surprise to see how correctly and promptly the debates and proceedings had been furnished by this paper. He did not see the ground for all these complaints, and he did not think that we were bound to notice these complaints, so far as to raise a committee of inquiry, when we had already a special committee for the superintendence of the publication of the Daily Chronicle. No complaint had come from that committee, whose duty it was to attend to this subject. It is not to be presumed, therefore, that the person with whom we contracted to print the paper, has in any way neglected the duty devolved upon him by the contract. We had several times, after a long debate, expressed an opinion in regard to the Chronicle; and, if any one thing had been determined by the Convention, it was, that they should continue to take the Chronicle. What, therefore, was to be gained by further debate and by arguing, he could not imagine, especially as we had before us every item of expence connected with the publication and distribution of the paper. He was in favor of continuing the publication, because he believed the people wanted it. He knew that they were anxious to receive it, and that it was read with great avidity.

He received letters day after day, wishing for more copies of the paper than were allowed to his, share.

Mr. DARLINGTON said the subject had now been discussed for nearly two hours, at the expense of several hundred dollars, and he moved its indefinite postponement.

Mr. HIESTER said, as this motion would not settle the matter, and as we had already spent half of a day in discussing a preliminary question, he would move the previous question, which was seconded.

The main question was ordered to be put, and being taken, the resolution, as modified, was agreed to-yeas, 102: nays, 13-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clark, of Beaver, Clarke, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiama, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crum, Cummin Curll, Da-rah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helfenstein, Hnderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Call. M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Overfield, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Reizart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, Smith, Smyth, Sniv. ly, Sterigere, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Todd, Weidinan, White, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President—102.

NAYS-Messrs. Ayres, Baldwin, Cunningham, Darlington, Farrelly, Fleming, Henderson, of Allegheny, Houpt, Meredith, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Stevens, Thomas

The committee was then ordered to consist of five members, and the following gentlemen were appointed by the Chair to constitute the committee: Messrs. FRY, STEVENS, PORTER. of Nor.hampton, DICKEY, and BROWN, of Philadelphia.

Mr. MARTIN called for the second reading and consideration of his resolution for an adjournment, from Saturday the 1st day of July, to Monday the 27th day of July.

Mr. HIESTER asked the yeas and nays on the motion, and

Mr. MARTIN withdrew it for the present.

resolution offered by him on Monday last, for rescinding the order of the 12th instant, applying the previous question in the committee of the whole.

Mr. READ asked the yeas and nays on the motion, and the question being taken, it was determined in the negative-yeas 55; nays 63: as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clark, of Beaver, Clarke, of Indiana, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Donnell, Forward, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Hout, Jenks, Kerr, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaater, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Scott, Sill, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-55.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bayne, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Dauphin, Cleavinger, Coates, Craig, Crain, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helfenstein, Hiester, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Krebs, Lyons, Magée, Mann, M'Call, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Overfield, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Saeger, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Swetland, Stickle, Taggart, Weidman, White-63.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. CHAMBERS in the Chair, on the report of the committee to whom was refered the sixth article of the Constitution.

The question being on the following amendment offered by Mr. STEVENS, to strike out from the amendment of Mr. STERIGERE, So much of the report as relates to the second section, all after the word "Prothonotaries", and insert" and Clerks of the several courts, (except Prothonotaries of the Supreme Court, who shall be appointed by the court for the term of three years, if they so long behave themselves well,) Recorders of deeds and Registers of wills, shall at the times and places of election of Representatives be elected by the citizens of each county or district over which the jurisdiction of said court extends, and shall be commissioned by the Governor. They shall hold their offices for three years if they shall so long behave themselves well, and until their successors shall be duly qualified. The Legislature shall provide by law the number of persons in each county who shall hold said offices, and how many and which of said offices shall be held by one person. Vacancies in any of the said offices shall be filled by appointment to be made by the Governor, to continue until the next general election, and until a successor shall be elected and qualified as aforesaid":

