in any capacity in it, either directly or indirectly; but I am personally acquainted with very valuable men who have been engaged in those things, who have neither been hurt themselves, nor hurt others, and who are now as correct in their conduct and principles, as any other citizens in the Commonwealth. Would you punish them? Would you place this eternal stigma upon them, and exclude them from office? Do you believe that you can carry public sentiment with you in such a cause? The very last President of the United States, as is notorious to every body, killed another man in a duel. Is not this the fact? And had it ever been a bar to the success of men at elections, that they had ever fought a duel, or had carried a challenge from one man to another? Can you make it so? How will you set about it? But again, if you adopt this provision in your Constitution, the power which you thus create will be irregular. If you could so arrange it as to apply invariably in all cases, it would be free from the objections which I am now about to state. But its operation will be irregular, casual, and must depend on there being a person who is willing to turn informer. Let us look at a case for a moment. Suppose that a gentleman, duly elected by the people, comes here to the Legislature, and goes up to take the oath. The Speaker administers it. No difficulty is raised; not even an inquiry is made. But a contested election comes, in which angry passions are excited, and there is a disposition manifested to prevent his success; and then, for the first time, some old thing of this sort is summoned up against him, as a bar to his holding the office. Such will be the operation of this provision, and it is for this reason I have said that it would be irregular and casual. The law will not be regularly enforced. If such a measure were proposed to be adopted by the Legislature, there would be less objection to it; because the subject would at all times be left open for action, and thus successive Legislatures could alter, repeal, or modify the law, so as to adapt it to particular exigencies, or the general condition of the times. But this provision is to be engrafted on the Constitution of the land, beyond the control of the Legislature, or any other power. I am not willing, Mr. Chairman, to carry the matter to this extent. It appears to me to be carrying punishment altogether too far, if it was applied in all cases; although I do not deny that there may be cases in which it might be proper to apply it Those instances, however, are but few in number. They occur very seldom; not often enough, in my judgment, to justify such a very rigorous measure as this. At all events, if it is determined that the provision shall be introduced into our Constitution, I hope that it will not be unconnected with a power, lodged somewhere or other, to take into consideration the particular circumstances of the case, so as to remit the punishment, if the circumstances should be found such as to justify the remission.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union county, said that, as the question had once been decided, he would suggest to the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) whether it would not be better to desist from pressing it any farther at the present moment.

The amendment, as it now stood, asked, in substance, that the committee of the whole would overrule its decision made about a half an hour ago. It would be much better, in his opinion, that the subject should be suffered to lie over, until it should come up on its second reading in

standing about it, and thus much time might be saved, and the inconsistency of acting twice on the same question, within the space of one day's session, might also be avoided.

Mr. HOPKINSON said, that he was in favor of the amendment which had been offered by the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter.)

Men were never so much in danger of dong wrong, as when they acted on a right principle; because they felt that the principle was a good one, and they knew not where to stop. It seemed to him that the committee were about to fall into that error now.

No man in this body, Mr. H. felt sure, would offer an apology for the act of duelling; and much less attempt to justify it. But did this furnish any reason why the Convention should go to this excessive length, of having a person who had been engaged in a duel, placed in the same position as a perjurer, or a man who had committed deliberate murder. But even the murderer was not excluded from the merciful action of the law.

It had been well observed, by the President of this Convention, that there were degrees of criminality in the system of duelling. Was it not so? Suppose that a man received a deep wound in his feelings, or was suffering under some deep injury, for which the law gave him no redress; and that he, therefore, threw himself upon the natural right of protection, was that man to be placed on the same platform with the bullying duellist who made it his business to insult, in order that he might destroy? there no difference in the degrees of criminality in the two men? And yet, by this provision, if it should receive the sanction of the Convention, both would be placed on the same footing, and both would be alike excluded from all offices of honor, trust or profit.

Was

Suppose the principle here sought to be introduced were put to the test of application to individuals, the friends of gentlemen, however, any gentleman might vote on this question, there was not a man, he would venture to say, who would carry out the principle, and apply it. If it was a correct principle, why should we not carry it through life, and apply it to every case. But does any man here discard and denounce his friend or relative, as a murderer and assassin, because he has unfortunately been drawn into a duel. Would he hold him to be disgraced on this account, and refuse to have any thing more to do with him? He trusted that the amendment would not be adopted.

Mr. INGERSOLL was very much averse, he said, to taking the floor on this question, and he had sat very patiently under the discussion. But as his attention had been drawn by the able argument of the presiding officer, in which he cordially concurred, and by the remarks of the gentleman near him, to the very extraordinary proposition now before us, he would add a word in relation to it. What were we about to do? We pronounce an offence to be unpardonable. He would appeal to his respectable and religious friends in this house, and especially to the gentleman from Allegheny, whose zealot remarks on this subject had greatly surprized him, to repudiate this barbarity,-for he called it barbarity. We were about to do that which the Almighty has never

lieve that our sins, though they might be as scarlet, could be made white as snow. Was there a man here who would pronounce that General Hamilton or General Jackson could not be pardoned by the Almighty? Let us not countenance such barbarity. The fifteenth century, so much talked about yesterday, could show nothing so bigoted or black as this. Would any one denounce the father of his country, Washington, because, though he was never engaged in a duel himself, he countenanced and encouraged duelling. It was a matter of history, and would not be denied, that, at one time, when there was much ill blood in the army of the revolution, Washington said that was the best way to give it

vent.

