Among the objections-and an important one it was-which he enter tained against submitting the amendments in October, was this: that if the contest for governor should be a close one, the supporters of the several candidates, seeing that their favorite was going to succeed, might be governed by selfish motives, and consequently, vote against the ainendments, in order that their party might have the disposition of the offices. He regarded this, then, as a strong and insuperable objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster. The office holders, as a matter of course, would vote against the amendments. Each political party would be anxious to get hold of some of the loaves and fishes, and thus the office hunters would assuredly vote against the amendments, because it would be to their interest to do so. In his opinion, the most appropri ate time to submit the amendments would be in June, before the election for governor came on, when they would be decided without reference to other questions.

Objection had been raised against a special election, on the ground that the attendance of voters would not be so great as at the general election. Well, he thought that was a matter which depended upon whether or not the people felt any interest or anxiety concerning the proposed amendments. If they did, then he apprehended that they would turn out whether the election was general or special. He entertained no doubt that a very large majority of the people had thought on the subject and regarded the proceedings of the convention with much interest. Having a regard for the interests and welfare of the commonwealth, they would, as a matter of course, give their votes either for or against the amendments. He could not persuade himself that our honest and patriotic yeomanry, mechanics, merchants, and others of our fellow citizens, would evince so much apathy and disregard in reference to the proposed changes in the constitution of the state of Pennsylvania, as not to express their opinions respecting them through the agency of the ballot box, because they were not submitted to them on the day of the general election. No, he enter tained a better, a higher opinion of the people than that. He believed that they would turn out and vote according to the honest conviction of their consciences. True, it might be, that men who felt no interest would not vote-men who had bets on the result-such as bar-room politicians and others of like character, who might, perhaps, obtain little offices or something equally valuable to them, by not doing so. But, he had no doubt, whatever, that the really good and valuable citizens of the commonwealth would give their votes coolly. calmly and deliberately upon the amendments, if submitted to them in June next. They would vote uninfluenced by party considerations, and exercise their judgments freely and without bias. Not regarding whether the amendments were popular or unpopular, they would give their votes with reference alone to their being good or bad.

The impression upon his mind, was, that a more cool and dispassionate decision could be had on the amendments, if submitted in June instead ofctober-at a special instead of the general election, when those opposed to the amendments, will be busily engaged in urging the claims of their several candidates. And, double the chance would be presented of defeating the amendments in October than in June. The justices of the peace, of which there are three or four thousand, if against the amend

ments, would turn out and ask-"who do you want for governor? who for the legislature ?" &c., and would be very ready to give tickets. But, if they should be in favor of the amendments, they would laughingly say -"there has been voting enough already, and perhaps the constitution is good enough." And, thus a man might be induced to vote on all the other questions, but not the amendments.

He (Mr. Cox) would conclude by saying that he should prefer either June or November to October, as the most eligible time to submit the amendments proposed by this convention to the constitution of the com monwealth of Pennsylvania.

The question was called for by Mr. M'CAHEN and twenty-nine others rising in their places.

And on the question,

Shall the question be now put?

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. FORWARD and Mr. CHAMBERS, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Cleavenger, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Fleming Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart. Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, krebs. Long, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, Me kel, Miller, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Chellito, Smith, of Columbia. Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Taggart, Todd, Wcaver, Weidman, White, Woodward -72.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barndollar, Barnitz, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward. Hays, Henderson, of Alle gheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, Hopkinson, Ingersoll, Jenks, Konigmacher, Maclay, M'Dowell, M'sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northamption, Reigart, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Sturdevant, Thomas, Young, Sergeant, President-45.

So the question was determined in the affirmative.

And on the question,

Will the convention agree so to amend the amendment, viz:

By striking therefrom the words "second Tuesday of October," and inserting in lieu thereof, the words "first Tuesday of November?"

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. CURLL, and Mr. SHELLITO, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Barnitz, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Coates, Cope, Cox, Crum, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Farrelly, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dau phin, Hopkinson, Jenks, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Saeger, Scott, Serrill, Snively, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Sergeant, President-38.

NAYS Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Bedford, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Crain, Crawford, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Hyde, Ingerso. Keim, Kennedy, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Caben,

M'Dowell, Miller, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Payne, Purviance, Reigart, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Scheetz, Sellers, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Sterigere, Stickel, Sturdevant, Taggart, Weaver, White, Woodward, Young-82.

So the question was determined in the negative.

The question next recurring was on the amendment of Mr. WoODWARD. Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, remarked that he should vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Scott) and also that of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) because he should not like the victorious party, at the general election, to vote upon the amendments whilst under the heat and influence of political party feeling. Many reasons presented themselves to his mind why the amendment of the gen tleman from Luzerne ought not to be adopted. He would much deplore the idea that the adoption or rejection of the amendments were to depend on political scramble for the offices of the state.

Is it proper that amidst that scramble, the people should be called upon to give their attention to these amendments, and to decide upon their adoption or rejection in a scene of animosity and party heat, and where local and party influence could be brought to bear upon their judgment?

I am (said Mr. F) also opposed to this day for the reason which has been dwelt upon, for another purpose by the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) and others who have spoken in this debate; namely, that this question of the adoption or rejection of the amendmants should be regarded as a secondary question--that you must blend it with all those political and local questions which belong to the October elections, or, that if you do not so, the people will not turn out to give their votes-thus showing that the question of amendments is regarded by the gentlemen themselves as a subordinate matter that will be merged in the October elections; and thus all those local and factitious influences which can be brought to bear in October, must influeuce the fate which awaits these amendments-this new form of government-this solemn question which touches the permanent interest of every man, woman and child in this commonwealth.

