my own part, Mr. President, I am not able to see the force of this objecttion; I believe, that when the coloured race are ascertained to be qualified in point of intelligence, to take part in our elections, they should be allowed by all means to do so. They ought not to be bound to obey the laws which we create-they ought not to be bound to pay, from their hard earnings, taxes for the support of our government, unless they are to have a voice in those who enact those laws, and through whom those taxes are laid upon them. Taxation and representation should go together; that they were not permitted to do so, was the first great cause which lighted up the beacon fires of the revolution, and led to that glorious struggle, which resulted in the emancipation of the North American colonies, from British thraldom and oppression.

The gentleman from Crawford, (Mr. Shellito) has told us that the coloured race are happier without this right of suffrage; and he says, that he has no notion of giving up his rights to them. Sir, let me ask that gentleman, whether the rights of the negro are not as valuable to him, as the rights of that gentleman to him? Here are men, who were born among us, who conform to our habits and customs-who pursue their daily business like our other citizens-who have friends and families among us, and who, more than all, possess an affection for the institutions of the country, and yet, we will not allow them the privilege of a vote.

The state of Virginia has been referred to in the course of the discussion. The principle there is, that all who give evidence of a permanent affection for our institutions, ought to vote. And this is the principle upon which I am desirous now to place the matter in the state of Pennsylvania. It is no part of my project, that a man who has no affection for these institutions, and no intelligence to comprehend what they are, should be allowed to vote. I think that what has been done by the state of Virginia, is not an answer to this argument. The constitution of the state of Virginia, as revised in the year 1830, does not, in terms, allow coloured people to vote. But here is a proposition to make them a distinct and subordinate class in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and yet, to tax them when they are to have no voice in any thing connected with the administration of the government. Sir, is this fair? Is it right? Is it just? It is peculiarly and emphatically the duty of a republican government, to do exact and equal justice to all her citizens.

But it has been said, Mr. President, that if one of the coloured race is to be permitted to vote, the whole body of them ought to be allowed the same privilege. I can not attach any weight to this argument; for it is to be remembered, that we make certain distinctions even with white men. I am willing, if the gentlemen are so disposed, so to modify my amendment, as to make a longer term of residence, a pre requisite to the right of suffrage, although, I do not believe that it is necessary to extend it. Still, however, I would fall in with the views of the convention in this particular, if, by so doing, I can secure the vote of a majority in favor of my proposition. I wish to have no man vote, who has not an affection for us, and a permanent home among us; and to all such, I desire that the right of suffrage should be extended. Is it, or is it not right that this should be done? It does not follow that, because the state of Virginia does not choose to adopt this course, therefore, it ought not to be adopted. If the principle is right and fair, and of universal application,

let it be carried into practice. I believe that Lord Brougham introduced the principle, that men in England should be allowed to vote according to a test similar to that prescribed by my amendment. At all events, the proposition originated with the reformers in England, among whom were Lord Brougham and other distinguished characters, that no man should vote who could not demand in writing for himself the right of suffrage. Gentlemen may say that this is an aristocratic requisition. I do not think it is so. I think that every inan who goes to the polls to vote, should at least be required to have so much intelligence as will enable him to appreciate our institutions. But, Mr. President, I am not prepared to argue this question at any great length, nor do I think it necessary to do 80. I have already said more than I intended to say when I first rose, and I am sure that the patience of the house is nearly, if not altogether, worn out. I wish, however, to impress upon the minds of the members of this body what is to be the consequence of the rejection of this amendment. If we reject it we say, in effect, that men who are qualified in point of intelligence and integrity to exercise the right of suffrage shall not exercise it, but that they shall be forever precluded from doing so.

How can gentlemen vote to issue, as it were, a ban of ex-communication of this nature, and yet sustain their republican principles? How can they answer to the people of Pennsylvania when they say they will exclude from the right of suffrage, for a reason or for no reason, those who reside among us who "live and move and have their being" among us, and who are sincerely attached to all our institutions. We will exclude them and know not exactly on what account-but we will exclude them on some ground or other. And, after all, what is the ground of exclusion? It is unnecessary for me to say any thing about prejudice, though I am aware I might say much.

What did the gentleman from Mifflin (Mr. Banks) say, in the course of his observations this morning? A man said he, may be rich and yet understand our institutions no better than the poor man. To him, then, at least, I can appeal, and I can ask him whether, on his course of reasoning, he will not recognize as fair, the principle of my amendment?

Mr. FLEMING, of Lycoming, said that he did not rise to oppose, at any length, the amendment of the gentleman from Union, because he thought that there was sufficient, on the very face of it, to satisfy us that no such provision should be inserted in the constitution of Pennsylvania.

What is it? said Mr. F. It is a provision to fix a given standard of genius or intellect by which the voters shall be judged. This is certainly a new idea. We have made a tax standard, and we now propose to make a standard of intellect. These two put together would indeed make a beautiful system for a republican commonwealth like this. If we carry it out, the fear is that we shall soon arrive at that degree of perfection, that we shall have none left to judge.

