exercise of that authority which was reserved to all the States respectively by the Constitution of the United States? Did we want to do more than that? He would ask if there was any exigency, any emergency which called for the exercise of authority on the part of a State, as a State right, and which might be a questionable matter, as related to the Constitution of the United States? All that was required to be done, was already done by the Constitution. That Constitution (continued Mr. C.) provides that "the freemen of this Commonwealth shall be armed and disciplined for its defence. Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service.” And, sir, it further declares that "the militia officers shall be appointed in such manner and for such time as shall be directed by law."

Let us then, sir, for a single moment, look at what are supposed to be the three propositions now before the committee as amendments to this provision in the Constitution. What says the committee?

"The freemen of this Commonwealth shall be armed, organized, and disciplined for its defence, when, and in such manner as the Legislature may hereafter by law direct, &c."

He (Mr Chauncey) would ask, if there existed any necessity for an alteration of the Constitution, for the purpose merely of introducing a change in the phraseology of the provision. The Constitution, as it now stood provided that the appointment of the officers should be as the law directs. He could see no good reason whatever for the proposed change. It could not be regarded as an amendment to the Constitution. What was the amendment of the chairman of the committee? The effect of it was to strike out the word "freemen," and to say that the citizens of the Commonwealth shall be enrolled, and in case of threatened invasion, or insurrection, shall be armed and disciplined for its defence. Did this relieve us from any supposed difficulty in the case? Who did the framers of the Constitution say were to be the judges of the exigency that should call for the exercise of that power? Surely the Legislature. And, who were to be the judges under the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna? Why, the Legislature. Then, there was nothing presented here in the shape of an amendment. We stand on the same ground. The power of a State could only be exercised by its legislative authority, and they knew best the time when it should be exercised. Would gen tlemen go so far as to say that the Legislature ought not to be judges of our being threatened with an invasion, or insurrection? That was a time when the judgment of the Legislature should be exercised; and surely, under the existing Constitution, in precisely the same circumstances, and in the same contingency, must that judgment be had. He declared that he could see nothing in the proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna which made an amendment to the Constitution. The amendment of the gentleman from Fayette (Mr. Fuller) was in these terms: "The freemen of this Commonwealth shall be enrolled and organized, to be armed and disciplined for its defence, as may be directed by law." Let us analyze this amendment. Did the mover of it mean that the freemen of this Commonwealth should be enrolled and organized, and be armed and disciplined for its defence, as may be directed by law? Because, if he did, ample provision was already made in the Constitution. Did he

enactment of the Legislature was indispensably necessary and afterwards, the judgment of the Legislature should be exercised as to the mode and manner in which they should be disciplined for its defence. Now, the mover of the amendment should bear in mind that inasmuch as this power was given to the Legislature by the Constitution, that very circumstance left them the right of exercising their judgment as to when a contingency should arise for calling out the militia, which was the object of the gentleman's amendment. Did the gentleman from Fayette mean that we should go beyond the terms of the provision contained in the Constitution of the United States, relative to arming and disciplining the militia? Did he wish to designate the exigency when the power should be exercised? Let the gentleman remember that Congress was to do that. We had examined our own Constitution, and seen that the framers of it had acted in perfect unison with the framers of the Constitution of the United States. There was, then, danger in departing from the proper authority -the Constitution of the United States. He had said nothing in relation to that part of the section reported by the committee, which related to the conscientious scruples of some of our citizens. He thought that there would be an opportunity hereafter for the further consideration of that subject:-he meant when the report of the committee, which proposed the introduction of an article into the Bill of Rights, should come up. He hoped, then, to be favored with an opportunity of showing that it was founded upon a proper basis-one unquestionably right, so far as it related not only to an exemption of those who entertained conscientious scruples against bearing arms, but also, to inflicting upon them a penalty for enjoying the rights of conscience. These were the reasons which induced him to vote against the amendment.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said he perfectly concurred with the gentleman on his right, (Mr. Chauncey) that the provision in the present Constitution was all-sufficient in regard to organizing and disciplining the militia of the Commonwealth. But, in consequence of the suggestions of many of the members of the Convention, as well as citizens, he had been induced to offer his amendment, making a little change in the phraseology of the section. The Legislature alleged that they were not at liberty to abolish militia trainings, so much complained of by a large portion of our citizens. They said that they were constitutionally compelled to require them. In order to relieve and untie the hands of the Legislature, he desired to insert the word "when." He confessed that he was willing to adopt the provision in the old Constitution. He was not willing to leave the Legislature untied as to organizing the militia; but desired to leave them at liberty in this respect. He thought that the speech of the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Chandler) went to prove, most conclusively, the necessity of keeping up the militia system. With regard to the amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read,) his opinion was that it would meet the views of those gentlemen who desired to untie the hands of the Legislature, and not make it obligatory upon them to have the militia enrolled and disciplined. If he (Mr. F.) understood the language of the existing provision, it contained two separate and distinct ideas-the one obligatory, and the other could be dispensed with by the Legislature. As to the objections suggested by the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Biddle) in regard to the

