I more immediately represent, the Northern Liberties of Philadelphia, a district where a majority of 1099 was given in favor of the call of this Convention, have long been noted for their love of freedom. That district has been called the "cradle of democracy", because, there, in the year '98, when a party was carrying things to extremes, the people manifested a most determined opposition to the laws then enacted for abridging the freedom of speech, and the liberty of the press. I trust that that gentleman, from Somerset, does not feel any dislike to the suburbs, because of this circumstance. He has also assailed the county of Philadelphia, because it is partly inhabited by mechanics and people connected with commerce, whilst he has passed eulogies upon the farming population of the interior. Perhaps, the gentleman is not aware that Philadelphia county contains a very large farming population, as large, perhaps, as the gentleman's own district, while the city of Philadelphia, which, with its principles and its delegation, he seems disposed to place in favorable contrast with the county, contains no farming population whatever.

The gentleman has said that this agitation of the subject, in the county of Philadelphia, grew out of the contest for the election of a Governor, in 1835 that it was a political manœuvre of the friends of one of the candidates. He is in error. The society which was most influential in effecting the call of this Convention, originated in Philadelphia county, three years before that election, and continued zealously to exert itself until its object was carried into effect. Nor is it a fact, that the advocacy of reform was confined to the supporters of Mr. MUHLENBERG.

I recollect reading a newspaper published in the gentleman's own district, headed "Ritner and Reform", and the reform it advocated, was precisely such as the people of Philadelphia county advocate. Now, I should like to know whether these sentiments are more dangerous in Philadelphia county, than in Somerset or Cambria county? I was glad to see this support of sound doctrines, in a paper of the gentleman's own party and district, and I should not fear if the inhabitants of that district, being deliberately consulted, were permitted to decide what amendments should, and what should not be made to the Constitution.

The gentleman has alluded to frauds in elections, in the county of Philadelphia. He has told the truth. It is because we have been deprived of the right of suffrage, in the county of Philadelphia-because we have been cheated out of our votes, that we wish such alteration of the Constitution as will guard against such violations for the future. And, as a member of this Convention, I shall submit such amendments as will secure us against any such outrages hereafter. I trust that the gentleman will go with me in this measure. For, by such outrages, not only in the county of Philadelphia, deprived of her rights, in being misrepresented in the Legislature, but as she is seriously affected, so are other counties. Every county has an interest in this matter, and it is the interest of the county of Somerset, as much as any other, that we should be properly represented.

I think that it was not very fair that this should be urged as a reproach to the county of Philadelphia; for the people of the county were not the authors of the measure. What the gentleman has said about the carrying away of the ballot boxes was true. But those who performed this act were all inspectors of elections, not chosen by the people, but forced upon

the people of the county, against their will-forced upon them by the agency of members of Assembly, from other parts of the State. And, if there be any deserved censure about the matter, those men must take their share. In page 1363 of the legislative journal of 1835-6, I find that the rule, on motion of Mr, Cox, was dispensed with, for the purpose of proceeding to the third reading of the bill, to take away from the citizens of Philadelphia county the election of their inspectors. The right was taken away. Now, it is commonly found that great inventions have given to them the names of their authors.

We will not call this Cox's Syrup; that would be a name not applicable to depriving people of the right of suffrage. There is something surgical about cutting individuals off from the body politic. We hear of the Caesarian operation; and, if the gentleman has no objection, we will call this the Coxonian operation.

An effort has been made to excite prejudice against the county of Philadelphia, which I cannot account for, in any other way, than by supposing that there being a numerical majority of one political party, in this Convention, there is to be an attempt made to excite party feelings in the breasts of certain members, and thus induce them to act, not according to the wishes of their constituents, but under the influence and dictation of the party.

For what other purpose are such allusions as that to the Senator in Congress (Mr. B.) thrown out here, than to elicit party feeling?-To induce the delegates of the counties of Allegheny, Beaver, Erie, Bradford, &c., which gave an aggregate vote of fifty to one in favor of the Convention, to vote here on questions of reform in the same way with the delegates of the city of Philadelphia, which gave two votes to one against the Convention.

Great pains have been taken to prove that the people of the county of Philadelphia are opposed to reform. The fact is far otherwise. Both sets of candidates in that county were avowedly in favor of reform. The highest unsuccessful candidate was an active friend of reform in the Legislature for years. No man who avowed himself an opponent of the alteration of the Constitution would have ventured to run. If any candidate had so declared himself he would have lost the votes of his own party.

