Convention. This was the course pursued in all Legislative bodies. We, however, had carried the principle a little further, for we expressly restricted the calling of the previous question while a member was speaking. Now, that was going one step further than was once allowed in the Legislature of Pennsylvania. Some gentlemen, it appeared, now wanted to rescind that part of the rule, which forbade the calling of the previous question in committee of the whole. He would ask whether it was not strikingly inconsistent to destroy the object for which the Convention go into committee of the whole, by authorizing the previous question to be called? He had said the other day, and he would say now, that it was a perfect anomaly in legislation to adopt that course of proceeding. While he regreted the unnecessary time that was cousumed in rambling debates, producing crimination and re-crimination, he could not give his consent to clog the operations of the body, by saying that members shall not express their opinions. The Convention went into committee of the whole to give every gentleman an opportunity to express his views and opinions freely and openly, and to offer their amendments for consideration and discussion, with a liberality and freedom, which could not be done in Convention. What, he would ask, was the object of going into committee of the whole, if we were to be restricted as much as in the Convention? Why abolish that part of the rule, merely to change the presi ding officer? If that was all-if we were to permit the previous question to be called in committee, he would, without hesitation, say that he would vote for rescinding the rule. He was not present at the time the rule was adopted, or he would have expressed the opinion which he had now done concerning it.

Mr. FORWARD. of Allegheny, said that he did not profess to be intimately acquainted with the subject; but, he had discovered from what he had heard, and from reflection, that the rule ought to be rescinded. What, he asked, was the reason, urged against calling the previous question in committee of the whole? Why, that the minority might be inclined to abuse the privilege of debate. Was there any other reason than that? None. Now, if that reason be good for any thing, it might just as well be urged in reference to the majority who could use the power to crush debate.The fact was, that if the argument be good for any thing, it was good against the rule, and much better than in favor of it. It was only right that the minority in all deliberative bodies should be allowed to express their sentiments at length, and it was a maxim that those who have the power may feel an inclination to abuse it, for it begets in itself a spirit somewhat wanton, unjust, and oppressive. Men may feel power, and forget right. And that was one reason why greater latitude of debate was allowed in committee of the whole. A gentleman in the course of the present debate had observed that if the minority were disposed to procrastinate the business, that it was the right of the majority to call for the previous question, Now, he (Mr. F.) would ask if it was fair to assume that they would do so? Was it not equally fair to suppose that the majority would use their power for the purpose of stifling debate. The gentleman from Mifflin (Mr. BANKS) had remarked that no one in this body would crush debate. Let every gentleman here personally speak for himself. With regard to himself, he would frankly say that he had

what extraordinary necessity there was for the previous question in a body of this character? For himself, he could not see any thing here which called for so extraordinary a remedy. No case, in his opinion, had yet occured, which called for it. The minority, it was true, had a right

to be heard: but, he did not believe that any question would arise where the line of party would be distinctly drawn. No, not one, and therefore he saw no use in the rule. It might happen that on a pending subject-one man, after little consideration, would be satisfied and ready to vote-whilst another's mind was not made up. One or more gentlemen might come here ready to vote, without hearing any discussion, and should there happen to be a majority in favor of taking the question, the minority would be cut off by springing the previous question. It was in accordance with the spirit and character of our institutions that there should be free discussion, even although the party desiring more discussion, might be in the wrong. Could it be supposed that the minority would indulge the hope of defeating a question, simply by procrastinating the decision? He could not assume it before hand. He was, for that reason, opposed to calling the previous question. Why, if it was intended to cut off all debate, it would be better to say that we would decide without discussion. There was no danger, he apprehended, of a tedious waste of time here. He regarded the calling of the previous question in committee of the whole as a breach of the freedom of discussion.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, trusted that the resolution would not be rescinded. He was sorry to differ on this occasion, from the gentleman from Allegheny, for whom he entertained the highest respect, but duty compelled him to view the matter in a different light. The rule was adopted to serve some purpose, and he thought that every gentleman knew what that was. It was not, then, adopted in order to cut off useful debate, aud which might have a tendency to bring the body to a proper and correct decision. The real object of it was to arrest useless discussion upon questions which had already been fully examined and argued. An instance of that kind in regard to the fourth article of the Constitution, which was debated for ten or twelve days, and almost every member made speeches on subjects concerning which there was no differ. nce of opinion. There was no getting the speaker off the floor until the hour of adjournment arrived. The gentleman (Mr. FORWARD) had said that the majority would call the previous question, and consequently deprive the minority of an opportunity of discussion. Now, he (Mr. FULLER) would say that if that was to be the course which the majority would pursue, then there would be some plausibility in the objection to the calling of the previous question. But had that been done already? He thought not. The previous question had not been called until the subject then under consideration, had been fully discussed. Could the previous question be called unless there was a majority to sustain the call? Decidedly not. And, he did not believe that the minority would say that the majority had acted illiberally. When the previous question was called the other day and sustained, but few gentlemen complained. He apprehended that the question which had been discussed near a week had given every gentleman an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on it. Some gentleman had even spoken three times. In his opinion there was a waste of time, for many things which were then said was a mere reiteration of what had been previously ex