the several companies of the militia were mustered into the service of the United States, the captain might be drafted, or not, as was thought proper. This was a matter to be regulated by a law of the States. The Constitution might be so amended as to provide that the person drafted should be elected captain. His view of the matter was that every citizen should retain the character of a citizen soldier.

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, remarked, that if the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) could be amended by striking the words "to be" out of the sentence "armed and disciplined by law," he would have no objection to it; but, if not, he should feel himself compelled to vote against it.

Mr. BIDDLE asked for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr FULLER accepted the modification to strike out the words "to be."

Mr. MEREDITH, of the city, would briefly state the grounds of his objections to the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller.) His intention was to give his vote against the amendment to the amendment, and also against the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read,) and he would vote, finally, in favor of the amendments reported by the committee. The experience of the last few days had taught us, that the moment we departed from principle, we were involved in intricacy, and found it almost impossible to reconcile the various conflicting opinions which prevailed on the subjects brought under consid eration. There was, however, one subject, upon which members generally seemed to agree even his friend from the city, (Mr. Biddle,) appeared to admit that there should be some discretion left to be exercised by the Legislature in respect to this important matter. His colleague, (Mr. Chauncey,) who last addressed the committee, conceded, as he also believed had almost every gentleman who had spoken, that it should be left ultimately to the discretion of the Legislature. He found only an agreement, a unity of opinion as to the principle, distinctly laid down in the report of the committee, but a division of sentiment as regarded the details. Some of his friends seemed to think that the present mode of training the militia led to the cultivation of a spirit to bear arms. Here he must beg leave to dissent from that opinion. Indeed, in his humble judgment, it turned into ridicule the profession of bearing arms. His collegue, (Mr. Scott,) seemed to imagine that the principle with respect to this matter, might ultimately be carried out as in reference to common schools. He, (Mr. Meredith,) wished that he could agree with him. We knew that time was necessary to ensure military discipline; and that in a time of profound peace an opportunity presented itself of disciplining men for the field, which did not occur in a time of war. As to the conscientious scruples entertained by some men relative to bearing arms-that was a matter which he preferred should be left to the discretion of the Legislature. In his opinion, therefore, it would be better to have no provision in the Constitution, on the subject. He thought, then, as had been already suggested by the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Chauncey,) that the question should not be touched until the Bill of Rights came up for consideration. And if, at that time, it should be discovered that there was a decided majority in