The story alluded to, by the gentlemen, that the friends of reform are in favor of electing judges by the people for the term of six months, and of reducing their salaries to 75 cents à day, is pure invention. Misrepresentation is always ripe, where the rights of the people are concerned. I beg the gentleman to believe that we do not hold more radical doctrines, in reference to the rate of salaries, and the terms of office of judges, than are held by the only two anti-masonic States in the Union-Vermont and Rhode Island. We are no more radical than the Anti-Masons of those States. We wish to fix the salaries of the judges at a reasonable sum, and their term of service at a proper length. The Convention lately held in Vermont, by the Anti-Masons to revise the Constitution of that State, left the term of service of the judges untouched-and the same was the result of the Rhode Island Convention. In Vermont, where the judges are elected annually, no difficulty is experienced in procuring suitable men to serve, with a salary of a thousand dollars a year. In Rhode Island,

as one of the ablest men who ever held a seat in the national Senate, filled the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of that State, for several years, with a salary of two hundred and fifty dollars. Mr. BURGES, one

of the most eminent men of the party to which the gentleman belongs, filled the same office, at the same salary. These points he stated to show that we can have able and independent men as judges, even if we elect them yearly, and allow them but small salaries; at the same time he would say, that he was not himself in favor of proposing to the people of Pennsylvania, so short a term, nor for so low a salary. Jefferson was in favor of the election of judges by the people, yet no member from Philadelphia held any ultra ideas in regard to the judiciary. While he (Mr. E.) was for a reasonable compensation, he believed that high salaries were one of the greatest curses that could ever befal a Republic. The elections cannot be free from corruption, when the salaries are high. To get rid of an extravagant government and its corruptions was one of the main objects of our fathers in adopting our republican institutions. If we are to have the pomp, pageantry and expense of a despotism, we gain little or nothing by a republican form. Hence, while we oppose extravagance, we are probably willing to give such a salary as will command the best service for the office. In this matter we would act on the same principle of common sense which is adopted in all private transactions. We would be willing to allow as large a salary as is equal to the average increase in private life of gentlemen having the requisite talent for the office. I hope the democratic Anti-Masons will go with us. We are told that we say too much about the rich and the poor. But we say nothing in regard to them, except when it is required of us by the nature of the discussion. We are not disposed to infringe upon the rights of the rich, because we support the privileges of the poor. We wish to afford protection to the persons of the poor, and to the property of the rich. In the first resolution which I offered, it is laid down as a principle that the property of the rich and the persons of the poor, are equally entitled to consideration. I support the motion before us, because I am anxious to come at once to the consideration of the Constitution, so that gentlemen who hold the doctrine may have an opportunity of proving that a long term of office is the best; that it will render liberty more secure and property more safe; and that it secures more uniformity and stability in the administration of justice. While the gentleman from Somerset proscribes us for holding the opinion that a short term will better secure these objects, I will ask him to tell me what was the tenure of office and mode of election in Athens, Lacedæmon, Rome, Carthage, &c. I will ask him whether he has studied the judicial system of any country of modern Europe, except England-whether he has well examined the system of Switzerland, the oldest Republican form of government existing. I will ask whether he has closely studied and compared the theory and operation of the judicial systems even of the States of this Union. If he can shew that when the people are chained down like wild beasts, then liberty and property are better preserved, than they can be by our system, then we will go with him; and, if he cannot, then we hope he will go with us; and with the only two AntiMasonic States of this Union.

The Convention then adjourned.

TUESDAY, May 16, 1837.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, rose for the purpose of making a correction, not of the journals, but with a view to rectify any error in the debates. When the gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Cox) charged Mr. BUCHANAN, on Friday, with the utterance of certain language, he stated that he did not know that Mr. BUCHANAN was in the House, and tially retracted his expression. Yesterday, the gentleman reiterated the charge, and said that the truth of it would be sustained by a gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. REIGART.) That gentleman was now in his seat, and he (Mr. B.) desired to hear him on the subject. He wished now

to ask that gentleman if the charge was true or false?

par

The CHAIR said it was not in order to take up the subject at this time, unless with the consent of the Convention.

Mr. REIGART said, he hoped the Convention would give him leave to make a statement. Pending the former discussion, he had made several efforts to obtain the floor. He moved to dispense with the rule.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, asked for the ayes and noes.

Mr. REIGART then withdrew his motion,

Mr. LONG, of Lancaster, submitted the following resolutions, which were ordered to be laid on the table and printed.

Resolved, That the second section of the first article of the Constitution be so amended, that the annual election of state and county officers be held on the first Tuesday of September, in each year.

Resolved, That the tenth section of the fifth article of the Constitution be so modified, that the Legislature shall limit the number of Justices to be appointed for each district.

Resolved, That the first section of the third article be so amended, that any person convicted of an infamous crime, shall be disqualified from exercising the right of an elector, and that the same be further amended, so that young men, between the age of twenty-one and twenty-two, whose fathers are dead, but who, at the time of their death, were qualified voters, shall be entitled to vote without having been assessed or paid a tax. Mr. BEDFORD, of Luzerne, submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to be laid on the table, and printed.

Resolved, That the committee on the third article of the Constitution be instructed to enquire into the expediency of so amending the said article, that every white male citizen, who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years, and shall have resided in this State, and for six months next preceding the election, in the county where he may offer his vote, shall be entitled to vote in the township or ward where he actually resides, and not elsewhere, for all officers that now are, or hereafter may be, made elective by the people.

Mr. MAGEE, of Perry, submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to be laid on the table, and printed.

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire into the expediency of so amending the Constitution of Pennsylvania, as to prohibit the future emigration into the State of free persons of color, and fugitive slaves from other states or territories.

Mr. KONIGMACHER, of Lancaster, submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to be laid on the table, and printed.

Resolved, That the following amendments to the Constitution be made :

1. No member of the Legislature shall receive any civil appointment from the Governor and Senate, or from the Legislature, during the term for which he shall have been

2. Any elector, who shall receive any gift or reward for his vote, in meat, drink, money or otherwise, shall suffer such punishment as the law shall direct, and any person who shall, directly or indirectly, give, promise, or bestow any such reward to be elected, shall thereby be rendered incapable, for two years, to serve in the office for which he was elected, and be subject to such other punishment as shall be directed by law.

3. And whereas, the ministers of the Gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to or capable of holding any civil or military office or place within this State.

Mr. COCHRAN, of Lancaster, submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to be laid on the table, and printed.

Resolved. That the Constitution ought to be so amended, in the tenth section of the fifth article, as follows, viz: "That the Justices of the Peace in the several counties of this Commonwealth, the number to be apportioned by law, shall be appointed for a term of five years, by the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, in the county in which they shall respectively reside".

Mr. M'CALL, of Washington, submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to be laid on the table, and printed.

Resolved, That the committee on the first article of the Constitution be instructed to enquire whether any, and if any, what restrictions may be proper or necessary on the powers of the Legislature, in authorizing the issuing licenses for the sale of ardent spirits.

Mr. CURLL, of Armstrong, submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to be laid on the table, and printed.

Resolved, That a special committee be appointed to enquire into the expediency of a provision in the Constitution, on the subject of erecting new counties.

Mr. STEVENS, from the committee to whom was referred the subjects of the Public Improvements, Public Loans, and the State Debt, made the following report, which was ordered to be laid on the table, and printed. That they recommend the following amendment to the Constitution: ARTICLE The public debt of this Commonwealth shall never exceed the sum of thirty millions of dollars.

Mr. PURVIANCE, of Butler, said he had, a few days ago, submitted a resolution, which had given rise to a very protracted discussion, not very dissimilar to the case of the celebrated resolution of Mr. FooTE, in the Senate of the United States. He had no idea, when he offered the resolution, that it would lead to such an extensive discussion. The object he had in view was to submit something for the consideration of the Convention, while the standing committees were engaged on the various subjects before them. Considering the arduous nature of their duties, he did not expect the reports from those committees in less time than two weeks, and lest the Convention should remain idle during that time, he had submitted the resolution. Yesterday, he had offered another motion, that the Convention would go into committee of the whole, on the report of the committee on the first article of the Constitution. He was anxious that the Convention should proceed to the consideration of that report, and, therefore, he would now withdraw his resolution, for the purpose of asking for the consideration of the report of the committee on the first article.

The PRESIDENT. It will require the consent of the seconder before the resolution can be withdrawn.