PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONVENTION HELD AT PHILADELPHIA. FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 1838. The PRESIDENT laid before the convention, a communication from Messrs. Baldwin & Hazleton, inviting the members of the convention to attend and witness an exhibition of the construction and performance of Dr. Baldwin's rotary steam engine, on the 20th instant. Which was read and laid on the table. Mr. KONIGMACHER, from the committee appointed to attend to the distribution of the English and German Debates, and the English and German Journals of the Convention, reported the following resolution, viz: Resolved, That the English Debates, German Debates, English Journal and German Journal of the Convention, shall severally be distributed according to the resolution of the 11th of May last, in the following manner, viz: To each delegate to the convention, including those who have resigned, one copy each, making 136 copies. Each secretary of the convention, including Samuel A. Gilmore, resigned, one copy, making 4 The sergeant-at-arms and door keepers, including Daniel 4 Each stenographer in the employ of the convention, one copy, making 5 The Law Association of Philadelphia, one copy, 1 The Atheneum of the city of Philadelphia, 1 The Franklin Institute, 1 The Philadelphia Library Company, 1 The printers of the Debates, each one copy, The governor and heads of departments of state, one copy each, The state library at Harrisburg, 6 13 The senate and house of representatives, four copies each, The prothonotary's offices of the several counties, one copy each, The commissioners' offices of the several counties, one copy each, The congressional library at Washington, The governor of the several states, each one copy, making The remaining copies thereof, to be equally divided among the members of the Convention, to be by them, deposited for public use, in such public libraries, lyceums, and other places, as they shall deem most beneficial and proper, Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. THIRD ARTICLE. 8 53 53 5 26 931 1250 The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee, to which was referred the third article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole. The question being on the motion of Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, further to amend the first section, by inserting the word "white," before the word "freeman," where it occurs in the first line, and also, by inserting the word "white," before the word freemen," where it occurs in the seventh line. 66 If we Mr. MERRILL, of Union, rose and said, he had never professionally, or in any other way, met a question attended by so many embarrassing circumstances. Of the consequences, some are near and some are afar offsome are certain, and some are doubtful. He could hardly bring his mind to embrace them all. It was not alone a southern question. wish to equalize the coloured race, we must make all slaves. There must be no free states. This cannot be done. It would be unjust to do so. These people are here among us, and they cannot withdraw themselves from our borders. If there could be devised any feasible, practicable method to withdraw then from our borders, it would be most desirable to do so. None such is proposed. A large portion of the coloured people have been born here On what terms shall they continue to live? Approaching the question now before the convention, who ought to be voters ? He could not, with all his reflection on the subject, give an "All freeanswer equal to what is contained in the constitution of 1776. men, having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers," &c. He had found in no constitution, the idea better or more truly expressed, than it is here. This definition must be acceptable to every member of the convention. He did not believe that any one could be found in this body, to deny the truth of this proposition. Many might differ as to the purpose, and propriety of its application. Had this proposition any bearing on the question? Viewing the proposed amendment, as exclusively confined to the white citizens, and as determining a rule by which they are to be governed, and that, hereafter, a rule may be established for the coloured people, this proposition has a direct bearing on both classes. He took it, then, that the insertion of the word "white," could not operate as an exclusion of the blacks, but merely of those who come under the amendment made in committee of the whole. He presumed, there would be another rule adopted in reference to coloured people. As far, therefore, as the introduction of the word "white" goes, it is not so material whether the words are put correctly together. It is not intended to take away any rights. Taking it for granted, that there will be one rule for the whites, and another for the coloured people, the provision inserted in the constitution, by the adoption of the word "white," is intended to relate to the former. Is it a clear word, free from all ambiguity? It appeared to him, to be full of difficulty; for there are many men, nations of men, naturalized, who could not be called white. There is a great variety of shades, and an objection made at the polls, that a dark coloured man could not vote, might lead to bloodshed quicker than any thing else. Why not then, introduce a special provision for coloured persons? What is meant by the African race? We ought to make the constitution as distinct as possible on this subject, so that the rights