And, the question being taken on the amendment, it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 64; nays 60.

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crum, Darlington, Dickey, Dickerson, Farrelly, Forward, Gilmore, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Lyons, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill. Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Seager, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Snively, Stickel, Taggart, Thomas, Weidman, Young, Chambers, President, pro tem-64.

NAYS--Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Denny, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Miller, Nevin, Payne, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyh, of Centre, Sterigere, Sturdevant, Todd, Weaver, White, Woodward-60.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, moved to amend, by inserting the word "white" before "freemen," in the first line.

On motion of Mr. READ, of Susquehanna,

The Convention adjourned until half past three o'clock.

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 17, 1838.

THIRD ARTICLE.

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

The question being on the motion of Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, further to amend the first section of the said article by inserting the word "white" before the word "freeman," where it occurs in the first line and also by inserting the word "white" before the word "freemen," where it occurs in the seventh line,

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, rose to make one or two suggestions, and he was sorry that he felt himself obliged to do this. The proposition submitted by his colleague was of a very exciting character; and, in his opinion was scarcely as judicious as it was exciting. It was a subject which had been so often before the public that there were few who had not thought about it. He was not at all desirous to renew the discussion. He begged that he might be permitted to express a doubt whether the discussion now could be productive of any advantage. There were only fifteen working days left before the time fixed for the adjourn

ment of the convention. There was yet the judiciary article to be taken up, and considered. There was also the bill of rights to be taken up, and there were some important subjects connected with that article, on which suggestions would doubtless be made, which would be very useful. He had an anxiety to hear what might be said, in reference to these important subjects. He would throw out the suggestion that, if gentlemen wished to sit out the question to-night, he was willing to remain here until nine or ten o'clock. There were some speeches to be made, and to which he would listen with pleasure. He threw out the suggestion, in the hope that gentlemen would determine to stay in the hall, and sit out the debate, otherwise it could not be practicable to get rid of the subject to-night. He did not wish to make any further remarks.

Mr. MARTIN, rose and addressed the Chiar to this effect:

Mr. President, in offering this amendment, I entirely disavow any hostility to the coloured man; on the contrary, no person would go further to protect them in all their natural rights; or to secure them from insult and injury. I would preserve them and theirs, by the laws, and by the constitution; but to hold out to them social rights, or to incorporate them with ourselves in the exercise of the right of franchise, is a violation of the law of nature, and would lead to an amalgamation in the exercise thereof, that must bring down upon them, the resentment of the white population.

Sir, the divisionary line between the races, is so strongly marked by the Creator, that it is unwise and cruelly unjust, in any way, to amalgamate them, for it must be apparent to every well judging person, that the elevation of the black, is the degradation of the white man; and by endeavoring to alter the order of nature, we would, in all probability, bring about a war between the races—a state of things that every lover of his country must regret.

Sir, we are told that the supreme court has this subject under consideration, and we are recommended to leave it to it—but I think differently from those who thus advise us. Who knows when or how, the court will determine this matter? There have already been several decisions of court upon the subject. But the constitution is the proper tribunal, let it be the fundamental law of the land, let it decide the difficulty here, and the courts will corroborate our decision, and thus effectually settle this vexed question; public opinion will sustain us; the amended constitution will be carried by a large majority; and Pennsylvania, will be disenthralled. She will not then be the receptacle of fugitive slaves, or runaway negroes from slave holding states, as she now is, and likely to be, to much and increasing disadvantage to the honest and industrious mechanics and working classes of society. Some gentlemon object to this amendment, on the score of difficulty in pointing out a correct grade for the standard of colour; but it is not necessary further to pursue this part of the subject, than to remark that sixteen of the states have this clause in their constitutions and no difficulty has yet accrued therefrom, and it is futile to suppose that it will be otherwise with us.

Sir, there is yet another and a very strong reason, why we should meet this point firmly and boldly; the question of abolition and amalgamation. It is pressed with a zeal worthy of a better cause, by mistaken philanthropists, who feel a species of fanaticism which will leave nothing undone, to

1

urge this matter forward, until confusion and difficulty thicken around us. But as I do not wish to be severe to those who differ from me, in opinion on this subject, I can only suppose that they have gone no farther than to look on one side of it, and do not therefore reflect, that to elevate the black, is to degrade the white people; and from misrepresentation of the state of the black slaves, and a want of correct information of the overworked and oppressed poor of their own race, they have suffered their sympathies to run altogether on the side of the well-fed, well-provided negro, of whom they know nothing, except from accounts given by interested knaves, seeking to get up an excitement to profit by themselves. They are generally renegades from Europe, too lazy to work, but willing to draw on the weak minds of otherwise well disposed persons, who, caught by their exaggerated falsehoods and tales of misery, that never existed, are prevailed upon to act with them.

Mr. President, I am sure that there are thousands and tens of thousands of our own race, who are actuated by a laudable ambition, that the negro never feels, that ought to claim the sympathy and feel the helping hand of some of those who so abundantly have the means, and turn their resources into a wrong channel. I, therefore, anxiously wish this amendment to succeed. Our destiny depends upon it: and the well-being of our offspring, is closely connected with the new and amended constitution.

The argument (continued Mr. M.) that was continually ringing in our ears was, that there were so many individuals among our black brothers and sisters, who possessed education and talents of no ordinary charecter. That was altogether a piece of sophistry and a cheat. When we saw ladies of the highest respectability met in grave assembly, and passing resolutions in favor of what they called their coloured brothers and sisters, while, at the same time they would not associate, or intermarry with them, how could we believe that they were in earnest when they talked as they did? It was wholly impossible; it was nothing less than a cheat. If one of those ladies were likely to become the sister of a coloured woman, would not any such attempt be frowned upon, in the most indignant manner by both sexes of her own race? Or, if a brother of any of those ladies were to marry a coloured woman, would they not be equally mortified and indignant? Undoubtedly they would.