would abandon his grounds of objection, provided a step were gained by it. He could not take the old Constitution for the reason assigned by his highly respected and venerable colleague, who thought that the instrument as it now stood, left a discretion. He, (Mr. M.) was not prepared to say that the language of the Constitution bore out the argument contended for by the gentleman; nor, would he maintain that it contained all that was necessary to give the Legislature discretion. The question had never been raised in Pennsylvania, whether the Constitution which called imperatively for the arming and disciplining of the militia, did not bind the Legislature to have that carried into execution, as well in a time of peace as of war. In his opinion, it did not. If his construction of the Constitution was wrong, or if there was any doubt as to its meaning, he would be willing to vote for having it so altered as to leave the matter of arming and disciplining the militia to the discretion of the Legislature. And, he would do so, because he felt impressed with the belief that the Convention desired the insertion of such a clause in the Constitution as would prevent all doubt on the subject for the future. He believed the Constitution perfectly intelligible as it now stood that it contained a simple principle, leaving it to the discretion of the Legislature to say when the militia shall be armed and disciplined, and to point out the manner, and fix the time for which they shall serve. This he thought, would be as safe a mode as any that could be adopted. It was probable that many more amendments might be proposed, be sides those at present under consideration, and that much more discussion might be elicited. However, the subject was one of great importance, and involved considerable difficulty, and therefore, was deserving of all the attention that the committee could bestow upon it. For his own part, he thought the better course to adopt, was to fix the principle only, and leave the details to the disposition and management of the Legislature. He would vote against the amendment to the amendment, and also the amendment, and in favor of the report of the committee, as amended.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, modified his motion by reinstating the words "to be," which he had moved to strike out.

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, remarked that it must be obvious to every member that ever since the commencement of the session, there had existed among gentlemen a considerable degree of franknesss and cordiality, and that there had been, on this question, a good deal of profitable debate. He entertained no doubt that, in the course of the afternoon, or the evening, some means would be devised by gentlemen, to dispose of the subject under consideration, as speedily as possible. With this view, then, he would move that the committee rise to meet again to-morrow morning, when doubtless something would be effected.

Mr. MEREDITH, of the city, hoped he did not understand the gentleman as signifying that there had been too much debate. Mr. INGERSOLL. Not at all. Certainly not.

The question being taken on the committee rising,

A division was demanded-yeas 57-nays not counted.

The committee then rose, and the Convention adjourned till to-morrow

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Chambers in the chair, for the purpose of considering the report of the committee on the 6th article.

The question pending being on the motion of Mr. FULLER, to amend the amendment offered by Mr. READ, by striking therefrom all after the word "the," in the first line, and inserting in lieu thereof the words following, viz: "Freemen of this Commonwealth shall be enrolled and organized, to be armed and disciplined as may be directed by law."

Mr. INGERSOLL said he would not have risen to take a part in this debate, if he did not flatter himself that he could throw a little light on the subject, in the present temper of the Convention. He could go to bed, and rise with thankfulness, that none of that party feeling which the former session had originated, remained in his breast. He would say that less good than ill had been said of the Convention, and in many cases, its individual, as well as its general character, had been implicated. He desired now to take up a few minutes, a very few minutes, and he would pledge himself not to go beyond that limit, and he would not have done this, if he did not feel that this was a subject of vital importance. One or two views which struck his mind with great force, and which had not been touched, he was anxious to present to the committee. With the feeling of an elder he rose, not with the wisdom of one-for many of the junior members of the Convention, disgusted with the folly of the exhibitions, would discontinue the whole of the militia system; while two of the elder gentlemen in his eye-one with the gold spectacles, and the other with the silver ones, and he knew no better way to designate them, doing it, as he did, with the most perfect respect - had spoken in favor of the system, as he intended himself to do. Let us not (said Mr. I.) be discouraged by the want of proper laws, or of a proper spirit in the people to carry those laws into effect. He felt himself standing on cardinal principles, when on the foundations of self-defence, and liberty of conscience. Many gentlemen had come to the Convention impressed with the importance of the judicial office, which he could not see to have been greatly overrated. He had nis own opinions on this subject. Executive patronage was regarded by many others as a question of great importance, and some attached as much importance to that of the legislative power. There was also the subject of corporations, on which he had very innocently brought himself into trouble. But what were all these, to the great question involved in this section. So highly did he regard it, that he could not be able to excuse himself, if he did not say a single word. What is a militia? It meant neither more nor less than armed people. He did not intend to speak lightly of our holy religion, when he said that the right of conscience, which has been called an imperfect right, or the right to be exempted from