There was not a gentleman who had not, in the army or navy, some friend or relation, and did not every one know that a person who there shrunk from personal responsibility, was guilty of unofficerlike and ungentlemanlike conduct, and was liable to be treated accordingly. He would not say any thing in defence of the custom of duelling, but how many illustrious patriots would be condemned under this provision.

As to what had been said by the gentleman from Allegheny about the code of chivalry, it was all a mistake,-an error from one end to the other. He would say not a word about the practice; if gentlemen chose to condemn it, be it so; but, do not let us say that the Executivee shall not have the right of pardon.

Mr. STEVENS said, that those who could not defend the original proposition, now assailed it under the plausible guise of clemency. By mixing with their objections some declamations about mercy, they seek to destroy the whole proposition. This was adroitly done, he confessed; and it was better calculated to lead us from the main argument, than to uphold the pardoning power. If it was not a defence of duelling, it was at least an attempt to screen it from punishment. To this he had called the attention of the committee to prevent their being drawn off. Though he should vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, he could see nothing so cruel in depriving the murderer in cold blood of the chance of pardon. There was not a man in the house who would not say that killing in a duel was murder. True, no laws against it can be carried into effect. The duellist commonly occupies a position in society which screens him from punishment, and the only punishment that we could inflict upon him was to deprive him of the right of holding office, under this Constitution. To deprive men of the honors and emoluments of office, was the only means we had of checking this passion for honorable murder; and by preventing this punishment, the crime was attempted to be encouraged and kept up. There seemed to him to be a false sympathy excited in favor of the fashionable duellist, the gentlemanly felon, which was not extended to crimes in the lower walks of life. There had been one case in which a low fellow, having, in a drunken frolic, sent a challenge, and killed his antagonist, was tried, convicted, and executed for murder; but it was because he was poor. Had he been a gentleman, and drank wine instead of whiskey, the lance of justice would never have pierced his golden mail. Now it was said that we should not reach him in any way; that we should not even take away from him the robes of office. You would put him in office, with his hands imbrued in the blood of

But do not the laws provide for the punishment of crime as an ordinary murder, and has not then the Governor the same power of pardon as in other cases? Will not he ever be fully open to executive clemency? The only thing we propose to do is to deprive him of the right of holding office, and voting; and this is to treat him barbarously and with cruelty. He was surprized to hear such sentiments in this nineteenth century, and in the noon day of christianity.

He had made these remarks in order to put the question in its proper light, but he should vote for the amendment.

Mr. HIESTER said he had introduced this provision as a preventive, and not as a sanguinary act. He could well sympathize with many

who had been coerced into situations of this kind. He had valuable friends who had been engaged in duels, and killed men. Therefore, he could have no sanguinary object in view. Notwithstanding the arguments he had heard, he believed the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton to be a proper one, and he would vote for it.

Mr. FORWARD expressed some surprize to hear such an appeal, such an argument, when perhaps, there was no opposition to the amendment. He thought that nine-tenths would be against taking away this power of mercy from the Executive.

The question was then taken and decided in the affirmative, as follows, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clapp, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Crain Crawford, Crum, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickey, Dillinger, Donagan, Donnell, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Hyde, Ingersoll, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs Lyons, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Smyth, terigere, Stevens, Sturdevant, Taggart, Todd, Weidman, White, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-103.

NAYS-Messrs. Chandler, of Chester, Clarke, of Beaver, Craig, Darlington, Darrah, Dickerson, Dunlop, Harris, Houpt, Maclay, Mann, M'Call, Miller, Thomas-14. Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved to amend the report by inserting between the word "duel" and the word "and," the following words, or shall be guilty of seduction or adultery.”

The CHAIR decided the motion to be not now in order.

On motion of Mr. INGERSOLL, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again; and,

The Convention adjourned.

FRIDAY AFTERNOON, OCTOBER 27.

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 referred the sixth article of the Constitution.

The question being on the amendment moved by Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, to amend the report, by inserting between the word "duel" and the word "and," the following words, viz: "or shall be guilty of seduction and adultery."

Mr. PORTER withdrew the amendment, and moved further to amend the report of the committee, by adding to the end thereof, as follows, viz: and any person guilty of seduction or adultery, shall be subject to the like disabilities."

Mr. KONIGMACHER, of Lancaster, moved to amend the amendment, by adding thereto the words following, viz: "or shall be guilty of having taken or administered secret or extra-judicial oaths."

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the requisite number.

The question being, "Shall the main question be now put?"

Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative, as follows, viz:

YEAS--Messrs. Banks, Barclay, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Clapp, Clarke, of Leaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Dillinger, Farrelly, Foulkrod, Fuller, Gearhart, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Maclay, Mann, Martin, M'Call, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Myers, Nevin, Pennypacker, Purviance, Read, Rogers, Royer, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Sturdevant, Thomas, Weaver, Woodward-62.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barndollar, Bell, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cunningham, Denny, Dickey, Donagan, Donnell, Dunlop, Fleming, Fry, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Helffenstein, Hopkinson, Houpt, Ingersoll, Konigmacher, Lyons, Magee, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Montgomery, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Riter, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Sill, Sterigere, Stevens, Taggart, Todd, Weidman, White, Young, Sergeant, President-54.

The question being on the report of the committee as amended,

Mr. PORTER of Northampton, asked for the yeas and nays, which