the wishes and the interests of the people, as these wishes and interests, might, from time to time, be developed, would answer every essential purpose. The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, by referring to the journals of the house of representatives of that time, will find that the proposition which he now offers, was then acted upon and voted down by the house. He will have no difficulty in satisfying his own mind as to that fact.

I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, to strike out the term in relation to the poor; the term is no longer applicable. There is no necessity that any thing should be introduced in reference to the poor, which will appear to treat them as a distinct cla-s of people. I repeat my opinion, that the proposition of the gentleman from the county of Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) will answer every desirable object; and I think it goes quite far enough. But, at the same time, I will not vote against the amendment of the delegate from the county of Philadelphia, if it should be the desire of the German counties, that such a proposition should be adopted; but I do not think, so far as I have any knowledge of the matter, that they do desire it, and, for the simple reason that they know they have the privilege of receiving instructions in the German language, if they desire it. And, acting upon that principle with which we have set out, that no innovation should be made, unless upon good and sufficient reasons first shewn, I hope we shall not make a change. No action on the part of the convention, on this subject, has been called for by the people.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, said, that he presumed this whole question had been opened for the purpose of obtaining the views of the members of the convention. He concurred in the opinion which the gentleman from the county of Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) had expressed, that, in any thing they might do in this matter, if they expected to move effectually, it would be necessary that they should move cautiously. A rash act on the part of this convention, might place the whole system in jeopardy, and might do more injury than would counterbalance the good which had already been accomplished.

I do not think, continued Mr. B., that the proposition of my colleague, to insert a provision in reference to instruction in the German language as well as in the English, would be required even by the inhabitants of the German counties themselves. I do not think that we are called upon to act in reference to these matters of detail. I do not think that it falls within the proper scope of the duties which we are here to perform, to say, by a constitutional provision, whether the German language shall be perpetuated or not, with a view to keep up among us a distinct and separate people. This question has already been discussed in the legislature, and, to their hands, I would commit it. The report which was adopted yesterday, leaves it to the legislature to instruct the children of the commonwealth, either in English, German, French, or any other language; and I think we shall do nothing wrong in leaving the subject to be acted on by the legislature in this particular. I shall, therefore, go against the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia.

But there is also another ground on which I shall oppose it. I do not like the introduction of the period of three months. If it be intended to

educate the children more than three months, the words are of no use; and if for three months only, it will not have a salutary effect. For such a term they would not be able to get teachers adequate to the task. If you do no more than this, it is nothing-probably worse than nothing. We think the proposition for three months, and also the proposition as to the two languages, are both injurious, and that they will not answer the public expectation. I object to the amendment also, if for no other reason than that the word "common," is introduced. I do not exactly compre hend the term-and a construction may be given to it hereafter, which we never contemplated. I think we shall have done all that we are required to do, when we leave it to the legislature to establish such schools as they think the public good may, from time to time, require, and as the public voice, from time to time, will sanction.

If the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania were desirous to establish common schools, for the purpose of educating children, at the public expense, they would doubtless call upon the legislature to legislate in reference to that object. In a few years hence, probably, the public sentiment would have changed, and the people be disposed to disseminate education throughout the different counties and districts of the state. through the agency of what are denominated the " higher schools," instead of by the medium of common schools. The public voice would, before any very great lapse of time, in all probability, require this change. He should, therefore, place no barrier against having their wishes carried fully into effect. His intention was, not to vote for placing any thing in the constitution which should operate as a restriction upon the action of the legislature. He felt particularly anxious to leave it free and unshackled to be influenced only by the public judgment. He knew of no restriction that could be imposed on the legislature, which would prevent their doing good, and they could not do wrong on a subject of this character. He would repeat, what he had already said, that the convention would do wisely to leave the matter free to legislative action. They should strike out that obnoxious feature contained in the article that the "poor" shall be taught gratis. His desire was to retain the report of the committee, unless stronger reasons could be given for a change. The reason that induced him to vote for a reconsideration was, because he wished to hear what could be said in favor of it.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, observed that, when last up, he had attempted to explain the objections which he entertained to the amend 'ment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll) as others had done before him. It was not his intention to occupy any more of the time of the committee, as he felt convinced that the objections to it would be found to be quite insurmountable. His (Mr. R's.) object was to catch the attention of the members of the committee, who reported the amendmeut and to ask them whether the one which he had offered, did not provide for every substantial object they desired, at the same time that it was clear from the objections to which theirs was subject. He wished to call their attention to three objections which might be made to the report.