pressed. On the call for the previous question the ayes and noes were not even demanded. which showed conclusively that the committee were ready for the question and desired no more debate. He trusted that the rule would not be rescinded.

Mr. CUMMIN, of Juniata, said that he rose for the purpose of saying that he would oppose the resolution. It was an established maxim in criminal law, that the confession of the culprit was the best evidence of his guilt; and he was happy to find that there were so many gentlemen in this Hall, who would support his assertion. According to that rule, the gentleman from Franklin (Mr. DUNLOP) was, he said, his own accuser. He had brought forward evidence against himself. The gentleman was certainly the last man on this floor who should have brought up that record of the number of speeches, for he was not behind any one in the list.He should think the gentleman had made one hundred and seventy speeches, or thereabouts, for his share; and his speeches were always learned, often very humorous, and sometimes satirical; but very seldom had much relation to the question before the Convention. The gentleman's remarks were often dressed in a garb of good humor, which was pleasing even to those against whom they were directed: at other times he was very severe, and, without doubt, he was more frequently out of order than any member here. He was always happy to hear the gentleman speak when he was in a good humor; but, if his argument and arithmetic were good, there would be no limit to the number of speeches, and our labors would never be brought to a close. He thought, therefore, that if there was any use at all in the previous question, it ought to be applied for the purpose of arresting this flood of speeches. The gentleman from Franklin, and some other members of the Convention, were in the habit of making speeches, and offering amendments and resolutions, that were only intended to waste time, and defeat the objects which we had been sent here to effect. Let the gentleman curtail his own speeches before he undertakes to lecture other gentlemen, and set an example worthy of imitation in reference to despatch of business.

Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, observed that it was right in itself to restrain the previous question in the committee of the whole. If, however, the gentleman from Philadelphia had moved that it should require a majority to avoid it, he presumed there would have been no objection to that. As the subject had been debated an hour and a half, he would demand the previous question.

The previous question having been seconded,

Mr. MERRILL asked for the yeas and nays, and

The question was taken on the adoption of the resolution, and decided in the negative.

YEAS.-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Biddle, Brown, of Lancaster, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Donnell, Dunlop Forward, Henderson, of Allehgeny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Long, Maclay, M'Dowell. M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Sill, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, White, Young, Bergeant, President-53.

NAYS.--Messrs. Banks, Bayne, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton,

Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Lvons, Magee, Minn, Martin, M'Call, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Overfield, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Sellers, Seltzer, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Woodward-64.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention 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 amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna,

