all that might hereafter lay in my power to abolish these odious distinctions.

And now, Mr. Chairman, to speak of the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, and the amendment to the amendment, as proposed by the gentleman from the county of Susquehanna.

At the first blush, I doubted the propriety of an amendment to the constitution in respect to the school system. I thought we were about to go too much into detail, and I thought that the words "at the public expense," which are made use of in the report of the committee, had beiter he left out. I am still of that opinion-and I also think it is better to say nothing about who shall be provided for, over and above the children of the community. It is better not to regard any thing that makes a distinction as to the children of English, and children of German parents. Those who are the friends of toleration, in the broadest sense of that term, will be ready, as it seems to me, to extend to every parent throughout the commonwealth, the privilege of having his children taught in the manner which he may think proper, without placing in the fundamental law of the land, a provision declaring that there shall be English or German schools established in the commonwealth. Nor is there any advantage to be gained by such a provision. Establish your common schools in every part of the state; let there be places of public instruction for common school education-let there be academies and universities established, and allow all children, whatever their nation or parantage may be, to go to school, without naming them in the fundamental law of the land.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, no part of our population can desire more than to have the privilege of sending their children to be taught in these public institutions, in such a manner as they may suppose will best prepare them for the active business transactions of life. What more can be desired?

Why, then, establish your common schools, and select for their management the best masters that can be procured, in whatever language may happen to be. If the parties should not be satisfied with the arrangement, they will keep away their children.

it

In reference to the reasons assigned by the gentlaman from the county of Crawford, (Mr. Saeger) why he was induced to prefer the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, I will say that there must have been some mistake made under the act of 1834, or that the difficulty of which he speaks, need not have arisen. It is well known to those who are in any degree familiar with these matters, that it is the business of the directors of the common schools, to provide for the instruction of the children in the English and German language; and if the gentleman had applied to the superintendent of common schools in the county in which he resides, as to whether the schools should be taught in German or English, the gentleman would have received for answer, that if the majority of the people of that district required that the German language should be taught, it ought to be so. The minority, in this, as in other matters, should submit to the majority. If you can employ men that are competent to teach both the languages, then both can be taught at the same time. This, I believe, is the practice in

every district in the state. In the county in which I reside, it has been the practice to employ persons who were qualified to give instructions in both languages, so that all the children of persons who are contributors to the public expense, may be taught in either language. Sometimes, indeed, it turns out that men can not be found who are com petent to teach both languages, but, in such a case, we must do the best

we can.

Now, under the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, would our people be in any better condition than they were before? Can any thing better be done, than to declare that the legisla ture shall provide for the instruction of the youth of the community! What more can we do? If no teachers can be found, who are competent to give instruction in both languages, the legislature cannot be made responsible for that; but the directors of the common schools, having in view, as we are bound to believe, only the public good, and the good of the rising generation-these directors, I say, elected as they are by the people themselves, will feel themselves as much bounden to represent the will of their constituents, as we do in this body. Every man knows the fact that the directors have to conduct themselves in such a manner as to secure the approbation of the people, and we cannot expect that any thing more than this will be accomplished by any provision which we may place in the constitution. The majority will rule, and it is right and proper they should, whether in a district, county, or a state. And, this being the case, I can not see that there is any imperious necessity to incorporate into our constitution, any provision indicative of an impression on our part, that there are two different races of men in our commonwealth.

The remarks of the gentleman from the county of Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop) it seems to me, are inappropriate. Every man who has been educated, knows the advantages of the blessings which are to be derived from education. I shall not, therefore, detain the committee by an exhi bition of the advantages which educated men, women or children, possess over those who never have had the benefit of any education. I need not turn the attention of this committee to those who have been the advocates of public education in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from the adoption of the constitution of 1790, down to the present time: nor to those patriotic and enlightened gentlemen, who, in the senate, and in the house of representatives of this state, have devoted themselves to this important cause. We all know that it has been the anxious desire of every governor of the commonwealth, and every enlightened man in the senate and house of representatives, that the children should be so instruc ted as to leave no room for any advantage to be taken of their igno

rance.

Upon this subject, in the frame of government given by William Penn, in the year 1682, and under which the provisional council was constituted, he makes the following provision: Among other classifications, there was to be a committee of twenty-four members, who should constitute "a committee of manners, education and arts, that all wicked and scandalous living may be prevented, and that youth may be successfully trained up in virtue, and useful knowledge and arts." (See sec. 18 of Wm. Penn's frame of government, 1682.)

And, in the constitution of 1776, we find, in section 44, the following provision:

"A school, or schools, shall be established in each county, by the legislature, for the convenient instruction of youth, with such salaries to the masters, paid by the public, as may enable them to instruct youth at low prices; and all useful learning shall be duly encouraged and promoted in one or more universities."

Then comes the provision in the existing constitution of 1790, and which it is desired now to amend. It reads as follows:

"The legislature shall, as soon as conveniently may be, provide, by law, for the establishment of schools throughout the state, in such manner that the poor may be taught gratis.".

So we find, contiuued Mr. B. that all the public men who have regarded the welfare of the people of this commonwealth, have been anxious upon this subject of education. For my own part, I should prefer the proposition of the gentleman from the county of Susquehanna, to that of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, because I believe that the latter amendment goes too much into detail; much more so than I suppose is either necessary or expedient.

