Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

that time, and since. Parties had, at the time when the quesnvention was submiited to the people, taken high ground. which prevailed among the people was, that it would be trust the amendment of the Constitution to a Convennsion also prevailed with himself, and he accordingly of a Convention. But since that, times and the 1 undergone a change. He was himself a farmer, the farmers of the county, and he knew, e their wishes and desires on the subject mean to say that he associated with amendments. They were very

PENNSYLVANIA CONTENTION: 1882,

bhole. It was from that source that this Convention m into existence; and it was that act of Assembly which

he vote of the minority of the people.

call to view that set of Assembly to show tre originated, must we no

55 bet we reeur to that act, as

wurk it was called? its Convention,

vor of certain amendments, and nd influence would avail, to

ecessary, and were wished e some things in the Constitution he knew he should be acting in his constituents, if he endeavored to t necessary to make this explanation in It was not the case that there was a large endments, nor did those who were in favor of

go to such an extent as some gentlemen wished. jority of the committee which reported this amendment, great feeling on the subject. If other parts of the Constiamended in the way they wished, the opinions of those who ed the committee was, that this clause should be left to stand as it

the Constitution. He had thought it incumbent on him to submit ese explanations and views.

Mr. CHAUNCEY, of Philadelphia, then rose to address the committee, when,

On motion of Mr. FORWARD, the committee rose and reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

The Convention then adjourned.

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1837.

Mr. TAGGART, of Lycoming, presented a petition from a number of the inhabitants of Clearfield county, praying for the adoption of such amendments of the Constitution, as would impose restrictions on banking corporations, which was read, and ordered to be laid on the table.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved that the following resolution offered by him yesterday, be taken up for a second reading, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Auditor General be, and he is hereby requested to communicate, as far as he has the means: First, the amount drawn from the State treasury for support of the militia of this Commonwealth, other than that incured for their support in time of war. Second, the amount of fines imposed for refusing or neglecting to train at militia musters. Third, the amount of such fines collected and paid into the State treasury, and the expenses of collection and manner in which the same has been appropriated, embracing the period from 1790 to the present time.

ed, I think that time and experience has shown that some changes might be made in it to advantage. Others are of opinion that the Constitution is so defective as to require almost a total change. One gentleman (Mr. INGERSOLL) has expressed an opinion that the system of the judiciary has been an entire failure. With this opinion I cannot coincide.

I consider the judiciary to be in many respects, the most important branch of the Government. It is by the exercise of the powers of this department, that the rights of the citizens are protected and preserved, and when there is a total failure in this department, all the purposes of the Government seem to have failed. I know of nothing in the situation of our State, which would justify such a conclusion. Although it is possible that the system may admit of some improvement, yet, generally speaking, it has not failed to preserve the rights of the citizens. Some changes I think may be made with advantage, but they should be undertaken with all that caution and deliberation which their importance requires.

Mr. S. said that the discussion on this subject reminded him of a work with which he had been familiar in his early years, and which was no doubt, familiar to many gentlemen in the Convention. It was a work which was written by one of the wisest and best men that had ever lived, and contained lessons of practical wisdom and virtue, which were worthy the attention of all. He alluded to FENELON, Archbishop of Canterbury, the author of Telemachus. Under the name of MENTOR that great and good man imparts the most admirable lessons of wisdom and virtue to his royal pupil, who was himself destined to sway the sceptre of a mighty empire. He is teaching him the science of government, and after giving him much information on the nature of government, and the different forms of it which prevail in various countries, he closes with this remark, which is worthy of all attention. The best rule, says he, in forming an opinion on the character of any Government, is to observe the condition of the people who live under its operation, and feel its effects. Wherever, he continues, you find the people prosperous and happy, secure in their possessions, and contented with their lot, where agriculture thrives, where commerce is protected, and the arts and sciences receive encouragement and reward, there, you may be confident that the people live under a good Government.

Mr. Chairman: If we apply these remarks to our own State, where shall we find more evidences of a good Government than every where meet our eyes?

Does not this prove that there is not a total failure in the more important part of our political institutions? While, therefore, we proceed with care, to remedy the defects which time has disclosed in our political edifice, let us bear in mind the many benefits it has afforded us, and not tear down its pillars, or remove its foundations.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, said he would not have risen, or said a word, but for what had fallen from the gentleman from Lebanon (Mr. WEIDMAN). His situation was similar to that of the gentleman, and his vote would be given under the same circumstances. It would be seen that Centre county, a small county; when the vote was taken on the subject of a Convention, gave one of the smallest votes in favor of it. There were but 530 votes for a Convention, and 2,341 against a Convention. It might be expected of him to give some explanation of the state of public

feeling at that time, and since. Parties had, at the time when the question of a Convention was submiited to the people, taken high ground. The opinions which prevailed among the people was, that it would be then dangerous to trust the amendment of the Constitution to a Convention. That apprehension also prevailed with himself, and he accordingly voted against the calling of a Convention. But since that, times and the opinions of the people had undergone a change. He was himself a farmer, and he had associated with the farmers of the county, and he knew, as well as any one, what were their wishes and desires on the subject of amendments. He did not mean to say that he associated with those who were opposed to all amendments. They were very few in his county. He was in favor of certain amendments, and was determined, so far as his vote and influence would avail, to obtain those which he thought were necessary, and were wished for by those he represented. There were some things in the Constitution which he disapproved, and which he knew he should be acting in accordance with the opinions of his constituents, if he endeavored to have amended. He thought it necessary to make this explanation in relation to his constituents. It was not the case that there was a large majority in favor of amendments, nor did those who were in favor of them, feel disposed to go to such an extent as some gentlemen wished. He was in the majority of the committee which reported this amendment, but he had no great feeling on the subject. If other parts of the Constitution were amended in the way they wished, the opinions of those who composed the committee was, that this clause should be left to stand as it is in the Constitution. He had thought it incumbent on him to submit these explanations and views.