If it is true, that the people will come to the polls for the purpose of contesting the election of members of assembly, members of congress and county commissioners, but that they will stay away from an election on the amendments to the constitutton, it furnishes evidence that the fate of those amendments is to be decided by extraneous influences which ought not to bear upon them.

Sir, it is a solemn affair to change the organic law of the land, and I desire that the action of the people in every thing that relates to such a change should be influenced by those considerations which do enter, and must enter into our elections in October. For my own part, I do not believe that the people will act triflingly in this matter-that they will stay at home when these questions are propounded for their final action.

Whether the amendments which we have made are, or are not, ultimately to become a part of our form of government, I say, I do not believe that the people will stay at home on so solemn an occasion. I think it is paying but a poor compliment to the intelligence and patriotism of the people of this commonwealth, to assume or suppose that they will not attend to this matter.

Is it not better that these amendments should be considered alone?— that the action of the people should be had upon them uninfluenced by those other factitious considerations pressed upon them by political partizans, and which may be adverse to their best interests? Will not the people understand these questions, if they should be put to them in thes month of June? I say they will--and I would even fix an earlier day—say, in the month of May.

Will they not, I again ask, understand the subject by that time? And why not? All these amendments have been before them, and gentlemen will recollect that we have been told again and again in the course of the deliberations of this body, that the public mind had already been settled down upon them-and that the people had sent us here only that we might register their will, so fully and decidedly had that will been made known. So far as concerns all the questions which have been before this conventi in relation to executive patronage, I have no doubt that the people will be as ready to act upon them in three days as they would be in so many years. As to other matters they may, to be sure, require a little more consideration; but even they might as well be considered and acted upon by the month of June as deferred until the second Tuesday of October. June is a season of leisure; the labors of the summer are not upon the people. They will then act dispassionately with a single view to the questions before them, and not with a view to other questions, taking the foreground, and claiming the most prominent place in their attention.

The newspapers will be alive to the subject; and who doubts that the few amendments which we have made to the constitution-few in number and small in space-will be known to the people through the papers, and that the people will be prepared in the spring to act more dispassionately and with a more single mind, than at the election of October? Look at the influences which are brought to bear upon that election! Before that time, it will in all probability be seen who is likely to be the most suc cessful candidate for the governor's chair, upon which side victory in clines. I say, it will be pretty well understood: and, mark me, the party that is to succeed will not have a special affection for these amendments, whilst the party that is to fail will become the champion of them-both being influenced by considerations which ought not to weigh a feather in the final disposition of the amendments. The strongest party, whichever that may be, is under great temptation to throw down your amendments into the arena of political strife—the very last arena into which they ought to be thrown.

Now, if you fix a day in June, as is proposed by the report of the majority of the committee, the election will take place before the strength of either party is made known-before the country is agitated from one end to the other--before streams of libel shall begin to flow and accrimonious feelings shall begin to sway the minds of the voters. You have all opportunity for a fair and dispassionate vote. But if you defer the settlement of the question until the second Tuesday of October, neither party will be satisfied—the people themselves will not be satisfied.

These, Mr. President, are the reasons which weigh with me, and which present themselves so strong to my mind as to induce me to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne. I can not give

my vote in favor of the second Tuesday in October. I do not know that the reasons I have urged will be sufficient to influence any one vote in this convention. I wish, however, that they should be known to those whom I represent, that they may see that I have acted here for what I believed to be their best interests.

Mr. CURLL, of Armstrong, demanded the immediate question.

But the convention refused to second the motion.

And the question again recurring on the amendment;
Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin said:

I do not concur in the reasons which have been assigned by the very respectable gentleman who last addressed the convention. (Mr. Froward.) None of those reasons have any weight in my mind. I do not see any difference whether the election is to be held on the second Tuesday of October, or in the month of June or November. There is, however, one reason why I do not like a day in June or November-that is to say, the additional expense which will be thereby entailed upon the people. The general election costs about forty thousand dollars. And this convention, I think has already cost the commonwealth money enough, without putting her to the expense of a special election to enable the people to pass upon our acts, when they can as well do so in October.

The gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Forward) calls the election in October, a scramble. If one election is so, another is also. But this calling hard names has no influence with me. I do not see why the people can not go to the polls as well on one day as upon another; nor do I think there is any ground for apprehension that this question will be mixed up with party politics. Indeed, it seems to me that the question for or against the old constitution, can not be made a party question. It will be something like the school law. Both parties, it appears to me, will be afraid to touch it; and thus it will be left to stand aloof. It may, to be sure, be said that one party will be in favor of the amendments and another party against them, in the different counties. But suppose that this should be so. What is the odds? Will it not still be a question for the public voice to decide? And does it follow, because it is a party question, that therefore the public voice will not be fairly expressed upon it. I would like to know what the governor is to gain, or what the governor is to lose by it. No one can say who will gain, or who will lose by it. I engage that Governor Ritner can fight out this thing with as much ingenuity as any thing else. I think the people are just as competent to decide at one time as at another. I can not see that it is worth our while to debate the matter. At first I thought that the second Tuesday of October should be the day. Then I felt inclined to favor a day in May or June; but against this latter opinion, I put the consideration that a considerable additional expense must be incurred by the commonwealth.

Mr. PURVIANCE, of Butler said:

At

We have had this morning no less than three reports made on the subject of the classification of the judges. I am satisfied that the discussion of them will occupy nearly the whole of the balance of our session. all events, the consideration of them, coupled to the third reading, will consume all our time; and inasmuch as I believe that, in their own minds,