it divided. The gentleman has referred to the county of Luzerne. It is very true that a new county has been urged there from time to time, and about every six or seven years for the last twenty years we have voted on the question of a new county, and the people have decided over and over again that they do not want a new county. I supposed that we were sent here to make amendments to the Constitution in matters wherein the Constitution needed amendment. I have not heard of any complaint except from one or two localities of the present Constitution in this regard, and the section as reported is substantially what the old Constitution is. Now, let us stand by that which is good in the old Constitution. The old Constitution provides that the Legislature may take off portions of counties containing a small fraction, it is true, without a vote; but in respect to the division of counties, it requires a majority of all the people of the county to approve of it. Why ought it not to be so? Mr. HAZZARD. About fifteen years ago I believe the present constitutional provision was put into the Constitution, and since that time there have been no new counties. The gentleman from Luzerne knows very well that if this section remains as it was reported here and adopted in committee of the whole, it is impossible to have a new county. He says the people of Luzerne have voted upon the question over and over again, and they have voted it down. So they will continue to vote it down forever and a day. If new counties are formed, they are taken off one corner or one side of the old counties. The people who are interested in that are mostly those living there. Those living at the county seat of course will vote against it. Those beyond the county seat on the other side will vote against it. They always have voted against, and always will vote against it. If this Convention is ready to say that there shall be no other new connties from this time forth, they will support the section as it stands, for that will be the effect of it. But, sir, in the changing circumstances of the future, in the influx of inhabitants coming to a certain place, as they are coming now along our valley, when there appears to be a necessity for such a division, shall there not be a provision which shall render it possible? The old Constitution was simpler. It left the question to a vote of the counties from which the new county was formed, where it cut off more than one-tenth of their population, and it is very probable that no new county could be formed without taking off more than a tenth of the old one. If it is the determination of the Convention never to have a new county, they will vote for the section as it is here; if not, they will allow those who propose to set up a new county to vote upon it, and the majority that is required by this amendment-three-fifthsseems to me to be fair. The gentleman from Luzerne talks as if the people in these districts desiring to set up a new county belonged to the old county. He says it is a novelty to propose to give them the right to vote on this question. Why, sir, it is not proposed to make a new county for the benefit of the old county particularly. It is to benefit the people of the new county, and if they are willing to bear the expense, erect the necessary public buildings and all that, why not give them a chance, especially when we require a three-fifths vote of the inhabitants interested in and affected by the change? It is true there would be but very few new counties made. I think this proposition allowing three-fifths of the people interested to have such a division is fair and just; but the section as it stands is virtually saying that there never shall be any new counties in the State. The people of the old counties will say that as long as they have a vote on the subject. This question was fully discussed be. fore; the reasons why counties should be divided were stated to this Convention, and it is unnecessary to repeat them. There is no reason why counties should not be divided when aggregated commu. nities shall settle in them so as to make it inconvenient, expensive and a hardship for the people to travel over vast sections of the country in order to reach the county seat. Mr. LILLY. So far as my knowledge extends there is but one county east of the Susquehanna to-day that ought to be divided, and that is that Commonwealth within the Commonwealth, the wheel within the wheel, that we heard of the other day, the county of Luzerne. That county has got to be so large, so cumbrous and so corrupt that it ought to be divided. Mr. H. W. PALMER. You want some of it in Carbon. Mr. LILLY. Yes, sir, we do want some of it in Carbon to purify it. The gentle man from Luzerne says that the people of that county have rejected such a proposition by vote after vote. That portion of the county that desires to be attached to Carbon have asked over and over again to obtain a vote upon it; but the gentleman from Luzerne and his friends always go to Harrisburg and use such means as defeat it every time. Now, I am in favor of this amendment, because I believe it is fair and right. I do not believe that that portion of a county that desires to get away belongs to the old county. Its soil belongs to those who live on it, and they have a right to seek their happiness and to seek their business convenience, and believe that three-fifths of them should be allowed to say whether they want a new county or not. we should have had a new county then, for five-sixths of the residents of the proposed territory, which now contains nearly sixty thousand people, declared for a new county; but you all know it is a very large county and they were outvoted. There is in this new territory the city of Scranton, the third city in the State. Of course it is the interest of my colleague, who lives at Wilkesbarre and is a prac ticing lawyer there, to bring everything there. I say that we have in that territory sufficient population to make a new county, and a county equal to the majority of the counties in this State. I therefore support this proposition, which is a fair, reasonable, and just one, and I hope delegates will adopt it. I never trouble this Convention much with speaking, but I say upon my honor that the facts are as 1 state them. Mr. BROOMALL. I rise to a question of privilege. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to transcribe the last article under consideration. The PRESIDENT. There is a question Mr. PUGHE. I rise to correct a statement made by my colleague (Mr. H. W. Palmer) to this Convention which is liable to mislead them. I think it is wrong for any delegate to get up here and misrepresent facts. He stated that in the county of Luzerne this question had been voted upon about every seven years. I deny that it ever was voted upon but pending, and the motion is not in order at once, and that was in the year 1863, and I appeal to the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Turrell,) who was then in the Legislature, and knows the fact. If that vote had been taken under the amendment now proposed, which is right and just, this time. Mr. BOYD. I move that the Convention adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and (at three o'clock P. M.) the Convention adjourned. ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH DAY. Mr. CORSON. I offer the following resolution: Resolved. That during the week commencing Monday the sixteenth instant, the sessions of the Convention shall be from half-past nine A. M. to half-past twelve P. M., and from two P. M. to seven P. M., daily excepting Saturday. On the question of proceeding to the second reading and consideration of the resolution, a division was called for, which resulted thirty-five in the affirmative and forty-three in the negative. So the Convention refused to order the resolution to a second reading. Mr. BAER. I offer the following resolution: Resolved. That after to-day this Convention will hold two sessions daily from nine o'clock A. M. to one o'clock P. M., and from three P. M. to six P. M., Saturdays and Sundays excepted. On the question of proceeding to the second reading and consideration of the resolution, a division was called for, which resulted forty-eight in the affirmative and thirty-two in the negative. So the resolu tion was ordered to be read the second time, and it was read the second time. Mr. BEEBE. I move to strike out "Sat urdays." The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Venango. The amendment was rejected, there being on a division ayes thirty-one, noes fifty. Mr. DARLINGTON. I move to strike out the word "three" and insert "two" as the time for the beginning of the afternoon session. Mr. CURRY. I move to postpone the resolution for the present. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The question is on the motion to postpone the further consideration of the resolution for the present. The question being putfthe ayes were forty-four, the noes thirty-five. SEVERAL DELEGATES called for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The resolution is postponed. Mr. BROOMALL. There is no question, I believe, before the House. The PRESIDENT pro tem. There is not. Mr. BROOMALL. I move to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to transcribe the article finished yesterday. Mr. KAINE. Mr. President: I rise to a question of order. The PRESIDENT pro tem. What is the question? Mr. KAINE. A number of gentlemen rose and called for the yeas and nays before the decision was announced upon the postponement of the resolution just before the Convention. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The Chair will withdraw his decision if the call for the yeas and nays is insisted upon. Mr. KAINE. I insist upon it. Mr. EDWARDS and others. I second the call. The yeas and nays were taken and resulted as follows, viz: YEAS. Messrs. Ainey, Alricks, Armstrong, Baker, Bannan, Bartholomew, Bigler, Boyd, Broomall, Buckalew, Corson, Curry, Curtin, Dallas, Darlingten, Dunning, Ellis, Funck, Gibson, Guthrie, Hall, Harvey, Hay, Knight, Lilly, MacVeagh, M'Clean, Metzger, Palmer, G. W., Palmer, H. W., Parsons, Reynolds, Ross, Runk, Simpson, Smith, Henry W., Stanton, Stewart, Van Reed, Wetherill, J. M. and Woodward -41. NAYS. Messrs. Achenbach, Andrews, Baer, Baily, (Perrv,) Beebe, Bowman, Calvin, Carter, Church, Clark, Collins, Craig, Cronmiller, Davis, De France, Dodd, Edwards, Ewing, Fulton, Gilpin, Hazzard, Horton, Hunsicker, Kaine, Landis, Lawrence, MacConnell, M'Culloch, M'Murray, Mantor, Minor, Mott, Niles, Patterson, T. H. B., Porter, Pughe, Purviance, John N., Purviance, Samuel A., Rooke, Russell, Smith, Wm. H., Struthers, Walker, Wetherill, Jno. Price, White, David N. and Wright-46. Mr. HAY. I now renew my amendment to strike out all after the word "Resolved" in the resolution and insert the following: "That, in addition to the daily sessions ter hold evening sessions, commencing at as now held, the Convention will hereafhalf-past seven o'clock. Mr. BUCKALEW. I move to amend by making it after this day. Mr. HAY. The resolution is so worded already. Mr. CORBETT. I move to postpone the whole subject indefinitely. Mr. BROOMALL. I second that motion. Mr. COLLINS. I call for the yeas and nays on that motion. Mr. CARTER. I second the call. The yeas and nays were taken, and were as follow, viz: YEAS. Messrs. Achenbach, Ainey, Alricks, Armstrong, Baker, Bannan, Barclay Bardsley, Bartholomew, Beebe, Bigler, Boyd, Broomall, Buckalew, Cochran, Corbett, Corson, Craig, Curry, Curtin, So the question was determined in the Darlington, Ellis, Finney, Funck, Gibnegative. ABSENT. Messrs. Addicks, Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Barclay, Bardsley, Biddle, Black, Charles A., Black, J. S., Brodhead, Brown, Campbell, Carey, Cassidy, Cochran, Corbett, Cuyler, Elliott, Fell, Finney, Green, Hanna, Hemphill, Heverin, Howard, Lamberton, Lear, Littleton, Long, M'Camant, Mann, Mitchell, Newlin, Patterson, D. W., Patton, Purman, Read, John R., Reed, Andrew, Sharpe, Smith, H. G., Temple, Turrell, Wherry, White, Harry, White, J. W. F., Worrell and Meredith, President—45. Mr. HAY. Mr. President: I move to amend the resolution by striking out and inserting Mr. DARLINGTON. Mr. President: There is an amendment already pending to strike out "three" and insert "two." The PRESIDENT pro tem. There is an amendment pending at present. Mr. HAY. My amendment is in order as an amendment to the amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tem. It is not in order at present as an amendment to that amendment. The question is on striking out "three" and inserting "two." The amendment was rejected, the ayes being twenty-one; less than a majority of a quorum. son, Guthrie, Hall, Harvey, Hay, Howard, Hunsicker, Knight, Lilly, MacVeagh, Metzger, Newlin, Palmer, G. W., Palmer, H. W., Parsons, Reynolds, Ross, Runk, Simpson, Smith, Henry W., Stanton, Stewart, Van Reed, Wetherill, J. M., White, David N., White, J. W. F., Woodward and Worrell-52. NAYS. Messrs. Andrews, Baer, Baily, (Perry,) Bowman, Calvin, Carter, Church, Clark, Collins, Cronmiller, Dallas, Davis, De France, Dodd, Dunning, Edwards, Ewing, Fulton, Gilpin, Green, Hazzard, Horton, Kaine, Landis, Lawrence, Long, MacConnell, M'Clean, M'Culloch, M'Murray, Mantor, Minor, Mott, Niles, Patterson, T. H. B., Porter, Pughe, Purviance, John N., Purviance, Samuel A., Rooke, Russell, Smith, Wm. H., Struthers, Walker, Wetherill, John Price and Wright46. So the further consideration of the subject was indefinitely postponed. ABSENT.