are in favor of giving to the blacks political rights. I deny that a negro is a citizen or a freeman, either by the constitution of 1776, or by the constitution of the United States, or by the constitution of 1790, the present constitution of Pennsylvania.

In order more clearly to show that a negro is not a citizen or a freeman, it will be necessary to refer to the political condition of the black, prior to the constitution of 1776. Soon after the settlement of this province, negro slavery was introduced, and we find that laws were then made for their government. In 1701, William Penn promulgated the charter of privileges, by which it was provided, "that an assembly should be chosen by the freemen, according to the rights and privileges of the free born subject of England." A few years after this charter, criminal laws were passed for the punishment of negroes, by which it was enacted, that two justices with six freeholders or freemen, might try any negroes charged with committing burglary, murder, or other heinous and capital offences; and upon that summary conviction, the sheriff was directed to execute the said negro or negroes. By this law, they were also prohibited from carrying "a gun, sword, fowling-piece, club, or any other arms." These laws were passed under the government of William Penn. Did the word freemen, as used at this time, embrace the negroes?

In 1725 other laws were passed relating to the blacks. By these laws both the slaves and free negroes were punished, and it was provided that the justices and freeholders, or freemen, "who sentenced a negro, should value him that his master might be paid." They were severely punished too, for congregating together, or if "found drinking, or tippling, or absent from their master's house after nine o'clock at night." The free negro who should be unable to pay his fine, might be sold into servitude, and if he intermarried with a white, become a slave for life. Such was the condition of the blacks up to 1776. Were they citizens or freemen?

The constitution of 1776 provides, that "every freeman of the age of twenty-one years,” &c. “ shall enjoy the rights of an elector," and it declares that all men are born equally free and independent," and it further declares, that "all men have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life, liberty, &c."

Now, sir, at this time slavery existed in this commonwealth, and the children of slaves were born slaves. If you apply the language used here to the negroes, is it true? were they born equal? They were governed by a distinct code of laws, and treated by the framers of that instrument as neither citizens nor freemen. A severe penal code was in force, by which they were punished and governed. They had not the rights of trial by jury, and were regarded as having no interest in the government of the country.

By this constitution, too, the freemen of this commonwealth were directed to be "trained and armed for the defence of the country." Yet both slaves and free negroes, by laws then, and for a long time after, in force, were prohibited from carrying arms, either "guns, swords, clubs, &c." (see Con. 1705.) Freemen" then, as used here, could not apply to negroes.

66

The framers of this constitution, unquestionably regarded them as a degraded race, and therefore took no notice of them. Esteeming them

neither citizens nor freemen, they left them where they had found them, in the enjoyment of no political rights.

Such, then, was the condition of the negro in 1776, and such it continued to be up to 1780, when an act of the legislature was passed "for the gradual abolition of slavery" in this commonwealth. This law, among other things, repeals the laws for the government of negroes before referred to, gives to them the trial by jury, and ordains, that no negro born after its passage in Pennsylvania, should be a slave for life. This act changes in no way the political rights of the negro. It gave him no other rights or privileges than those specified. It conferred not upon him the rights of a citizen, a freeman, or an elector.

I think, therefore, sir, that up to the date of the constitution of 1790, the negro, although in the enjoyment of some additional civil rights, was not a citizen or a freeman.

Did the present constitution confer on him the right of suffrage?

Pennsylvania was still a slave holding state. All those unfortunate beings who were slaves for life, at the passage of the law referred to, in 1780, were still slaves, and their children being born of slave parents, were slaves till the age of twenty-eight years. The legislature, unquestionably, had the power to have repealed the laws of 1780, "for the same power which took off the burthen might impose it again at pleasure."

of

In the constitution of 1790, (Art. 3d, sec. 1st,) nearly the same language is used as in the old constitution. The language of the present constitution is, "in elections by the citizens, every freeman of the age twenty-one," &c. Now, sir, had the framers of the present constitution intended to have embraced in the word "citizen," or "freemen," the negro population, would they not have used some language that would have placed that intention beyond doubt?

A strong circumstance that of itself would have much weight in my mind, is, that the constitution of the United States had been adopted prior to the meeting of the delegates to form the constitution of 1790, and out of the thirteen states who had adopted that constitution, eight of them were save holding states. In this constitution the words "citizen," "freemen," and "people," are used as in the present constitution of Pennsylvania, and most surely could not have then been supposed to include either slaves or free negroes.

