as well as the house. Give them the same opportunity to start schemes of internal improvement, and of general utility; let them, in fine, as under the present constitution, form a useful and efficient part of the legisla tive branch of the government. But the measure now proposed, instead of this, will lead to the degradation and destruction of the usefulness of that body.

Mr. HAYHURST said, the amendment would, perhaps, produce a result precisely opposite to that which was intended. All bills for individual purposes of appropriation, may originate in the senate. He would sug gest to the mover the modification of the resolution, so as to say "or," instead of and." If so modified, it would be indifferent to him whether it passed or not. There seemed to be a strong disposition on the part of

the house to favor the amendment.

Mr. DUNLOP modified the amendment accordingly.

Mr. BEDFORD moved the previous question.

Mr. DUNLOP asked if the previous question would not cut off the amend

ment.

The CHAIR replied that it would.

The previous question having been sustained, and the question being, "Shall the main question be put?"

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. DUNLOP, and Mr. DICKEY, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-MESSIS. Agnew, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crum, Darlington, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Earle, Farrelly, Forward, Fuller, Gearhart, Gilmore, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Magee, Martin, M'Call, M'Sherry, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Woodward, Sergeant, President-77

NAYS-Messrs. Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Indiana, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Curll, Dunlop, Fleming, Foulkrod, Gamble, Grenell, Helffenstein, Hopkinson, Ingersoll, Krebs, Lyons, Mann, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Meredith, Overfield, Payne, Read, Riter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, White-33.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

And the report of the committee, so far as relates to the twentieth seetion, was agreed to.

The twenty-first section was read as follows:

"SECT. 21. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in conse. quence of appropriations made by law."

Mr. EARLE moved to postpone the further consideration of the said section, for the purpose of inserting the following new section, viz:

"SECT. 21. Charters of incorporation hereafter granted, shall be sub ject to modification and repeal, by the concurrent act of two successiv

legislatures, in such manner, and on such considerations as such legisla tures may deem equitable and expedient."

And on the question,

Will the convention agree so to postpone ?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. EARLE, and Mr. GRENell, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Bigelow, Brown, of Nothampton, Clarke, of Indiana, Crawford, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Earle, Fleming, Foulk rod, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Hastings, Hayhurst, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, Miller, Overfield, Payne, Read, Riter, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, Taggart, White-34, NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Cram, Cummin, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donagan, Donnell, Farrelly, Forward, Gearhart, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Heister, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, McCall, McDowell, McSherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reigart, Ritter, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Serrill, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Snively, Sterigere, Sturdevant, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Sergeant, President-76.

So the question was determined in the negative.

Mr. MARTIN moved an adjournment. Lost.

The twenty-first section being still under consideration,

Mr. MANN moved to amend the same, by adding thereto the following: “And a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public moneys, shall be published from time to time."

Mr. MANN said, this was a copy of a provision in the constitution of the United States, and he should like to see the provision adopted in the constitution of this state. All public accounts and transactions ought to be open for public inspection. He hoped the convention would consent to make the constitution correspond, in this particular, with the constitution of the United States.

The motion was disagreed to.

Mr. FULLER moved to amend the section, by adding to the end thereof, the following, viz:

"Not more than one bill, or act of incorporation, or appropriation, either similar or dissimilar, shall be combined together in one law."

Mr. FULLER said, he offered this amendment, in the belief that a large mojority of the convention were in favor of adopting some restriction of this sort upon the legislature. The only difficulty, was in framing an amendment that should be so distinct, as to admit of no difference of construction. The principle involved in the measure, was one of great magnitude. Must laws be passed by the legislature upon their own merits, or upon the merits of other bills?

In consequence of the system of log-rolling, many laws are passed annually, which the people of this commonwealth did not wish to be passed. With very few exceptions, the appropriations are made by combinations of interests. Many of them are, no doubt, proper, and might have been carried through upon their own merits. But a large number of the bills were of a character that could not have been passed upon their own merits, but were got through, by being attached to other bills, at the last hour of the session. On the last night of every session, every gentleman is busy in offering his projects as amendments to the bills. When ten or fifteen of these amendments are tacked to the bill, and when many members have retired, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, the bills, with nobody knows what provisions, are passed by these combinations. This practice has been looked upon in every part of the state, as a great evil. The abuse is gaining ground, and before fifteen years, will become an established practice, unless it be checked by a constitutional provision. All projects of doubtful utility will be put off till the close of the session. Then gentlemen will get one good bill as a leader, and tack a dozen to it, and carry the whole through.