But, Mr. President, I rose principally for the purpose of saying that almost every proposition for amendment, which the mind of man could suggest, has been offered to this section; and it is probable that we have not yet had all which may be presented. I appreciate, as I ought, the good feelings by which gentlemen were governed in the introduction of

IT

these propositions. I believe that their intentions are good, and their motives pure and that they entertain the hope that it may be in their power to ameliorate the condition of the coloured race. But, when we recur to the votes which have been already taken, it seems to me that every gentleman must be satisfied that none of these new provisions will be adopted. In this state of things, is it wise or r proper to consume any more time in the discussion of the subject? Is any thing to be gained by the contined presentation of the same propositions, one after the other, with but very trifling alterations? Shall we spend two or three days more bin debate upon them, when we know that it will be useless, and that it can ylead to no practical result. Surely we should not.

'2

Being satisfied then, Mr. Chairman, that none of these projects will be adopted at this time,—that no material change can be effected in the provision of the constitution as it now stands; and although I am not myself exactly satisfied with it being opposed to the tax qualification and to the ten days' residence before the election-still, with a view to bring an unprofitable discussion to a close, and thus to save the precious time of this body, I will, for the first time in my life, ask for the previous ques

tion.

Which said demand was seconded by the requisite number of delegates.

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FORWARD and Mr. REIGART, and are as follows, viz

...and

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Clarke, of Beaver Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cochran, Crain, Crum, Cummin,. Curl), Darrah, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Fleming, Foulkród, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harcis, Hayhurst. Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Hyde, Jenks, Kennedy, Krebs, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, Miller, Montgomery, Netin, Overfield, Pollock, Reigart, Read, Riter, kitter, Rogers, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward, Young-59.

NAYS--Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Biddie, Bigelow, Bonham, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Coates, Cope, Cox, Craig, /Crawford, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Donagan, Dunlop, Earle, i'orward, Hastings, Hays, Henderson, of Allegh ny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Kein, Kerr, Konig nacher, Maclay, Magee, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Payne, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster Purviance, Royer, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, White, Sergeant, President—65.

So the convention determined that the main question should not now be put.

And the question again recurring on the amendment to the said section as amended;

Mr. EARLE rose and said, that he wished to read for the information of the convention a short extract--six lines only-from a speech of Mr. Van Buren, in relation to people of colour, and which was to be found at page 376 of the debates of the New York state convention. The extract was as follows, viz:

"Mr. Van Buren said, he had voted against a total and unqualified exclu“sion, for he would not draw a revenue from them, and yet deny to them "the right of suffrage. But this proviso met his approbation. They "were exempted from taxation until they had qualified themselves to vote. The right was not denied, to exclude any portion of the community who "will not exercise the right of suffrage in its purity. This held out "inducements to industry, and would receive his support."

It is proper that I should add, said Mr. E., that a provision, adopted upon his motion, relieved any coloured person from taxation until they had property enough to entitle them to the right of suffrage, so that those who did not vote paid no taxes.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree so to amend the section as amended?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FORWARD and Mr. MERRILL, and are as follows, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Ayres, Baldwin, Barnitz, Biddle, Carey Chandler, of Chester Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Cope, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Earle, Forward, Hays, Maclay, Merrill, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Serrill, Sill, Thomas, Sergeant, President-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Nothampton, Brown, of Philad Iphia, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curl!, Darrah, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Fleming, Foulk rod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Haris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helfenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Huopt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Krebs, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, McDowell, McSherry, Meredith, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Payne, Pollock, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Weaver, Weidman, White, Woodward, Young-91.

So the question was determined in the negative.

A motion was made by Mr. REIGART,

That the convention do now adjourn.

Which was agreed to.

Adjourned until half past three o'clock this afternoon.

MONDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 22, 1838.

THIRD ARLICLE.

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

The question pending being on the first section of the article as amended:

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, moved to amend the section as amended, by adding to the end thereof, the words following, viz:

"Provided, That all persons who, at and before the ratification of this constitution, shall be entitled to the right of suffrage, shall have that right secured to them."

Mr. D. stated that he had a single object in view, and that might be seen by the language of the amendment itself. It was to secure to all persons who might be entitled to the right, under the constitution of 1790, a continuance of that right. The smendment does not relate to black persons or white persons. It had no reference whatever to colour. But it was intended to secure the right which, by a vote of seventy-five to fortyfive, was given to all by the constitution of 1790; to make safe the right of suffrage in party times.

He was not sent here to despoil any person of any political, or other right possessed under the constitution of 1790. He had no doubt his learned friend behind him (Mr. Meredith) would join him in support of this amendment. That gentleman says the persons of colour have no right under the constitution of 1790. No doubt, therefore, that the gentleman would go with him (Mr. Dickey) in favor of the amendment, because, if the construction of that gentleman be the true one, the proposition can do no wrong to any. Those opposed to his (Mr. D's.) construction could not, therefore, but go with him.

Mr. D. concluded with asking for the yeas and nays on his amendment, and they were ordered accordingly.

The question was then taken, and decided in the negative by the following vote, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barnitz, Biddle, Carey, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cope, Dailington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Earle, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Jenks, Ker, Konigmacher, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, White, Sergeant. President-42.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barndoll r, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Nor. thampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Chambers, Clapp, Clarke, of Indiana. Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dij linger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble,