not go into any argument. The minds of gentlemen are made up on this subject. He would merely ask that the amendment be divided, so as to have the vote between each branch separately. On this question he asked the yeas and nays.

And the yeas and nays were accordingly ordered.

The question was then taken on the first branch of the amendment as in the following form, viz:

"No bank, rail road company or canal company shall be chartered, unless three-fourths of all the members of each branch of the legislature concur therein. No bank shall be chartered with a capital of more two hundred thousand dollars, unless two-thirds of all the members of each branch of the legislature concur therein. Nor any bank with a capital of more than five hundred thousand dollars, unless three-fourths of all the members of each branch concur therein. Nor shall any bank be chartered with a capital greater than one million of dollars, nor for a longer period than ten years, unless the law chartering the same be passed by three fourths of all the members of each branch of the legislature at two successive sessions, and be approved by the governor; and the bill which may be passed the first session shall be published with the laws enacted at such session."

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Clarke, of Indiana, Cummin, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Fleming, Foulk rod, Fry, Fuller, Hastings, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Read, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Weaver, White, Woodward--35.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnirz, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Bigelow, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadeplhia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Harris, Hayhurst, Hayes, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'S.erry, Meredith Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Riter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Snively, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-81.

So the question was determined in the negative.

The question being, will the convention agree to the second division of the amendment, as follows:

"No bonus shall be required or allowed to be paid by any bank for the corporate privileges granted to the company, and every law, chartering or rechartering a bank, which provides for the payment of any such bonus, shall be wholly void; but all sums of money required to be paid by any bank for such privileges, shall be a yearly, or half yearly tax on the stock or the profits of the company."

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. STERIGERE, and Mr. KREBS, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Brown, of Northampton, Cleavinger, Crain, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Hastings, Helffenstein, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Read, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Weaver, White, Woodward--38.

NAYS--Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Biddle, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clak, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Gamble, Gearhart, Grenell, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Overfield, Payne, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Snively, Sturdevant, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-81.

So the question was determined in the negative.

And the third division of the amendment being under consideration, in the words as follows, viz:

"The legislature shall have power to repeal or alter any charter which has been, or may be granted to any bank, whenever, in their opinion, the same is injurious to the citizens of the commonwealth; but no such alteration shall be binding on any bank, unless the same be assented to by a majority of the stockholders, certified in such manner as may be prescribed by law; and in case the bank whose charter may be altered shall neglect, or refuse to assent to such alteration, within the time fixed by law, the chartered privileges granted to such bank, shall thenceforth cease and determine, except so far, and for so long a time as may be necessary to collect its debts, and wind up its concerns, not exceeding two years:

"Provided, That when any charter shall be repealed, or shall cease as aforesaid, in case any bonus or sum of money, other than a tax on the stock or annual profits of the bank, may have been paid to the state by such bank, for the privileges granted to it, the state shall retain for the privileges enjoyed, only so much of such bonus or sum as will be a just proportion of the bonus or sum such bank was to pay for the privileges granted, having a due regard to the amount of capital, and the duration of the charter, to be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by law."

46

Mr. READ moved to amend the same, by striking out all after the word commonwealth," to the word provided.

Mr. DENNY doubted, he said, whether it was in order to strike out any part.

Mr. STERIGERE accepted the amendment as a modification.

Mr. MEREDITH would ask if the gentleman could now go back, and modify his proposition, after a vote had been taken on the two first divis

ions of it?

The CHAIR did not consider it in order to do so, and stated the question now to be on the motion of the gentleman from Susquehanna, to strike from the third branch of the proposition, from the word " commonwealth" to the word" provided."

Mr. DICKEY considered both the motion to modify, and the motion to strike out, as not being in order. Why, sir, what is the state of this question? The gentleman from Montgomery moved a proposition. I call for the previous question, the house does not, to be sure, sustain that call,

but proceeds to take the vote upon the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, in three separate divisions, and negatives the two first divisions. He would ask, then, whether any thing else could be done than take a vote on the third division, and whether it was in the power of the mover to modify it, or of any other gentleman to amend it?

Mr. STERIGERE was satisfied that he had the power to modify any part of his own proposition, until the vote was taken upon it, but as the Chair had decided otherwise, and as the same object would be obtained by the motion of the gentleman from Susquehanna, to strike out, he would not press his right.

Mr. DENNY did not consider that the convention was now prepared to vote on the question. He, therefore, considered it his duty, from the course which had been pursued here, to move the previous question; which motion was seconded by eighteen members.

Mr. FULLER inquired what the main question would be, in case the previous question was sustained?

The CHAIR said, that the main question would be on preparing and engrossing for a third reading, the amendments to the first article. Mr. READ would inquire if the main question would not be on the proposed new section?

The CHAIR replied, that it would not, as the previous question, if sustained, would cut off the new section.

Mr. BROWN, of the county of Philadelphia, would inquire if the previous question, a few days ago, when moved upon a a new section, did not apply to that section, and the main question was on agreeing to the said new section?

The CHAIR stated, that in the case referred to, the report of the committee was not gone through with; consequently, when the previous question was moved on a separate section, there was nothing else for it to apply to than the section. Now, however, the report of the committee had been gone through, and the application of the previous question would be to the report of the committee, and would cut off all amendments.

Mr. SMYTH, of Centre, called for the yeas and nays on ordering the main question, which were ordered, and were; yeas 59, nays 62, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-59.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Heister, High, Hopkinson, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Overfield, Payne, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward-62.

So the main question was not ordered to be put.

The puestion being on the motion of Mr. READ, to amend the third division, by striking out after the word commonwealth," to the word "provided,"

Mr. CURLL, asked the yeas and nays, which were as follows, viz:

YEAS.-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High. Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Overfield, Payne, Read, Riter, Ritter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward-57.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers. Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President—64.

So the question was determined in the negative.

Mr. BELL, moved to amend the third division of the amendment so as to read as follows:

"No bill providing for the creation or continuance of a corporation to carry on the business of banking, shall become a law, unless it be passed at two annual, and immediately succeeding, sessions of the general assembly, and any such law which may be hereafter enacted may be repealed, altered or modified by the general assembly, whether the power to repeal, alter or modify be reserved in the law creating such corporation or not; but when such law shall be repealed or any of the corporate privileges granted thereby resumed, provision shall be made for adequate compensation to the corporators."

Mr. BELL said, it would not be necessary for him to offer his reasons at any length, in support of this amendment. This was the same amendment which he offered yesterday, when it was cut off by the previous question. He now offered it again, and not wishing to induce a long and profitless debate, he would offer a simple explanation. It would be remembered, that the gentleman from Lancaster offered an amendment embodying the first branch of the amendment.

The gentleman from Luzerne, also, offered an amendment which was inadmissible, a long and learned discussion took place upon it, but before the vote was taken, the previous question was called, and we were prevented from coming to a direct conclusion upon the subject. My only desire is to present an opportunity to vote directly on the question. It is only necessary to look at the history of our legislation, to see the necessity of adopting some restriction of the sort now proposed.

The major part of our laws, was acts of private incorporation. There is a morbid disposition in the Pennsylvania legislature, for multiplying acts of this sort. The friends of the Bank of the United States, anticipating some difficulty with the government of the state, introduced in the

charter of that' institution, no provision for a repeal The object of the amendment was, to guard against the recurrence of such a case, by making all charters repealable, and by requiring the assent of two successive legislatures to their adoption.

In reference to what had been said about abuses-it was true, and could not be denied. Now, what did he (Mr. B.) propose? Simply to reverse, so far as we are interested in Pennsylvania, the decision made by the framers of the constitution of the United States, and to say, that those who shall hereafter accept at the hands of the legislature, a contract, (if contract it be) for banking purposes, must do so, subject to its being taken away from them, if the public interests require it. The legislature shall be compelled to alter, modify, or repeal the charter, they making adequate compensation to the corporators. Could there be any objection? He believed, without a single exception, but the one he had alluded to, all acts of assembly incorporating banks, passed within the last two years, contained a provision, that a succeeding legislature should have the power of modifying or repealing the charter, when the public interest required it. And, no gentleman here had gone so far as to say, that the banks had not accepted the provision, and carried their corporation into operation. In no instance had this rule been departed from, except in that of the Pennsylvania Bank of the United States. There remained but a single inquiry, and that had been answered learnedly and ingeniously by a delegate on this floor, and that was"Would the legislature abuse the power?" We must all agree that the power was good, unless they abused it. We must look at the history of that which had past, to enable us to judge of that which was to come. They had not abused it in any case! Yes! so chary had the legislature been on the subject, that we had now the startling spectacle of the Pennsylvania Bank of the United States,-standing in open hostility to the law, made for their government, putting at defiance the community, and the power of the community. And, yet the legislature of Pennsylvania, whom we all professed to revere so much, having it in their power to repeal all and every one of the charters of the moneyed corporations, existing in the limits of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, had not moved, nor was it likely they would. Was it probable, he asked, that they would abuse this power?

[Here Mr. B. related the circumstances, connected with the granting of an act of incorporation to the Harrisburg water compaay in 1836, in illus. tration and defence of the positions he had heretofore taken, in reference to the fact of the legislature, being inclined to abuse the power reposed in them.]

legislature, as What he had

He, Mr. B. desired to impose such restrictions on the would prevent them from doing what they did in 1836. said, was sufficient to show, that the legislature should not divest themselves of the power to repeal, modify, &c., and that there was no danger in their abusing the power. Ought there not to be some check imposed on hasty legislation, in respect to the granting of charters of incorporation? And, could any objection be reasonably made to that check which he proposed to place on legislative acts? He concluded by reiterating his solemn conviction of the imperious necessity of introducing in the constitution, a clause of the character he proposed as a security to the peo