The gentleman from Mercer has told you that he considered this as a great evil. The senate, on its part, made a rule that bills should not be tacked together, but the house had never adopted it. This shews the necessity of placing something in the constitution which the practice of the legislature cannot break down. It must be admitted by every one that this is a crying evil, and that it ought to be abolished. In regard to the subject of appropriations, particularly, the practice is a very dangerous and corrupt one, as it enables combinations of interests to force the most odious and extravagant appropriations upon the legislature. Every bill, in fact, whether for appropriations or other purposes, ought to stand or fall upon its own merits, and for this reason, he had offered the amendment. Mr. BIDDLE said, the amendment involved very important matter, as it introduced an unceasing topic of litigation, in regard to the constitutionality of laws. Suppose a case of a divorce bill. The second section may contain a provision for the support of the wife. It might be objected that the two subjects were distinct, and that the law was, therefore, unconstitutional. This principle was decided yesterday, and if we mean to get through our work we must suffer our decisions to stand longer than one day.

The said amendment being still under consideration,

On motion of Mr. FLEMING,

The Convention adjourned till half past 3 o'clock P. M.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON, JANUARY 9, 1838.

The PRESIDENT presented a communication from the Colonization Society, of Philadelphia, inviting the members of the convention to attend a meeting of that society, this evening.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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 convention resumed the consideration of the amendment, offered by Mr. FULLER, to the 21st section, viz:

"Not more than one bill or act of incorporation or appropriation, either similar or dissimilar, shall be combined together in one law."

Mr. FULLER withdrew the amendment for the present, declaring his intention to offer it again.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, moved to amend the section, by inserting after the word "treasury," in the first line, the words "by resolutions of the legislature, nor in any other way;" and by inserting in the second line, after the word "of," the word "special."

Mr. CLARKE said, he was not so certain that this amendment would be any better received than those which were offered this morning; but, he felt it to be his duty to offer it. He felt it to be necessary, and he wished that he had more time to convince this body, that his views were correct. It was necessary to prevent money from being drawn from the treasury, any other manner, than by special law.

in

He had no doubt that when the committee framed this provision, they meant to provide that an act of appropriation should go through all the forms which were necessary to a law, and the object of his amendment was to express this the more distinctly, on the face of the constitution. He would appeal to every one who heard him, if the abuse against which he proposed to guard, had not grown up, and gradually increased, with the growth of the internal improvement system. Joint resolutions of the legislature had the effect of law, without being passed with all the formalities of other laws, passed by the legislature. A second reading and the consideration of a resolution is asked for, and it is adopted without debate, or with but very little debate, and is sent to the other house for concurrence, where it is acted upon, in the same manner, and on the same day. He had known cases in which large sums of money were, in this manner, drawn from the treasury, without any act of appropriation, and sometimes very improperly drawn.

Those who had no claim in equity, and could not stand the ordeal of the accounting officers, sometimes brought a claim upon the state, through the legislature, where they could always find some friends. It was sum

cient for claimants to say, that the canal commissioners had done them injustice, and they could, with the aid of a few friends, get a resolution reported from the committee, and have the resolution passed through both branches, without much consideration. A resolution would thus slip through, unsettling all the principles upon which such accounts were settled.

He could speak more particularly of cases, arising under the system of internal improvements, because with them he was acquainted. But, the same course of things took place in reference to other claims. He did think that, in drawing money from the treasury, we ought to require the formalities of law.

He offered the amendment just as it struck him, but if any other gentleman could put it into a different form, that would be more acceptable to the body of the convention, he would cordially concur in it. The principle which he wished to see established, was, that all money drawn from the treasury, should be drawn in the form prescribed by law.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment, Mr. CLARKE asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STERICERE suggested to the gentleman from Indiana, a change in the amendment to substitute the phrase "but only in consequence of," instead of "any other way," and leave out the word "special." He believed the gentleman's object was to provide that only one appropriation should be made in any one act.

Mr. CLARKE said, it was not the intention of this amendment to prevent the legislature from putting more than one appropriation in any one act, and he declined accepting the amendment.

Mr. REIGART said, a joint resolution was precisely the same as a law, and laws were often passed with as little consideration as joint resolutions. According to the manner in which things were done in the legislature, as he understood them, it would amount to the same thing, whether the appropriation took the form of a law or of a joint resolution. The amendment would, therefore, effect nothing. Bills have to go through but two readings in the house, and the third reading is a matter of mere form, so the form of a joint resolution is just as safe as that of a bill. He hoped the amendment would not be adopted, unless some further reason could be given for it.

Mr. FORWARD asked whether one branch of the legislature was not to be allowed to draw money from the treasury for its contingencies?

Mr. CLARKE did not think, he said, that either branch of the legislature ought to draw money out of the treasury, unless by law, in the usual form. Money was always appropriated by law, for the purposes of the two bodies.

Mr. DICKEY was favorably disposed towards this amendment, if it would reach those objects which it was intended to reach. He believed abuses had grown up, in both branches of the legislature, with regard to their contingent expenditures, in consequence of the funds being put at their disposal, by general laws.