THURSDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 11, 1838.

The convention resumed the second reading of the report of the committee to whom was referred the first article of the constitution, as reported by the committee of the whole.

The amendment offered by Mr. HIESTER, to the amendment offered by Mr. REIGART, being under consideration,

Mr. DENNY moved a call of the house, which was agreed to,—and the call was, after a quorum was obtained, suspended.

Mr. HIESTER Modified his amendment, by striking thereform all preceding the word "nor," and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following, viz:

"That the legislature shall not grant or renew any charter of incorporation, until after three months' public notice of the application for the same shall have been given in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. Nor shall any corporation hereafter created, possessing banking, discounting, or loaning privileges, be continued for more than fifteen years, without renewal; and no such corporation shall be created, extended, or revived, whose charter may not be modified, altered or repealed, by the concurrent action of two successive legislatures, subject to an equitable and just indemnification."

The amendment to the amendment, as modified, being under consideration,

Mr. HOPKINSON said, this question of banking incorporations, and the restrictions on them, had become a very exciting question here, and a very important one every where. It had occupied the attention of the convention for four or five weeks, and when it was considered how many shapes it had assumed, it was evident that it would consume all the remaining time of the convention, unless we could come to some compromise upon it.

It seems to be considered, if not by a majority, by many, that something ought to be done upon the subject. Many things have been said, by experienced men, which convince me that something ought to be done. I listen to the facts which are given by members, and pay no sort of attention to what they say about the will and the wishes of the people. They know nothing about the wishes of the people, beyond their own limited, personal intercourse, with their own neighbors. I know as much as any in regard to the wishes of the people, and I profess to know nothing. I yield nothing, therefore, to the will of the people, but every thing to the sense of experienced and wise men here. I hope something will be done, to produce a joint, or nearly a joint, action in this body, upon the subject of the proposed restrictions. I know the opinion prevails that I am immovably fixed in favor of the old constitution, and that I will remove nothing there. This is a mistake. the old constitution has, in my estimation, worked well, I will not give it

Where

up for the love of novelty, and the desire of change; but where the subject is new-where it could never have come within the contemplation of the framers of the old constitution-where the matter is new, and the ground new, I must treat the subject as new, and consent to such an alteration of the constitution as will meet the change in regard to the interests of the state.

The subject of banking is one that could not have been considered by the framers of the constitution of 1790. At that time there was only one bank in the United States-the Bank of North America, which was chartered during the revolutionary war; and the convention could not have anticipated the day, when banks would be as plenty as blackberries. No, sir; there were no facts from which they could have imagined such a state of things.

We want legislation on the subject, and such alterations of the fundamental law, as experience and new lights have given us.

It seemed to him that neither of the amendments proposed by the gentlemen from Lancaster, (Mr. Reigart and Mr. Hiester,) were exactly what was required to meet the evils which it was contemplated to remedy. He thought, however, that from both amendments something might be devised, which would meet the views of the convention, and the approval of the people of the state of Pennsylvania. In order to understand whether a remedy would meet the disease, it was necessary first, to ascertain what the disease was. Not having any legislative experience himself on the subject, he had listened with the greatest attention to what had fallen from gentlemen on this floor, and as far as he had been able to collect, the evils complained of were but two in number. When it should have been clearly and distinctly ascertained what they were, gentlemen would be enabled to speak understandingly, in reference to their removal. He understood the evils to relate to incorporations generally, but more especially to banking corporations. One complaint was, that there had been heretofore, hasty and inconsiderate legislation in regard to the granting of charters. And, the other evil, against which the convention was called upon to provide some remedy, was certainly one of a more serious character he meant the practice which had been asserted over and over again, to prevail in the legislature, of getting bills through by tacking them together; or, what was familiarly known, here and out of doors, by the name of "log-rolling." A remedy must be applied to these two evils-that was, to prevent hasty and rash legislation-to cut off a combination of interests to prevent a repetition of what was done, in one instance, the chartering of thirty or forty banks, at one "fell swoop"none of which would have been approved by the representatives of the people, if each bill had been acted on separately.

If the convention should provide a remedy for these evils, and if it should hereafter be found that no act of incorporation was passed, without the notice having first been given of an intention to apply for it, and that all interest to combine was at an end, then, it seemed to him, this body had accomplished all that was desired. Now, he would say two or three words with respect to the amendment of the gentleman on his right, (Mr. Hiester.) There was one feature of it which met his most cordial approbation, and which he could wish to see incorporated in the amendment of

his colleague, (Mr. Reigart.) What he referred to was that part of it which required notice to be given of an application for an act of incorporation. If the convention should agree to introduce a provision of this kind, and thus afford the people an opportunity of making known to the legislature their objections, if they should have any) to granting such, and such acts of incorporation, it would have done all that could be desired.

But, as to the other features of the amendment, he confessed that he did not like them. He could not give his assent to the prohibition against granting any charter for a longer period than fifteen years. He considered there was injustice in it-that the contracting parties should be left free to have the power of deciding whether they would grant a charter for ten, fifteen, or more years. He maintained that by putting all incorporations on the same footing, great injustice might be done. He repeated that the legislature should be left free and untrammelled, and at liberty to act as circumstances and their own sound discretion would dictate.

There was another feature he did not like, because it struck at the root of justice. It would strike every man as being improper, (not to use a harsher term) on the very face of it. He referred to the proposition to repeal a charter, whenever the legislature might think proper to do so, they making indemnification to the party, or parties, that indemnification being fixed by the legislature themselves! He apprehended that there was no difference in the matter, whether applied to A and B or the commonwealth, on one side, and any citizen, on the other. The principle was the same. Would any man in this convention say, he would make a contract with his neighbor, and leave it to him to break up the arrangement between them, he making compensation, to be measured by himself? Why that would be manifestly unjust; and it was contrary to every principle of equity and reason. He felt assured that this body could not agree to adopt an amendment of this character. These were some of the objections that he had to urge against the amendment of the delegate from Lancaster, (Mr. Hiester.) With regard to the notice required before an application could be made for a charter, he (Mr. H.) would say that that was a principle of the amendment which met his approbation. He would now proceed to say a few words in relation to the amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Reigart.) By that amendment, the delegate proposed that

"No corporate body shall be hereafter created, with banking, discounting, or loaning privileges, without the concurrent action of two successive legislatures; nor shall any law hereafter enacted, contain more than the enactment of one corporate body."

He (Mr. Hopkinson) objected to that part of the amendment which required the enactment of two successive legislatures. His wish was, to substitute for it the notice to be given to the legislature, as set forth in the amendment to that amendment. He would also add to it the words that "no corporate body shall be hereafter created or renewed," &c. He was for putting all the banks at present in existence on no better footing than those which might hereafter be created. Every thing should begin with the law as it now existed. There was another reason, and one which

in his opinion, was entitled to some weight, why the words he had suggested, should be inserted, and that was, they would perhaps prevent ambiguity and litigation. If the word "created" was all that was meant, it might give rise to a question before the courts, whether the then existing charters could not be renewed. It was a matter of the greatest consequence that the language of a constitution should be as clear and explicit as possible. He trusted that this convention would be as fortunate as that of 1790, in making the language of the constitution as accurate and unambiguous. Scarcely a doubt had arisen in reference to any thing in the constitution, although made nearly fifty years ago. Feeling desirous that the amendments should he equally correct and unexceptionable, he therefore hoped that the word "renewed" would be inserted after "created," then not only would all the banks be put on an equal footing, but disputes and litigation would be prevented hereafter. As he had already said, he was opposed to submitting the question of rechartering a bank, to two successive legislatures.