of all may be defined with precision. The same rule should not be applied to both races. When men come here, because there is no other place to which they can go, it would be well to require some stronger evidence of their attachment to our interests and institutions, than we would ask from others, before they should be permitted to rote. It is unnecessary to make this the subject of a special provision. And if the coloured people are not to be allowed to vote, the exclusion could be provided for by an addition to the section, and not in this way. Therefore, either way, the insertion of the word " white," cannot do much harm. What are the objections to certain portions of the coloured race to such as have a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community? It is said they have no natural rights. Have we any? We are not, by the laws of nature, met here to amend the constitution. It is matter of concert. It is asked, why white females are not permitted to vote? There can only be one reason. Those who made the constitution we have lived under, were married men, and did not wish to be outgeneralled. The question, then, cannot be placed on the ground of natural rights. We have no natural rights. We are making a rule of government, and a government, founded on the laws of nature, would be a return to savage life, where every man would do what he pleased, making the law for himself. What is to be done with those who have a common interest and attachment, among the coloured people? He had no prejudice in their favor. But they are here, and this ques tion must be settled in some way and the question of slavery and slaveholders, is wide of this. Whenever a coloured man settles here, and becomes the owner of a part of the soil, what do republican principles teach us ought to be our course? Social intercourse is asked for. The rights of liberty and property, and the pursuit of happiness are guarantied to all. But social intercourse, is a matter to be regulated by the taste, and the will of those who compose particular sections of society. No law can interfere there, so long as the laws of the state, and the public morals, are not violated. But, because, there exists no social intercourse between different races of men, it does not follow, that political rights are to be denied to one, more than to the other. He did not desire to see any black men admitted to vote, who had no common interest and attachment. But we ought not to say, we will deny to others any of the liberties we enjoy. It requires the oath of an individual, that he is attached to our institutions, and the oaths of two citizens to confirm it, before a certificate of naturalization can be obtained. He would have no other test than this. If the feelings and interests of an individual are such as to divide his attachment from ours, he ought not to be permitted to vote. If a coloured man has lived among us unul he has acquired a right of soil, ought he not to be admitted to the polls-not because it would please this man or that man, but because he has shown himself worthy to be admitted among us? Would any one ask to be admitted on any other principle? He trusted not. The coloured men are declared to be a branch of the African stocka degraded people, and we are asked to adopt a provision which will continue their degradation forever. Is this right? Ought we to do so? Can we improve their condition? Shall we say, you are good citizens and behave well? Is it offering them a great interest to do what they wish? It was supposed by some that this could not be done without great injury to others. He did not think so. We offer inducements to certain men to acquire character. Those who do not acquire it, lose the reward. But is any thing done to hinder them from obtaining it? No. They refuse to exert themselves, and therefore they cannot gain the prize. If all alike were to behave equally well, all would be entitled to equal enjoyment. But this is not the case, and they who do not behave well cannot be admitted to equal enjoyment. And why are we to make a difference between the blacks, in this respect, any more than among the whites? It is said, force will be used to prevent the coloured people from going to the polls. The mob, he acknowledged, had, in some instances, been stronger than the law, and he could not suppress his astonishment at some of the modern doctrines in relation to mobs. The cause of mobs is the defence of rights. It is only necessary to give up all rights, add there will be no mob. At Charlestown, the poor inhabitants of the nunnery walked out, and the people set fire to the building: there was no need of a mob to do that. This is the modern doctrine. It has been said, in some places, that the mob was the law, the voice of the mob the voice of the law, and that where there was no law, the mob could make one: and that when people were bold enough to defend themselves, it was alleged as a crime against them that they did not regard this law, and they and their property have been destroyed. He denied that this could take place in Pennsylvania. He denied that the people here, in Pennsylvania, could be made to assemble in mobs to put down the law of the land. We in this state value property too high, and we know our privileges too well. never could raise any considerable number here to interfere with the course of the law of the land. There is no danger of this. The existence of such a danger any where, proves that you may have the forms of republican government without the spirit. You |