and how utterly reckless they had shown themselves to be of their wel fare, it was, he repeated, wonderful that we were now in the enjoyment of our liberties. It was extraordinary, under such circumstances, that the commonwealth could prosper. If it could withstand all those attacks, then were our institutions stronger, far stronger, than he had anticipated. The difficulty which he had to encounter was, to avoid ambiguity and complexity in framing such an amendment as he desired to see introduced, if at all.

The gentleman from Franklin (Mr. Dunlop) said, the great danger to be apprehended was in heaping amendment upon amendment, and law upon law. Why not, then, bring forward a provision prohibiting the passing of a law granting more than one charter? For his own part, he was content with the proposition he had heretofore offered and which was to that effect. He approved of the proposition of the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Meredith). The evil complained of, was so general in its character, that it could not be restricted to any terms. Let us apply all the remedy we could, and if we did not cure the evil, it must take its course. From what had been said by gentlemen in reference to the frauds and evils which were connected with our state legislation, one would almost suppose that we had been living on a volcano, and our legislation had been of the most ruinous character. He would ask the delegate from Bucks, if the amendment he had proposed, would be a remedy for the evil?

He asked the same question of the gentleman from Franklin, who however, did not say that the amendment would remedy the evil. Did men, who were bound to obey the laws, look at the title of a law? No; they looked at the body; and that was what they ought to do. A general title would answer every purpose, although the difficulty now seemed to be, that one title only was expressed, when there were many others not mentioned. With regard to the amendment to the amendment—that the legislature shall be judges in the last resort, he would say that they would be more competent judges than the courts, for, it was manifest there would be great difficulty experienced by them in arriving at a correct decision. How could they get evidence-go behind the law, and say this part of the bill has not been read three times, nor was it introduced at second reading? It was not those only who made the law, who were sworn to support it. The judges must declare the law void, or the constitution. What were they to do? He declared that he could see no propriety in the amendment to the amendment, and that the proposition of the delegate from Franklin, came nearer to what he thought was required. He had, himself, endeavored to frame such an amendment as would meet the evils, they were desirous of remedying, without setting forth the distinctions made in the Code Napoleon. In his opinion, it did not follow, that a scientific arrangement of laws necessarily made them good. It did not render them the more valuable, as our experience had proved. He thought it impossible to arrange the business of the world in so scientific a manner that every thing shall go on like clock-work. The people had a right to choose whom they please to make their laws, and he trusted they would long continue to exercise that right. He, however, could not agree to give his consent to putting any provision in the constitution, which was vague and ambiguous in its terms,

Mr. EARLE moved to amend, by striking out the word "enactments" and inserting

"The legislature shall not unite in the same bill or law, objects, which, in its opinion, or in that of either house, shall be distinct in their nature or character. Nor shall the governor affix his signature to any act of assembly, which, in his opinions, shall embrace objects of a distinct nature or character aforesaid."

Mr. M'SHERRY, of Adams, said, if he understood rightly, the amendment was proposed to the twenty-third section of the article now before the convention. Several gentlemen had delivered their sentiments on the subject, and numerous propositions had been offered, with a view to meet the evil complained of, but none of them seemed to find favor with the body. He thought the amendment offered by the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'Dowell) would not apply to the section under consideration, and he would therefore suggest to him to withdraw it for the present, and to offer it on a new section.

Mr. Cox, of Somerset, would assign one reason why he would vote against any restriction of the kind proposed. But, before he did so, he would notice the serious charge made by the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop.) That gentleman remarked that the conservatives would not think themselves, or permit others to do so. Now, he (Mr. C.) supposed the gentleman reasoned thus

Mr. DUNLOP explained ;-I said the previous question gentlemen would not think themselves, and did not wish others to think.

Mr. Cox said, the gentleman reasoned thus-the conservative members who do not vote as I do, and reason as I do, ergo they do not reason or think at all. Now, as this matter should be amicably settled, he (Mr. C.) would refer it to the delegate from the county of Philadelphia, who thought at all times, and let him settle it.

The gentleman from Franklin, had talked much about the evils that arose from what he was pleased to term the log-rolling system. He had complained bitterly of it.

He (Mr. C.) did not like the ground taken by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, who had turned to the list of acts passed, and pointed out those which did not happen to meet his approval. It was not a fair way of treating the subject. He supposed the gentleman from Franklin, did not want any more bills, and therefore, he was opposed to the system. He recollected, that his friend from Franklin was at Harrisburg, he would not say in the character of a borer, but was there as a member of the third house, at the time his bill was under consideration. He supposed that the gentleman was then in favor of the log-rolling system. He was opposed to any restriction, although there might be some evils growing out of the compromising which took place every session. He was opposed to inserting in the constitution, the restriction of the delegate from Bucks, (Mr. M'Dowell) or that of any other gentleman, because, it was virtually to say that no local legislation should be done for a county which might have only one or two members in the legislaHe would appeal to the knowledge and experience of every delegate, who had been members of the legislature, whether that would not be the effect of inserting such a provision.

ture.