Mr. HAYHURST addressed the Chair as follows-Mr. CHAIRMAN: As we are about to record our votes on the proposition now pending, I deem it my duty to state my reasons for the vote I shall give. I came here with the principle engraven on my mind, (and I still retain it,) that all officers who require a special qualification ought to be appointed, and that all who require but a general qualification ought to be elected. The reasons on which this principle is founded, are these: The people at large are the best qualified to judge of a man's honesty, fidelity, industry and punctuality; and also of his morality, suavity of manners, and general intelligence. But an

of the special or professional capacity of an individual. A knowledge of the first qualities is best derived from a long and general acquaintance; while a knowledge of the latter is derived from a close particular acquaintance, and an enquiry on that subject alone. In accordance with this principle, I prefer the proposition of the gentleman from Adams to that of the gentleman from Montgomery, because the former requires all officers mentioned in it to be elected, except the Clerk of the Supreme Court, while the latter requires the appointment of Clerks of other courts besides the Supreme.

I have another objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, because it requires one person for each office. Now, in the county which I have the honor here to represent, the perquisites or fees of the inferior clerkships are insufficient to support an officer to attend to that duty alone; and hence we always have several of them bestowed upon one individual. This is also necessarily the case in several other counties.— In this respect the proposition of the gentleman from Adams has the advantage, because the regulation of this matter is left to the Legislature, and will enable the inhabitants of these counties to arrange these matters as they please.

The only thing in the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, which militates against my principle is, that the Clerk of the Supreme Court is to be appointed by the court. I am still disposed to support the amendment, notwithstanding it crops a corner off from my rule; and, perhaps, strictly speaking, this may be scarcely an opposition to the principle, because this officer may require rather a special than a general qualification.

I mean by saying a special qualification, those which require some particular professional knowledge, in opposition to those which require only a general knowledge. For instance, I am for appointing the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Presidents of the Common Pleas, the Attorney General, and the Surveyor General; and for electing the State Treasurer, Auditor General, the County Treasurer, and other county officers. While I am for electing the Canal Commissioners, I am in favor of appointing the Engineers, because they require a particular scientific qualification; while I am for electing a Colonel, I am for appointing the Surgeon.

I am also for appointing the County Surveyor, because it requires a man of a particular profession to discharge the duties of that office; yet if a proposition should come in all other respects good, I would vote for it, though it contains a proposal to elect that officer, because I believe it to be quite too trivial to be worth spending time about. For the same reason, I would prefer appointing the Prosecuting Attorney in some way.

Now, there may be something in the phraseology of the proposition not exactly in accordance with my view; yet, as it contains my general principles, and because it is impossible to frame a section so as to meet the views of every gentleman on this floor, I am disposed to vote for it, and I hope it will prevail

Mr. MANN suggested the propriety of amending the proposition, by inserting in the seventh line, the words "unless the Legislature shall otherwise provide", which was accepted.