The first was, that they had inserted these words, which might be proper enough in the old constitution, at the time it was adopted-" as soon as conveniently may be." That time, however, had already passed away,

and the schools were now in operation; therefore, no necessity existed at present for vesting any discretion in the legislature, as to when schools were to be established throughout the commonwealth. All this, then, was certainly surplusage in the report of the committee. His (Mr. R's) amendment differed from the others in this respect, that it makes it imperative on the legislature immediately, and at all times, to provide for the education of youth throughout the commonwealth.

Secondly-his amendment seemed to avoid what appeared to be ambiguous in that of the committee; and it certainly was advisable to eschew ambiguity as much as possible. The words of the amendment to which he objected, were these: " All children may be taught at public expense." Now, these words-" public expense." were unquestionably susceptible of more than one construction; and if they should be retained, the consequence would be, that in those portions of the state where the people are most repugnant to the school system, they would, in all probability, draw a construction implying that the sun total of the expense of supporting these schools throughout the state of Pennsylvania, is to come out of the state treasury. Now, he could not suppose the committee intended that the section should bear this construction. He would, however, ask the members of the committee, whether this was not an easy and natural construction for them to draw? He desired to know from those who were in favor of sustaining the report, what effect it would have in promoting the cause of education? He asked if those who were opposed to the whole system, would not-if this objectionable phrase should be retained-be prejudiced against all our amendments to the constitution? He thought they would. To his mind the phrase was ambiguous, and ought not to be retained. It had been found necessary in all the states where the system of public schools had been introduced, to defray a portion of the expenses incurred in their support out of the public treasury, and for the legislature to hold out inducements to the people to raise voluntary contributions on behalf of these schools. Even in those states of the Union, where it was admitted they possessed the best systems, only one-eighth, one-tenth, or one-eleventh, is paid out of the public treasury. If, then, the committee should retain the objectionable phrase, what would be the construction that the people would put upon it? Why, that the legislature would provide for the payment of the whole expenses out of the state treasury, and discourage voluntary subscriptions in aid of the system.

Now, would not this convention, by adopting this language, impose a restriction on the legislature? The third objection which was entertained, was to the word "common." This word appeared to him to be perfectly applicable and correct, although it did not seem to be understood by some gentlemen. This was used in this amendment, as also in all the late acts of assembly of different states, where, it seemed, they thought "common" a better word than “public."

It meant simply this: schools which are common to the whole people of the commonwealth-to the high and the low, the white and the black; in fact, all descriptions of people in the state. Some gentleman had requested him to modify his amendment by striking out the word "common." If it was insisted on, he would do so, though he conceived it was much

1

better as it stood now, inasmuch as it embraced all descriptions of the people. In his opinion, it would be much better to let the amendment stand as it now did.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, said he could not agree to adopt the amendment of the delegate from Susquehanna, in preference to the report of the committee. He thought that the objections which the gentleman had urged, as to the report being ambiguous, were founded entirely in error. He entertained no doubt that, on a careful examination of the report, of that portion of it which the delegate considered ambig. uous, had never until now, been deemed so. Indeed, it formed a portion of the constitution of 1790.

