged in attending the militia musters, exclusive of all considerations connected with their effect upon public morals. It might be well to inquire what corresponding benefits had the Commonwealth received from the existing system, as an equivalent for this outlay of money and time, and whether some better system could not be devised, either to prevent it, or, if it must occur, to obtain its value, in return, to the body politic. For this purpose I am willing to substitute, for the existing provision, that which is contained in the first part of the section reported by the committee, to-wit: that "the freemen of the Commonwealth shall be armed and disciplined for its defence, when, and in such manner as the Legislature shall direct;" thus giving the Legislature control over the subject, and bring to bear all the light which experience, that best of all teachers, may be able to shed upon it. Every branch of science is in a state of progression and improvement, that of Government as well as all others; and I do not feel that we could be justified in restraining the Legislature from availing itself of the advantages from this state and age of improvenient. I beg that I may not be understood as undervaluing our militia. I use the term in its legitimate sense, as embracing both your volunteers and your enrolled militia, who are not uniformed; and I desire to cherish and improve it, as the only safe defence of our country in times of war and danger. I cheerfully adopt the sentiment that "a freeman's arm can best defend a freeman's home." Your militia-man carries with him into the camp a sense of his rights and duties as a citizen and a constituent part of the government of his country, which he is defending; and when properly disciplined, which is soon effected under proper officers, has the incentive of patriotism superadded to the other motives which act upon the regular soldiers, to produce subordination and exertion. Eutaw Springs, Kings Mountain and Bennington, in the war of the Revolution, and New Orleans, Plattsburg, Chippewa and Bridgewater, in the late war, with other engagements that could as easily be named, gave proof that they were capable of successful exertion in the battle's conflict, as the enemies of our country on those occasions could well attest. And whilst the names of the gallant captors of Andre were remembered, the incorruptible integrity of the militia-men, Paulding, Van Wert and Williams, will be the theme of admiration and imitation.

It, therefore, is desirable that the best means should be adopted to make this arm of the public defence as efficient as possible. Standing armies, at all times, but particularly in times of peace, are not in accordance with the genius of our institutions, and should never be resorted to in a republic, if they could be avoided. I have supposed that a system which would keep the whole body of your citizens, who are capable of bearing arms, enrolled, so as to be easily called on in times of exigency and danger, but would dispense with musterings, other than by volunteers, except when