Mr. CHAUNCEY, of Philadelphia, then rose to address the committee, when,

On motion of Mr. FORWARD, the committee rose and reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

The Convention then adjourned.

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1837.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved that the following resolution offered by him yesterday, be taken up for a second reading, which was agreed to:

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, suggested that the gentleman from Northampton, by turning to the last report of the Auditor General, night obtain all the information he sought after.

Mr. PORTER replied that his object was to get the information laid on the tables of the members, and this appeared to him to be the only way in which that object could be accomplished.

The resolution was then read a second time, and agreed to.

FOURTH ARTICLE.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. DENNY in the chair, and the committee resumed the consideration of the fourth article.

The question being on the motion of Mr. DICKEY to strike out the words "a majority", and insert the words "with the concurence of two thirds". Mr. CHAUNCEY addressed the committee as follows:

I thank the committee, for the indulgence shown to me yesterday. I know, that the debate, on what may be considered as a collateral matter, to the subject before the committee, has been much protracted, and that its fitness has been questioned by some of the members. But I entertain a strong sense of the importance and suitableness of the discussion. Certainly, it is both fit and important, that we understand correctly both our powers and our duties.

The origin of the discussion should not be forgotten. It came on, in consequence of the repeated declaration, in the form of argument, that we were bound to make amendments, and that it was expected from us by the people. That there was a portion of this body who were the friends of reform, and a portion that were not. In reply to this, it was stated, that our authority was to consider, and if we thought amendments could be made, submit them to the people; that so complete was this authority, and the discretion existing with it, that if the Convention thought the Constitution should not be amended, it should be returned to the people without amendments.

These suggestions have led to very strong and severe remarks. It has been stated, that the power of the Convention is unlimited over the Constitution, but it is their duty to amend it, because the people have decided that it shall be amended. That this decision having been made, there is no appeal from it, no resistance of it, but by a violation of duty.

In the course of the discussion, I have had the misfortune to have my remarks misconceived, and to have imputed to me sentiments which I have not yet uttered.

It is to correct misconception, and to present my actual views, and support them as well as I may, that I again ask the patience of the committee.

I listened with attention to the argument of the delegate from Luzerne. It was open, plain, and tangible, and according to my apprehension, has presented the doctrine contended for by certain delegates, in as logical form as they have been at all presented.

The object of this argument is to establish :

1. That the powers of the Convention are unlimited, with the exception, that our doings are to be submitted to the people. In a part of this argument, it is true, that he did admit that we had this limitation of our

powers: "that we do not violate sound morals, nor contravene the Constitution of the United States".

2. That there is at least a moral and political duty on this Convention to propose some amendments. I have said, that the argument was apprehensible: I think it is fallacious.

I propose to consider both these propositions, and the reasoning by which they are sustained.

1. The powers are limited.

I take the argument in favor of unlimited powers, to be this:

All power resides in the people; of this power, it is a part to alter, modify or change their Government. The exercise of this power, in no way depends upon, nor need await any action of the Legislature. When exercised by the people, either with or without the action of the Legislature, it is supreme and unlimited.

These are general and abstract propositions, and they are thus applied to the case before this committee.

The people have put forth this power, by the election of the delegates to this Convention. To this Convention they have delegated this power, to amend the Constitution, and they have, by the delegating this power, decided that the Constitution shall be amended.

Then we have the unlimited power to amend, and the moral or political obligation to amend.

I propose to examine this argument with some degree of precision. Precision is the beauty of argument, and its greatest safeguard.

Before I enter upon the argument, I beg leave to submit some preliminary suggestions, which I hope will commend themselves to the approbation of the committee.

To change the fundamental law of the State, is the highest exercise of sovereign power.

This being stated and admitted, as it must be, it will readily be conceded by all considerate men, that such change should be made, with the greatest care and deliberation, and with the best powers of mind and attention.

Since the happy introduction of representative government, such change is effected by a delegation of power, from the people. They do not, they cannot exercise this power, but by delegation. They cannot act in mass; they cannot give entire and united expression to their sense. They therefore delegate.

I suppose it will be agreed by those who profess to be the friends of the people, that the delegation of this sovereign power must be express, not implied. It must be seen, that he who assumes to have the delegated sovereignty of the people, has it in clear and express terms; it is not a matter for implication. And the more extensive the assumption is, the clearer must be the expression.

Again, sir, those who assume to act under delegation of power, are bound to show the extent of the powers given to them. That power has been given, is not a ground of inference that all power is given.

I submit also in preliminaries, sir, that this delegation of the whole or a part of the sovereign power, must be made, not only in such terms, but in such manner, as to leave no room for mistake, as to the act and inten

« Sebelumnya Lanjutkan »

Buku

Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of ..., Volume 1