He (Mr. M.) cared not what might be the talents and abilities of some of the coloured people, and the sympathy which a part of the community might entertain for them, he did not believe, despite of all their professions, that they could treat them as brothers and sisters. He felt quite sure that they would shrink back at the bare idea of intermarrying with them. He wanted no more of this sophistry and cheatry in regard to the blacks. He wished the question settled at once, and proclaimed abroad, that there is a wide difference between the white and the black races. As, then, there has been so much said on the subject, he would not further occupy the time of the convention, but bring the motion before it, which he hoped would succeed, and thus settle this vexed question.

Mr. FORWARD, called for the previous question; which was sustained. And, on the question, "Shall the main question be now put?

Mr. M'CAHEN asked for the yeas and nays, which being ordered and taken, were, yeas 45, nays 71-as follow:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Earle, Forward, Grenell, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Jenks, Kerr, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Thomas, Todd-45.

NAYS-Messrs. Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Meredith, Miller, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Read, Riter, Ritter, Russell, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, Weidman, White, Woodward, Chambers, President. pro tem-71.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, suggested to the delegate from Philadelphia county, (Mr. Martin) to modify his amendment so as to read "Section 1. In all elections every white male citizen above the age of twenty-one years," &c.

Mr. MARTIN accepted the modification.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, thought the convention had better confine themselves to the language of the committee of the whole, or he would say, of the constitution. He would prefer that it should stand as in the old constitution. The idea of a white freeman was, to his mind, a solecism, because it implied the idea of a black freeman, and that black citizen have the right of suffrage, which was precisely the idea which the gentleman from Philadelphia county wished to controvert. He desired

to make the language conform to that used in the constitutions of, at least eighteen or twenty of the states of this Union. He would suggest to the delegate to modify his amendment in the first and seventh lines, so as to read free white male citizens," as it would be unnecessary to vote twice on the same questions.

Mr. MARTIN did not accept the modification, but modified his amendment by the insertion of the word "white" before "freemen" in the seventh line.

Mr. STERIGERE would remark that in none of the constitutions of any of the states was there used the expression, "white freemen." He would suppose, therefore, that this expression was altogether incorrect. As the delegate did wish it to be supposed that the blacks had heretofore been recognized as "black freemen," he (Mr. S.) hoped that he would make the modification suggested.

Mr. STURDEVANT, of Luzerne, rose and said:

Mr. President, I must beg the indulgence of the convention, while I, as briefly as possible, submit my views upon the subject now under consideration. My inexperience admonishes me that my opinions on so vital a question as this, cannot carry with them much weight, and inclines me to keep silence and learn wisdom from the aged and experienced delegates, whose opinions we may expect to hear before the close of this

debate. I however, sir, have a duty to discharge, and never shall shrink from its performance. In justice to my constituents-in justice to the citizens of this commonwealth, and in justice to myself, I feel called upon to use my feeble exertions in the support of the amendment introduced in this section of the third article.

I was not in convention at the time this article passed through the com mittee of the whole, and am not therefore familiar with the course pursued by this body upon that occasion. I may, however, be permitted to say, that I approve of the amendments introduced so far as they extend the right of suffrage. I am, sir, disposed to go further than the committee have gone, and dispense entirely with the tax qualification. I should rejoice to see adopted in this commonwealth a constitution which would give to every citizen,-I use the word citizen as not embracing the coloured population, whether in poverty or affluence, that right, sacred and dear to every American citizen-the right of suffrage. Is poverty a crime, that it should deprive an American citizen of this boon?

Should he who, by your laws, may be called upon to take up arms in defence of your families, your firesides, your property and your liberty, be deprived by those very laws from exercising this inestimable privilege? Should the poor patriot, who may have shed his blood in the struggle of American liberty, have fewer rights than the demagogue or the base worshipper of the golden god? Other gentlemen may see a reason in this constitutional, this pecuniary distinction, I cannot. I shall, however, leave the discussion of this portion of the section, to delegates more experienced, and better prepared to debate it, reserving to myself the privilege of voting, whenever the question is presented, for extending the right of suffrage to every white citizen of this commonwealth, in whatever station of life fortune may have placed him-be he rich, or be he poor, be he high, or be he humble.

The amendment in this section, to which I shall confine my observations, is in the first line of the third article.

The section referred to, commences thus :-"In elections by the citizens, every freemen of the age of 21, &c." By the proposed amendment it will read:"In elections by the citizens, every white freeman, &c." This is the proposed alteration, and I need not say, that I feel in common with every delegate in this hall that the subject is a most important one. The question here proposed to be settled, is one that has, and is still producing much excitement in this commonwealth. "Will the convention introduce into the constitution, an amendment to exclude negroes from voting?” is a question that has been often asked me.

I for one, sir, am as ready to answer that question here, as I ever have been-in the affirmative. I am for settling at once, this apparently vexed question, and of placing it hereafter beyond the shadow of a doubt. I am aware, that there are a large number of the people of this state who believe, or pretend at least to believe, that the framers of the constitution of 1790, did not desire to exclude the negroes from voting, and that the language used in that instrument, conveys no such idea; but on the contrary, expressly includes them. Having come to this conclusion, they at once say, that we are retrograding, by creating now an exception, and introducing a distinction where none heretofore existed. I regret much that more examination had not been given to this subject by those who