The gentleman, in the remarks that he had made in favor of his own amendment, even went so far as to admit that it was full of ambiguity, and he had risen to show how he would evade it. He imagined that if there was any ambiguity in either of the amendments, it was in that of the delegate from Susquehanna, particularly in reference to the word "common," for which he had so strenuously contended. He (Mr. M.) regarded those as primary schools, where children were sent to learn a, b, c, or ab, eb, &c. He conceived that the delegate had entirely failed to shew that there was any ambiguity in the report,—or, in the constitu tion of 1790, which was in the same language. And, he had proved the fact himself, by acknowledging that a different construction might be given to the words "common schools." His (Mr. M's) objection was to the word "common," and there was established, as had already been remarked, in the first school district, not only common schools, but a high school.

Now, if the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna should prevail, and it should hereafter be the desire of the legislature to establish high schools, in order that all classes of the community might obtain an education, they would consequently be prevented from carrying their wishes into effect. He had already objected, and did now, to saddling the report with what were called amendments. If the delegate from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) had succeeded in showing what he proposed, to be an amendment, he (Mr. Martin) would have voted for it. But, the gentleman had done no such thing, any more than he had made it appear that there was ambiguity in the report. It was here that he had said the report of the committee was like the constitution of 1790, in the language there made use of relative to the establishment of schools throughout the state, and that, although the sentence might be proper enough forty-seven years ago, it was now unnecessary. Why, he (Mr. M.) inquired, was it not necessary at this time? Were there not schools yet to be established-and could they be established at once? Were there funds sufficient? Had the members of the legislature the means immediately at command for that purpose? No. He preferred the report of the committee, containing, as it did, the language of the consti tution of 1790—“the legislature shall, as soon as conveniently may be," &c. to the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna. He (Mr. M.) trusted that the constitution would be so amended, as to provide that the legislature shall, as soon as conveniently may be, and find practicable, establish schools-not "common schools," but primary or infant schools, or such other schools as are deemed best calculated to carry out a good system of education.

He would now repeat again, that he could not vote for the amendment to the amendment; and he hoped, that those delegates who desired to amend the report of the committee, would take care to satisfy themselves perfectly that there was a defect in the report, before they gave their vote for the amendment proposed.

The delegate from Susquehanna, as he had before stated, had not shewn that there existed any error in the report. Indeed, he admitted with hima (Mr Martin) that his whole objection to the seventh article of the constitution of 1790, was founded on a wrong expression incorporated in it, viz: "the poor may be taught gratis." He went thus far with the delegate, but he could go no farther. The gentleman had proceeded farther with his objections, and contended that it was unnecessay to retain the words "as soon as conveniently may be."

Now, as he (Mr. M.) had already remarked, there ought not to be any departure from the constitution of 1790, unless very sufficient and substantial reasons could be shown to justify that course. He (Mr. M.) and others had examined into the subject, and were perfectly satisfied that there was no defect in this report. He trusted that delegates would be satisfied with the report of the committee, and would vote for it, against the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna.

Mr. SAEGER, of Crawford, observed that he had not yet troubled the committee with any speeches; but, inasmuch as the subject before them at this time was one in which he and his constituents took lively interest, be felt it to be imperative on him to say a few words in reference to it.

Some gentlemen had insinuated, and others had argued, that it was unnecessary to insert the word "German" in the article now under consideration. He hoped, however, to be able to convince the members of this committee, before he should have concluded what little he had to say, that this assumption was entirely destitute of foundation, and that it was absolutely necessary to insert the word in the constitution of Pennsylvania. He would state one fact, and which, he thought all would concede, went very far to prove the position he maintained.

In the section of the country in which he lived, one-fifth of the population consisted of Germans; and under the present school law, it had been a mooted question between the directors and the Germans, whether the latter could open German schools. The directors gave it as their opinion that under the existing law, they did not possess the power to act in conformity with the wishes of that class of our citizens. Therefore, no school had been opened there; and the same state of things had occurred in other parts of the state. He had been informed by delegates who came from different portions of the commonwealth, that the Germans there bote nearly a like numerical proportion to the rest of the population, and that they had been denied the same privilege which his constituents had sought in vain. Why, he would ask, should the German population be compelled by law, to contribute towards the sup port of common schools, in which they had no direct interest, and at the same time be deprived themselves of the advantages which they would otherwise reap, if an education, in the German language, was extended to