At the first session, that he was in the legislature, there were twelve or fifteen bills of local character, affecting the district that he represented, and he was not able, till within two or three weeks of the adjournment to get up any of them. There were other districts, represented by four, five, and six members each, all of whom had bills of a local character to dispose of. But, in consequence of the number of members to represent these districts, they possessed more influence than others, and it was not till they had got their bills disposed of, that he (Mr. C.) could get his up. The city and county of Philadelphia, and the counties of Bucks, Lancaster, and Chester, had always as much business of a local character as would take up the whole session, consequently the members from the smaller districts, had to attach their bills to other bills in order to get them. passed. Hence originated the term "log-rolling."

He thought it might not be amiss, where there were but one or two members from a district, if they would look and examine this matter. It was not to be forgotten, that at the next census, there would be the following counties, being ten in number, viz:

Philadelphia, Lancaster, Chester, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, York, Montgomery, Washington and Westmoreland, and also, the city of Philadelphia, making eleven representative districts, which would entitle them to fifty-one members in the house of representatives. By adding the county of Franklin, which was within a small fraction of one member more, there probably would be twelve representative districts by the time the next apportionment bill was passed. There would then be about forty-two counties entitled to forty-eight representatives; and thus, the consequence of putting in the constitution such a restriction as was proposed, would be to place it in the power of these twelve districts (if they thought proper to continue this course,) to pass all their own bills of a local character. He would not say, that no legislation would be done, but very little of a local character. The other counties might as well decline electing, as they would not be able to get their bills passed. He was quite certain that if it was not for this system of compromise, or attaching bills together, there would be no legislation for the smaller counties. appealed to every gentleman present, who had been in the legislature, from the small counties, whether that would not be the consequence. He did not believe that there had been five bills passed within the last fifteen years, except by attaching them to other bills. Many important bills had been attached to others, towards the close of the session, and thereby were passed, which, under any other circumstances, could not have passed. It now remained to be seen, whether gentlemen would act in such a manner, as to deprive their constituents of all chance of getting their business of a local character done. He was against restrictions of any kind.

He

Mr. HASTINGS, of Jefferson, asked for a division of the question, to end with striking out.

The PRESIDENT said, that the division could not be made.

Mr. M'SHERRY asked, if it was not in the power of the gentleman. from Bucks, to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. M'DOWELL said, that he would withdraw his amendment, with a view to offer it as a distinct section.

The convention then adjourned until half past three o'clock.

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 twenty-third section being again under consideration, no amendment was offered thereto.

A motion was made by Mr. RITER, of Philadelphia county, to amend the said report of the committee of the whole, by adding thereto the following new section, viz

"SECT. -. It shall be the duty of the legislature at each session to employ a suitable person to examine bills and proposed laws, after the first and second readings, and to report whether the language thereof be in any degree ambiguous or liable to misconstruction, and what changes, if any, will render it more explicit."

And on the question,

Will the Convention agree so to amend the said report of the committee of the whole ?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DICKEY, and Mr. RITER, and are as fellow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Bigelow, Cummin, Donagan, Earle, Fleming, Grennell, Hyde, Mann, Miller, Riter, Shellito, Taggart, Weaver, Woodward-14.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barclay, Bell, Biddle, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Darling. ton, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Dunlop, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gearhart, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Heister, High, Houpt, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sterigere, Stickel, Todd, Weidman, White, Sergeant, President-83.

So the question was determined in the negative.

A motion was made by Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, to amend the said report by adding thereto the following, viz:

"No bank, rail road company, navigation company or canal company, shall be chartered, unless three-fifths of all the members of each branch of the legislature concur therein. No bank shall be chartered with a capital of more than two hundred thousand dollars, unless two-thirds of all the members of each branch of the legislature concur therein; nor any bank be chartered with 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 legisla ture 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.

"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 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 bank 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 aunual 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 provided by law.” Mr. STERIGERE said, he had no desire to go into an argument. The subject had been discussed at length. But he rose merely to remark that the first branch of the amendment refers to those corporations which come in collision with individual property. These are the banks, rail road companies, navigation and canal companies. It provides that a bank of small capital shall be chartered by two-thirds of each branch of the legis lature if the capital shall exceed half a million, three-fourths to be required; and, if the capital shall exceed a million, the vote of threefourths of two successive legislatures to be necessary before a charter shall be obtained. The next clause of the amendment refers to bonuses, and has been recommended by the chief magistrate of the commonwealth. The last clause relates to the repealing of charters. the convention had come to no direct vote on this question. He would

As yet,