He was opposed to it because the effect would be to produce a most extraordinary state of things-a degree of uncertainty as to the renewal of a charter, which ought not to exist, and which was pregnant with the most injurious consequences. Take, for example, the case of a charter, which was about to expire, and an application being made to the legislature for a renewal of it, it was granted by the first. But, inasmuch as the same act must be submitted to another legislature, what, he would ask, was the situation of the bank in the meantime? Why, the very fact of the uncertainty, whether or not the second legislature would grant the prayer of the petitioners, was calculated to work great injury to their interests, if not to destroy them. The object to be effected by giving three months' notice, was to prevent hasty and undigested legislation--to take care that what was done, was after full and due deliberation. Among the reasons that had been given for requiring notice to be given of an intended application to the legislature for a charter, was, the rapid increase in the number of banks of late years. It had been said over and over again, that there were at the present time, about fifty in the state of Pennsylvania; that they made common cause, and that they formed one great and powerful interest by themselves. But to repeat the question, what, he desired to know, were the banks to do in the mean time, between the action of one legislature in their favor and the meeting of the next? Why, they would electioneer -they would naturally be inclined and doubtless would use all the influence they possessed to bear on the elections, so as to obtain a legislature of the character they could desire.

With all due difference and respect for the opinions of others, he conceived that infinitely more harm than good would result from the adoption of a clause of this kind. He thought that his friend on the left (Mr. Reigart) should substitute the notice to be given for "the concurrent action of two successive legislatures." He approved of the last clause of the gentleman's amendment.

"Nor shall any law hereafter enacted contain more than the enactment of one corporate body."

He (Mr. H.) regarded this as the most important of all the questions that had as yet been brought before the convention. It was one of expediency-one necessary to guard the public from the frauds which had

been practised upon them. He considered an act for a banking corporation as involving a solemn contract between the community on one side, and the corporators on the other. He looked upon an act of assembly, containing more than one law, as absurd and preposterous. Corporations that were separate and distinct in their character, and having no connexion with each other, ought not to be put together in the same act. These then, were briefly his reasons for desiring that the gentleman, (Mr. Reigart) would make the alteration he (Mr. H.) had suggested. He would vote for the amendment of the delegate, if he modified it in the manner he had stated.

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, said, that he had been anxious to introduce an amendment to prevent crude and hasty legislation, which always took place towards the close of the session of the legislature. However well some gentlemen might think of the amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Reigart) he could not give his vote for it, because it did not, in his humble opinion, cover the ground that was desired by the convention. He thought it did not seem to meet the views of gentlemen, as expressed some time ago. He had expressed himself freely and candidly on the subject, and he felt quite sure that the delegate would give him credit for sincerity, and take his remarks in the light in which they were intended.

He regarded the amendment as entirely erroneous in principle, and he would ask those gentlemen, who had come into this convention with an express and avowed determination, to ride rough shod over the institutions and best interests of the state, whether they were willing, after having expressed themselves in the manner they had done on various occasions, to accept such a small boon as this was? Would the amendment operate as a restriction on the legislature of Pennsylvania, in reference to the incorporation of banking institutions? Did it bear any resemblance to the proposition that was introduced into the convention, prior to the election in the third district, and which would sweep the Pennsylvania Bank of the United States, from off the face of the earth, as with a besom of destruction?

In his opinion, so far from the amendment being a restriction upon the legislature, in relation to the granting of bank charters-so far from its giving them power and authority to control the banking institutions of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania-its operation would be to deprive the legislature of the power they already possessed, to restrict them. He gave gentlemen full credit for candor and honesty, in the expression of their sentiments, and he trusted they would accord to him equal justice, when he declared, as he now did, that he had uttered nothing but what he really thought and felt.

Now, he would inquire of gentlemen, whether they believed that this amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of curbing or restricting the legislature? He could not perceive that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lancaster, contained the restriction which some delegates seemed to suppose it did. He would be glad if any one would point it out to him.

The legislature already possessed the power of modifying and repealing charters. They could do that whenever there happened to be a majority in favor of adopting such a step.