voters. He thought we had better adhere to the old Constitution in this particular. Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, presumed that the gentleman from Crawford was mistaken. Gentlemen travelling do not gain a residence at all. Mr. HEISTER, of Lancaster, said that an amendment had already been incorporated in the Constitution, providing that no man shall vote unless he actually resides in the place where the election is held. People in the city of Philadelphia, as was well known, generally remove on the first of October. This restriction, then, of ten days' residence, which he would vote for, would give an opportunity to those who removed into other districts, of becoming known by the third Tuesday in October, when the election takes place. The gentleman from Butler (Mr. PURVIANCE) had said. that he did not know that the people required any restriction of this sort. He (Mr. H.) knew that in his own neighborhood, great complaints had been made, and that they desire this restriction; for, in some places, men are allowed to vote who have no residence. He regarded it as very important to fix a definite period for a residence. He, therefore, trusted that the amendment would prevail. The question being taken, it was decided in the affirmative-yeas, 59; nays, 48-as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Forward, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lencaster, Reigart, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Snively, Swetland, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Sergeant, President-59. NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Cleavinger. Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hyde, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Sellers, Scheetz, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Taggart, Weaver, White, Young-48. The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. MERRILL, as amended; which was agreed to. A division being demanded, there appeared ayes, 61; noes, 41. The question then recurring on the amendment of Mr. BELL, as amended: Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, asked for the yeas and nays. Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, moved that the committee rise, and afterwards withdrew the motion. Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, remarked, that the amendment of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. MERRILL) had deprived that of the gentleman from Columbia (Mr. HAYHURST) of all its advantages. The amendment of the gentleman from Union would take away more votes than it would give. He would ask for a division of the proposition, so as to take a vote on each branch. The CHAIR decided, that under the circumstances of the case, the question was not divisible. Mr. STERIGERE replied, that he had known divisions to be made on amendments, like these, involving different principles. Having asserted The CHAIR: If the gentleman appeals he may, and proceed with his remarks, but not without. Mr. STERIGERE said, he would move that the question be taken on the amendment before the Chair, divided in the way he had already proposed. The CHAIR has decided that the gentleman is not in order. Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, moved that the committee rise. Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester: I hope the gentleman will not persist in his motion. Mr. DUNLOP persisted. The question being taken on the amendment, it was negatived. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said he would vote against the amendment as amended, because it contained the tax qualification. Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, asked if it would be in order to renew the motion to amend which he made some days ago, to allow all to vote, except drunkards, lunatics, &c.? The CHAIR said it would not, and the Chair had so decided before. Mr. DUNLOP asked if it would be in order to hurrah for the old Constitution? Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, hoped that the amendment would be somewhat modified, and then on second reading he would vote for it. Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia, said, he hoped the friends of reform would be convinced by the vote upon this question, that nothing was to be gained by joining with those who were opposed to any reform; and, if they intended to carry alterations, let them act with each other. Mr. DARLINGTON protested against making appeals of that sort. However, as the friends of reform were again called to the rally, he would say to the friends of judicious reform, that he hoped they would hold on to this amendment, until they could get something better. Mr. M'CAHEN replied, that the gentleman need not undertake to chide him, as he had fallen into the same error himself. He had appealed to his own party to stand by his amendment. The question being taken, it was decided in the negative-yeas, 54; nays, 55-as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barndollar, Bayne, Biddle, Brown, of Northampton, Chambers Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Darlington, Denny, Dickerson, Forward, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Sill, Snively, Swetland, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-54. NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cox, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dickey, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming. Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hyde, Kennedy, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White-55. Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend the report of the committee, by striking from the second line the words "one year", and inserting Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved that the committee rise, which was decided in the affirmative-ayes 60. The committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again, and The Convention adjourned. TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1837. Mr. SELLERS, of Montgomery, presented a memorial of citizens of Montgomery county, praying for Constitutional restrictions in relation to Banks, which was laid on the table. Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Mercer, submited the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed : WHEREAS, a respectable number of this Convention appear to be opposed to any amendment or alteration in the Constitution, and as it is uncertain whether a majority of the Convention are not of that opinion, and as it would be a useless waste of time and money for this Convention to continue any longer in session, if it is found that a majo rity are opposed to making any alteration in the Constitution; and as a further evidence that there is a strong opposition to any alteration, we have only to refer to the vote of yesterday, to find that a majority cannot agree on amendments, as we have negatived all that we have done from the 19th instant up to the present moment: Therefore, in order to ascertain the sense of the Convention on that subject, Resolved, That this Con. vention will, on Thursday next, resolve itself into a committee of the whole, to take into consideration whether it is expedient or proper to make any alteration or amendment in the Constitution; and that the question be decided by yeas and nays, and that no member shall be permitted to speak more than once, unless otherwise ordered by the committee. Mr. COPE, from the committee on accounts, presented a resolution, which was agreed to. Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, rose to submit a proposition. It appeared to him, that the course pursued by the committee during the last few days, proved that no further benefit could be reasonably expected from discussion. He thought any further consideration or discussion of the third article, in committee of the whole, would be a mere waste of time, and he therefore moved the following order. Ordered, That the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the third article. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, expressed his hope, that the committee would not be discharged, though the vote yesterday, rejecting the amendment, was unexpected, he thought it would be as well to go on. If the committee should be discharged, we should have to take the article up again. Mr. STERIGERE said, his reasons were simply these. The result of the last weeks proceedings must have satisfied us that we may lose another week on the same discussion. All the benefits to be derived from discussion in committee of the whole have been obtained, and he asked to discharge the commttee entirely, and to proceed to other subjects. Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said, the gentleman from Montgomery was The CHAIR: If the gentleman appeals he may, and proceed with his remarks, but not without. Mr. STERIGERE said, he would move that the question be taken on the amendment before the Chair, divided in the way he had already proposed. The CHAIR has decided that the gentleman is not in order. Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, moved that the committee rise. Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester: I hope the gentleman will not persist in his motion. Mr. DUNLOP persisted. The question being taken on the amendment, it was negatived. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, said he would vote against the amendment as amended, because it contained the tax qualification. Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, asked if it would be in order to renew the motion to amend which he made some days ago, to allow all to vote, except drunkards, lunatics, &c. ? The CHAIR said it would not, and the Chair had so decided before. Mr. DUNLOP asked if it would be in order to hurrah for the old Constitution? Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, hoped that the amendment would be somewhat modified, and then on second reading he would vote for it. Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia, said, he hoped the friends of reform would be convinced by the vote upon this question, that nothing was to be gained by joining with those who were opposed to any reform; and, if they intended to carry alterations, let them act with each other. Mr. DARLINGTON protested against making appeals of that sort. However, as the friends of reform were again called to the rally, he would say to the friends of judicious reform, that he hoped they would hold on to this amendment, until they could get something better. Mr. M'CAHEN replied, that the gentleman need not undertake to chide him, as he had fallen into the same error himself. He had appealed to his own party to stand by his amendment. The question being taken, it was decided in the negative-yeas, 54; nays, 55-as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barndollar, Bayne, Biddle, Brown, of Northampton, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Craig, Crain, Darlington, Denny, Dickerson, Forward, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Lyons, Maclay, M’Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Seltzer, Sill, Snively, Swetland, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-54. NAYS-Messrs. Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cox, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dickey, Dillinger, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hyde, Kennedy, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Dowell, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, White-55. Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, moved to amend the report of the committee, by striking from the second line the words "one year", and inserting Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved that the committee rise, which was decided in the affirmative-ayes 60. The committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again, and The Convention adjourned. Mr. SELLERS, of Montgomery, presented a memorial of citizens of Montgomery county, praying for Constitutional restrictions in relation to Banks, which was laid on the table. Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Mercer, submited the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed : WHEREAS, a respectable number of this Convention appear to be opposed to any amendment or alteration in the Constitution, and as it is uncertain whether a majority of the Convention are not of that opinion, and as it would be a useless waste of time and money for this Convention to continue any longer in session, if it is found that a majo rity are opposed to making any alteration in the Constitution; and as a further evidence that there is a strong opposition to any alteration, we have only to refer to the vote of yesterday, to find that a majority cannot agree on amendments, as we have negatived all that we have done from the 19th instant up to the present moment: Therefore, in order to ascertain the sense of the Convention on that subject, Resolved, That this Con. vention will, on Thursday next, resolve itself into a committee of the whole, to take into consideration whether it is expedient or proper to make any alteration or amendment in the Constitution; and that the question be decided by yeas and nays, and that no member shall be permitted to speak more than once, unless otherwise ordered by the com. mittee. Mr. COPE, from the committee on accounts, presented a resolution, which was agreed to. Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, rose to submit a proposition. It appeared to him, that the course pursued by the committee during the last few days, proved that no further benefit could be reasonably expected from discussion. He thought any further consideration or discussion of the third article, in committee of the whole, would be a mere waste of time, and he therefore moved the following order. Ordered, That the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the third article. Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, expressed his hope, that the committee would not be discharged, though the vote yesterday, rejecting the amendment, was unexpected, he thought it would be as well to go on. If the committee should be discharged, we should have to take the article up again. Mr. STERIGERE said, his reasons were simply these. The result of the last weeks proceedings must have satisfied us that we may lose another week on the same discussion. All the benefits to be derived from discussion in committee of the whole have been obtained, and he asked to discharge the commttee entirely, and to proceed to other subjects. Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said, the gentleman from Montgomery was mistaken about all the benefits of discussion having been obtained. My |