"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and. immunities of the citizens in the several states." This is the language of the constitution of the United States. If we regard for a moment the situ ation of the thirteen states who adopted this constitution, we must certainly admit that the citizen here does not embrace the negro. It does' not include either the slaves of the slave holding states, or the free blacks

It is provided also, by the constitution of the United States, "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yet in all the slave holding states, at all times negroes, whether free or slaves, have been prohibited from carrying arms. The word "people," therefore, as used in that constitution, does not include the blacks.

Compare the constitution of the United States with the constitution now in force in this commonwealth, and you cannot but be forcibly struck

with the similarity of the two instruments. The words "citizen," "freemen," and "people," are used in each instrument, to convey the same meaning. One of the delegates from Pennsylvania, to the convention to frame the constitution of the United States, was afterwards a delegate in the convention that framed our state constitution; and as he was one of the committee appointed to report the constitution of Pennsylvania to the convention, it is rendered more certain that the same sense was given to every important word used in this instrument, which had been given to the same words in the constitution of the United States. From a careful examination of the subject, I am most forcibly drawn to the conclusion, that the negro is not a citizen or a freeman, in the sense in which those words are used, either under the constitution of the United States or the constitution of the state of Pennsylvania.

Slavery existed in this commonwealth, when the constitution of 1790 went into operation, and for years after; and the negro, at that time, was regarded as inferior to the white, and it was deemed neither sound policy for the state, nor in accordance with the letter and spirit of the constitu tion of the United States, to confer upon him any political rights.

I might refer to various sections of the constitution of 1790, to support me in the position I have taken. I will, however, only refer to one more section: "The freemen of this commonwealth shall be armed and disciplined for its defence." This is a positive constitutional provision, and has been carried into effect by our "militia laws." By these laws, negroes are excluded from doing militia duty. Why exclude them if they are freemen? The legislature were bound to make such laws as would embrace all the freemen of the commonwealth, and could have had no right to except any portion of the citizens or freemen.

This continued legislation, excluding the blacks, is strong evidence, in what sense they viewed the word freemen.

Having settled, as it appears to me, sir, satisfactorily, the question that the negro is not an elector, the next point is, shall we give him that right, or shall we, by the introduction of the word " white," prevent further difficulty and dispute upon this vexed subject? I should feel willing to leave the article proposed to be amended, as it is, and let the judicial tribunals of the country settle the matter; but that I regard it as a question more peculiarly within the province of this convention. We are here to

amend the constitution, and we should so amend it, that when it is submitted to the people, it will be intelligible, and capable of but one construction. Let us, then, say distinctly, that the negro, hereafter, shall be an elector, or let us say that he shall not.

No man, sir, on this floor, feels more sympathy for this unfortunate race than I do. No man regrets more than I do, the existence of slavery, in this country. Yet, sir, I am not disposed to interfere with the institutions of slavery, in any of our sister states. I am no abolitionist. I believe the American people will have to answer hereafter, for the sin of having introduced slavery among them; but, at the same time, I do not believe that the doctrines or measures pursued by the abolitionists, will have the least tendency to expiate that sin. On the contrary, sir, the course being pursued by that class of men, will only tend to degrade the negro-to rivet still closer his chains, and finally, by exciting sectional prejudices, may subvert the liberties of our happy country.

In this commonwealth, sir, I would give to the negro all those rights which he now enjoys. I would place him as nearly on an equality with the white, as the condition of his race would warrant. I would secure to him those civil and religious privileges peculiar to our institutions, but never, sir, would I concede to him, that political, that conventional right, which was purchased with the blood and treasures of our ancestors-the right of voting and being voted for. Whenever you confer on them the right of voting, you, at the same moment, concede to them the right of being elected to the highest office in your state-a condition of things that no patriot can desire to see. I am satisfied that it is not the desire of the black to enjoy the right of suffrage. They, sir, would have been silent on this subject, but that they have been goaded on by the mistaken zeal of deluded philanthropists.