-Messrs. Addicks, Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Biddle, Black, Charles A., Black, J. S., Brodhead, Brown, Campbell, Carey, Cassidy, Cuyler, Elliott, Fell, Hanna, Hemphill, Heverin, Lamberton, Lear, Littleton, M'Camant, Mann, Mitchell, Patterson, D. W., Patton, Purman, Read, John R., Reed, Andrew, Sharpe, Smith, H. G., Temple, Turrell, Wherry, White, Harry and Meredith, President-34. NEW COUNTIES. The PRESIDENT pro tem. The first business in order is article No. 13, reported from the Committee on Counties, Townships and Boroughs, which is before the House on second reading, the pending question being upon the amendment of fered by the delegate from Washington (Mr. Lawrence) to the second section of the article. The CLERK read the amendment, which was to strike out all of the second section and insert: "No new county shall be erected until the same shall be approved by three-fifths of the votes cast by the electors embraced within each of the sections of the counties taken to form the new county." Mr. NILES. Mr. President: I suppose that every delegate on this floor, as a matter of course, understands the full import of the proposed amendment. I do not suppose that I can say anything in addition to what I did say when this subject was before the committee of the whole. This amendment is the precise proposition that was reported from the Committee on Counties, Townships and Boroughs, and which was at one time repudiated by this Convention by an overwhelming majority. It has come back to us again, and the respectable chairman of the Committee on Counties, Townships and Boroughs asks us this morning to endorse, upon second reading, in substance the proposition that was repudiated by this Convention in committee of the whole. Now, Mr. President, what is this proposition? It simply allows people living upon any four hundred square miles in this Commonwealth, and containing twenty thousand inhabitants, to cut themselves aloof from their old county associations and erect a new county of their own. Sir, if this proposition is adopted by the Convention, it is saying practicallly that every county in the State in time is to be reduced to four hundred square miles. It will be done in this way: Everybody knows that there are anxious communities all over this State to-day, prominent boroughs that believe they ought to be county seats and be the centre of a new county organization. Suppose that a county contains to-day one thousand square miles; I aver that is not too large a number. Three fifths of the people of six hundred square miles in that county may create a new organization, leaving the people of the remaining four hundred square miles out in the cold. Now, sir, is this right? Are we propared by a vote of this Convention to say that new counties shall be created without the consent of the people outside of the proposed new county lines? I had supposed that this was a goverment of the people, by the people and for the people. I had supposed that that was one of the political axioms of this government. We established that principle in 1861. When a respectable portion of these United States attempted to secede, we of the north said they had no right to go without consulting us. But, sir, the proposition that has been submitted to us this morning by the distinguished delegate from Washington is, in substance and in fact, peaceable secession. Wherever three-fifths of any community in this State, numbering twenty thousand souls, see fit to go, by a vote, they can go; they can sunder their old political relations; they may divide, distract and destroy the relations that have existed for a century, and they can go without a why or a wherefore, and no man living outside of the infected district has a right to say a word against it. Are we prepared for that this morning, I submit to you, delegates? Are we prepared to go before the people of this State and say, by our votes here this morning, that men can go to the Legislature, in opposition to the will of the people of the county to be affected by the change, and create new political associations and conditions without consulting the people of the whole county? I have no particular feeling on this question. I have no more interest in it than any delegate on this floor. But, sir, we have been legislating here, or trying to do so, during the entire winter in behalf of the people. We have said in our article upon legislation and upon various questions, that the people shall be consulted, that their representatives shall not outrage public sentiment and the rights of the people. I undertake to say there is no question to-day that the people consider of more vital importance than the organization of their counties in this State. It may be said that if this proposition is sustained by us in substance and ratified by the people, no more new counties will be created. Sir, that is begging the ques |