The amendment to the amendment, (Mr. Read's) seems to me to indicate as much as possible, what is most desired in reference, generally, to the subject of education. It says simply, "that the legislature shall provide by law for the education of all the children and youth of this commonwealth."

Now, continued Mr. B. I regard this word " education," as better than the words "common schools;" and I think that the language of the amendment to the amendment, is better adapted to indicate what is clearly the intention of any amendment which may be made to the present provision. I prefer it, therefore, though it is not exactly what I could desire it to be. I shall not bring my own project forward just now, and I shall vote for the amendment. If that should not be agreed to, then it is probable that the division indicated by the gentleman from the county of Franklin, may be reached. If that can not be done, probably some modification of the report of the committee may be agreed to, which will answer every purpose.

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, thought it quite evident that the discussion could not be brought to a close this evening. He conceived that if all the amendments now before the committee, were at once laid on the table, and ordered to be printed, the committee would be better prepared to discuss the merits of them to-morrow morning. With that view he would move that the committee do now rise.

A division being demanded, there appeared, Yeas 54. counted.

Noes not

The committee then rose, reported progress, and asked, and obtained, leave to sit again to-morrow.

The convention adjourned.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1837.

Mr. SERRILL presented a petition from citizens of Delaware county, praying that no constitutional provision may be made in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, than that already provided by law.

Mr. DILLINGER presented a petition from citizens of Lehigh county, praying that a constitutional provision may be made for conducting the proceedings of courts of justice in German counties in the German language.

Which were laid on the table.

Mr. EARLE submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table for future consideration.

Resolved, That the committee on accounts be directed to inquire and report on or before the 16th instant, whether any measures can be properly taken for diminishing the expenses of the Convention and accelerating the completion of its business.

Mr. CRAWFORD, of Westmoreland, moved that the Convention proceed to the second reading and consideration of the following resolution offered by him on the 6th instant.

Resolved, That the following additional rule be adopted: That no delegate shall speak more than one hour on the same question, either in committee of the whole or in Convention, without leave of all the delegates present.

Mr. CURLL, of Armstrong, asked for the yeas and nays on this ques tion, and they were ordered.

Mr. DUNLOP moved to amend by stiking out the word "speak," and inserting in lieu thereof the word "eat."

The CHAIR said it was not in order to make any amendment at this

time.

Mr. DUNLOP. I presume it will be in order about dinner time.

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

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Barndollar, Bedford, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Cleavinger, Cochran, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darrah, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donagan, Earle, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Hays, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, High, Houpt, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Mann, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Nevin, Overfield, Pollock, Purviance, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, Smyth, Snively, Stevens, Taggart, Todd, Weaver-69.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barclay, Barnitz, Biddle, Bonham, Carey, Chandler, of Philadephila, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Cline, Coates, CopeCox, Denny, Dickey, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Grenell, Helffenstein, Hiester, Hopkinson, Hyde, Jenks, Long, Maclay, Martin, M'Cahen, Meredith, Merrill, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Riter Royer, Serrill, Sill, Sturdevant, Thomas, Weidman, White, Woodward, Young, Chambers, President pro tem-49.

The resolution being under consideration,

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia county, moved to ainend the same by striking therefrom all after the word "of" in the third line, where it occurs the second time, and inserting in lieu thereof, the words, "the delegate from Westmoreland."

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, expressed his hope, that attempts would not be made to turn this proposition into ridicule. If the word "all" were stricken out, and the words "two-thirds" inserted in lieu thereof, it would be better. Some gentlemen had said this was an attempt to gag the body; but he thought it a much greater gag when a single speaker occupied the floor for five hours at a time, to the utter discouragement of all others. The committee had become tired of this. Any gentleman could reach the point of his argument in an hour. It had become necessary that something like this should be adopted. All thought it would be proper. He knew several gentlemen who wished to speak. This he had heard in the course of conversation. On two thirds of the body giving leave, any gentleman might continue to speak beyond an hour. The business. of the Convention had been greatly retarded by long speeches and this resolution, if adopted, would prevent the necessity of applying the gag, There are some, also, had not yet spoken-gentlemen of sound views, and they would not be heard at all, without some such restriction. He wished the Convention would vote down this amendment.

Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia county, said, he would oppose the proposition, because, it was an abridgment of the right of speech. It was said that some gentlemen had spoken five hours, and it was hard after them, that others could not get an opportunity to be heard. His friend from Fayette, however, had had ample apportunity, and he was one who could compress his views into a small compass. I (said Mr. M'C) never expect to be able to occupy the committee for an hour; but I should be sorry that others, who are able, may not have the opportunity. Some gentlemen were afflicted with the tooth ache, and would be likely to refuse their consent that a gentleman should proceed, when all the others might be willing to give back, and thus a gentleman might be prevented from finishing his remarks.

Mr. MANN, of Montgomery, was in favor of the resolution, with the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Fayette. He had seen the good effects produced by similar resolutions in other public bodies. He did not desire to cramp any man who was making a speech of only reasonable length. He would be always willing to hear such speeches. But when a mass of irrelevant matter was introduced, he wished them to condense their remarks. For his part he never liked to have more preface than history. He would be willing to make the term still shorter. He hoped the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia county would be rejected, as it was calculated to bring the resolution into ridicule without reason. He would therefore, wish to reject the amendment, and to adopt the one which was suggested by the gentleman from Fayette.

Mr. RITER, of Philadelphia county, moved that the amendment, together with the resolutions be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. EARLE asked for the yeas and nays on this question, and they were ordered.