The negroes have not complained. They have now equal rights with a majority of the people of this commonwealth-if you include the women and the minors. These last have not complained, though they are your equals often your superiors in intellect and intelligence. I would object to permitting the blacks to vote, if for no other reason, on the ground of humanity to them, in mercy to their degraded condition in society. Sir, if you permit a negro to vote, you inflict upon him a curse of a deeper dye, than that inflicted by bringing him to your country. You subject him to insult and injury by an attempt to bring him to the ballot box. I should dread the consequences of such an attempt. The prejudice of the white is sufficiently strong against him now; beware how you increase that prejudice. Injury, annihilation to the black, sir, would be the result of making him the equal at the ballot box, with the white. You may say in your fundamental laws, and in your statute books, that the negro is equal to the white, but you can never force the citizens of this commonwealth to believe or practice it; we can never force our constituents to go peaceably to the polls, side by side with the negro; we can never, in the manner proposed, raise that unfortunate race of beings to an equality with ourselves.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin? Can man break down a barrier, or blot out a distinction which Almighty God has fixed between the white man and the negro? The African is a degraded race. It ever has been, and to give them the right now, demanded by their pretended friends, would be an insult to the people-it would be giving to the negro a stone when he asked for bread.

By amalgamation?

Gentlemen say that the negro, in a few centuries, will be lost. How sir? Heaven forbid it. Let no man insult the American people by such a suggestion. I call upon delegates on this floor, to pause before they yield a right to the negro, which, by an attempt to elevate him, will degrade us— -which will violate a sacred pledge given by this state to her sister states, at the adoption of the constitution of the United States, and which, while it is a triumph, and a sanction given to the anti-American doctrines of the abolitionists, may result finally in the overthrow of the Union.

Mr. BIDDLE said, that the question which we were about to be called upon to determine, was, undoubtedly, one of deep importance. It was also one which it became us to give a close and careful examination to, in order to decide it properly. He believed every member of this body,

in coming to vote upon the question, would act conscientiously; and he also believed, every member would act fearlessly. He thought that no individual whatever was entitled to take to himself any superiority over his fellow members, on any particular occasion. This was a question on which there must, necessarily, be a great diversity of opinion. If we refer back to our doings at Harrisburg, we will find that there were then in the convention, forty-nine only, in favor of inserting the word white, and sixty-one opposed to it; but how the vote now would be, it was impossible for him to say.

He would ask gentlemen where was the necessity of this amendment? It was now proposed to insert in our constitution, a word not to be found in the constitution of 1776, or of 1790, and why introduce this new word, unless it be to introduce a new principle into the constitution? If it is as has been said by the gentleman from Luzerne-if it was settled by the constitution of 1776-if that constitution was so explicit, as to leave no doubt upon the subject-if too, the constitution of 1790, as the gentleman says, leaves no doubt on the subject in his mind, and if the argument and decision of Judge Fox makes it perfectly clear, why change the phraseology of our present constitution? Why change the phraseology of an instrument, that has existed for near half a century, without leading to any doubt and difficulty, and make it doubtful and uncertain? If an alteration was necessary, he thought some good reason should be given for it, and he must confess, that he had heard no good reason adduced, for the change proposed to be made. He wished to be told something farther on this subject, before he was called upon to vote on a question so novel as this.

He wished gentlemen to refer to the constitution of 1776, for a moment, and see what was there said in relation to this matter. A portion of the preamble was in the following words:

66

We, the representatives of the free men of Pennsylvania, in general convention met, for the express purpose of framing such a government, confessing the goodness of the Great Governor of the universe-who, alone knows to what degree of earthly happiness mankind may attain, by perfecting the arts of government-in permitting the people of this state, by common consent, and without violence, deliberately to form for themselves, such just rules, as to them shall think best for governing their future society; and being fully convinced that it is our indispensable duty to establish such original principles of government, as will best promote the general happiness of the people of this state, and their posterity, and provide for future improvements, without partiality for, or prejudice against any PARTICULAR CLASS, sect, or denomination of men whatsoever, do, by virtue of the authority vested in us, by our constituents, declare, ordain, and establish the following declaration of rights, and frame of government, to be the constitution of this commonwealth."

Then we find by this, that our forefathers, in 1776, when the flame of liberty was as bright and clear as it ever has been since, declared that they wished to act without partiality to any particular class, sect, or denomina. tion of men whatsoever. Well, in that constitution, we find they declare that all freemen shall enjoy the right of suffrage. If we attempt to alter the constitution in this respect, we must declare that this people are not