Mr. READ, said he preferred the proposition of the gentleman from

STERIGERE) and although on yesterday he thought he should vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, on further reflection, he had come to a different conclusion. He had no doubt, if we had taken up the business in its proper order, and determined in the fifth article what courts we would have, that the report of the committee would have been the most acceptable proposition to the committee. But as we have passed over the fifth article, and the committee on that article have showed an unwillingness to anticipate any alteration in the county courts, we must do the best we can. Was it come to this, that by the irrégular course of proceeding adopted here, we are reduced to the absolute necessity of either taking the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, or the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery. Much as we have been cramped and restricted in our proceedings here, by constructions of rules of order, it di l not seem to him that we were yet reduced to this degrading situation. It seemed to him there was a way of getting round the irregularities which have been sanctioned here, and disentangling ourselves from the embarrassing situation of being compelled to take one of two propositions, and of rejecting the other one hundred and thirty-one propositions which the emaining members of this Convention are entitled to bring forward. The gentleman from Adams, on yesterday, attempted to make a rally for his reform to this section, after having on a former occasion moved an adjournment, because of the breach made in the old Constitution, with a view of going into mourning because this venerable instrument had been delivered over into the hands of the Phillistines. Yet this same defen ler and upholder of the old Constitution came forward, on yesterday, with a proposition of reform to suit himself and then told those in favor of reform, you dare not vote against my proposition, because you dare not vote against the elective principle. This was the manner in which the gentleman from Adams attempted to drive the reformers into a support of his proposition. Why were these cabalistick appeals made? Why should gentlemen be told that they dare not vote against a proposition because it contained the elective principle? Was it a fact that gentlemen, in recording their votes against this proposition, were voting against the elective principle? It was not-and why? Because the proposition of the gentleman from Adams proposes to strike out not only the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, but also the report of the committee, both of which are based upon the elective principle. Now, by the rule established here, if this amendment should be agreed to, we cannot strike out any thing which has been put in, and, consequently, all other members are cut off from amendment of the proposition in such manner as to make it acceptable to them. Now we must take this rule as it is, because we do not know that we can get it reversed, but there is still a way of getting a different proposition before the House; a proposition different from either of those brought forward on this occasion, one of which is supposed must be thrust down our throats, nolens volens. He proposed then to the friends of reform to vote down the proposition of the gentleman from Adams; and then we can offer something in the place of it more acceptable, as he believed to a majority of the Convention. If this should be done, he then proposed to bring forward a proposition to which he would now call the attention of the committee. He proposed to introduce a proposition to strike out of the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, all after

of the special or professional capacity of an individual. A knowledge of the first qualities is best derived from a long and general acquaintance; while a knowledge of the latter is derived from a close particular acquaintance, and an enquiry on that subject alone. In accordance with this principle, I prefer the proposition of the gentleman from Adams to that of the gentleman from Montgomery, because the former requires all officers mentioned in it to be elected, except the Clerk of the Supreme Court, while the latter requires the appointment of Clerks of other courts besides the Supreme.

I have another objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, because it requires one person for each office. Now, in the county which I have the honor here to represent, the perquisites or fees of the inferior clerkships are insufficient to support an officer to attend to that duty alone; and hence we always have several of them bestowed upon one individual. This is also necessarily the case in several other counties.In this respect the proposition of the gentleman from Adams has the advantage, because the regulation of this matter is left to the Legislature, and will enable the inhabitants of these counties to arrange these matters as they please.

The only thing in the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, which militates against my principle is, that the Clerk of the Supreme Court is to be appointed by the court. I am still disposed to support the amendment, notwithstanding it crops a corner off from my rule; and, perhaps, strictly speaking, this may be scarcely an opposition to the principle, because this officer may require rather a special than a general qualifi

cation.

I mean by saying a special qualification, those which require some particular professional knowledge, in opposition to those which require only a general knowledge. For instance, I am for appointing the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Presidents of the Common Pleas, the Attorney General, and the Surveyor General; and for electing the State Treasurer, Auditor General, the County Treasurer, and other county officers. While I am for electing the Canal Commissioners, I am in favor of appointing the Engineers, because they require a particular scientific qualification; while I am for electing a Colonel, I am for appointing the Surgeon.

I am also for appointing the County Surveyor, because it requires a man of a particular profession to discharge the duties of that office; yet if a proposition should come in all other respects good, I would vote for it, though it contains a proposal to elect that officer, because I believe it to be quite too trivial to be worth spending time about. For the same reason, I would prefer appointing the Prosecuting Attorney in some way.

Now, there may be something in the phraseology of the proposition not exactly in accordance with my view; yet, as it contains my general principles, and because it is impossible to frame a section so as to meet the views of every gentleman on this floor, I am disposed to vote for it, and I hope it will prevail

Mr. MANN suggested the propriety of amending the proposition, by inserting in the seventh line, the words "unless the Legislature shall otherwise provide", which was accepted.

Mr. READ, said he preferred the proposition of the gentleman from