Mr. EARLE resumed his remarks: He said that when the committee rose, he was expressing his dissent from the principle of democracy, contended for by the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. PORTER,) the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. WOODWARD,) and others. He entertained the highest respect for their learning and legal talents; but, nevertheless, he felt himself compelled to differ from them. He had observed, that men, who were very distinguished in the profession of the law, had not become so eminent as statesmen, as for their learning in the legal science. Mr. JEFFERSON was not considered a great lawyer, though he was very distinguished as a statesman. It might be laid down, as a general rule, that men who acquired celebrity at the bar, very seldom became great statesmen, because, exclusive attention to business prevented much attention to politics. He thought, that he should be able to shew better authority for what he said, than the learned gentlemen themselves. The question had been made, one of democracy or aristocracy. What, he would enquire, was democracy? It was the Government of the people. It became necessary to compare it with aristocracies and monarchies, for the purpose of seeing whether it does carry out those objects which it was intended they should, and which they do not. The sovereignty of the people was established in order to promote the equality and happiness of the people at large. Before establishing any institution, it was proper to examine the principle upon which you purposed doing so, with a view of seeing whether it carries out your intentions-whether its tendency is to promote the equality of the people, and not only that, but whether it tends to preserve democratic principles, or to overthrow them. Whatever was antagonist to the equality of the people in rights and condition, was anti-democratic; and whatever had even a remote tendency to produce ineqality, was hostile to, and subversive of, the principles of democracy. Gentlemen, said, we must be governed by the rules of private life in appointments to office; but they commenced their system of appointment by departing from the rules of private life. Do we employ a journeyman, or a mechanic, or laborer, for a long term of years? No man in this Convention, or in the State, would do it. We began by disregarding the rules of private life. The principle which applied to public offices, did not apply to the transactions of private life. Great emoluments being attached to these offices, created a thirst for office. The office-holders received more money than men could make by their private avocations. Here, then, was a wide departure from the rule observed in

lowest rate, whereas these gentlemen were in favor of giving such a compensation to officers as exceeds what they can make in private life. If gentlemen, would carry out their principle of action according to the practice of private life, he would follow them. If an officer was to be continued during good behaviour, as some gentlemen contended, this was the principle of life-office-the usage adopted in England, where the public are not so well served by their officers, as they are here, where they are appointed for short terms. But they were consistent. They act on certain principles, and carry them through.

What is the reason that we place any limitation at all upon the term of office? He would ask for reasons why we should ever turn a good man out of office? Was it because the officer has accumulated wealth, and had arrived at a period of life, when retirement and repose had become necessary ? Not at all. The reason was, that long continuance in office unfits a man for the discharge of its duties, by rendering him arbitrary and aristocratic, and tends to beget, first life office, and then hereditary office, which led to the destruction of fre government. This was the reason why the principle of rotation in office had been adopted by republicans; and the moment it was abandoned, life office must follow. It might be urged, though, as he thought, without much force-that the office of Governor and of President ought to be left without limitation, because, in cases of great public emergency, it might be expedient and necessary to continue in office, some incumbent, beyond the limited term, on account of his peculiar fitness for the crisis. But in a small county clerkship, which could be just as well filled by any one, of five hundred men in the county, as the incumbent himself, it was preposterous to say, that the public necessities required the retention of an officer. It was absurd to say, that the public service required an unlimited tenure for offices, which any merchant's clerk could, in three days' time, be prepared to fill, as well as your oldest officers, for the easy and simple duties, of which no previous study, and no great learning, or experience, are required—and for the discharge, of which the officer generally, is just about as well fit, on the first day of his service, as on the last. Then, there was no reason to be found, in the nature of the service, which would render an exception from the principle of rotation in office, applicable to these clerks, registers, &c. Under the present system, which gentlemen tell us has worked so well, there had been very general, and frequent changes, of all these officers. Every one of the last four Governors, upon coming into office, made a general sweep-turning out the incumbents, to replace them with his own party friends. For what reason, sir, should a man be continued in office? The public benefit does not require it. Should he then, be continued, for his own benefit? Upon the ground of exclusive merit? Were the incumbents the only meritorious, and well qualified men, in the community, that they should enjoy a monopoly of these offices? In a community so generally enlightened, and virtuous, it was folly to set any such pictures, in behalf of any set of office-holders. There might, indeed, come some cases of individual misfortune, or hardship, which would induce a wish, on the part of a sympathizing community, to continue in office, a particular individual, beyond a fixed term, for his own benefit, or that of his family; but this was not a frequent occurrence; in ninety-nine