posed improper, that may be accommodated to the gentleman's wishes by amendments.

The question, Will the House agree to the postponement? was put, and only nine rose in favor of it. So it was determined in the negative.

Mr. Brackenridge. You will please to recollect, Sir, that when I was up last I observed that one of the arguments of the member from Cumberland might easily be obviated. As that was an improper time to reply to him, I declined doing it; but I mean now to enter on this subject, as I consider it fully before us.

Mr. Whitehill interrupted him with saying he had said nothing against the principles of the proposed plan, but that we were not ready to take it up.

Mr. Brackenridge. The gentleman must suppose me a fool to think I was going into a defence of the principles of the new form of government. No, Sir, that I take to be seated above either the reach of his arguments or information.

It is wholly upon another point I mean to remark. He has said, if I could select what he said, that we ought not to take up the present question nor adopt the resolution until we heard from Congress; and his argument was that this should be left to a future House to complete. Now this I mean to answer, and hope to show perfectly that neither premise or conclusion is well founded. There is also another question which seems to lie at the bottom of his argument, namely, that it is necessary at the same time for the state to wait until an improvement of the congressional government is recommended by Congress. This, Sir, I conceive would be a question lying at the bottom of the subject, which occupies our present consideration. But I have not been able to discover any principle on which an idea of this nature can be founded. What particular right have Congress to recommend an improvement of the federal government? They may recommend, but I should suppose it comes under no part of the authority delegated to them; and therefore that it was going wholly out of the province assigned to them. I should suppose it indelicate for the superior bower to solicit more. We

know they are invested with the power of recommending by the confederation; but who would recommend from that body, that it should be gratified with more extensive power? I should, I say, presume it must come from them, not with the highest degree of delicacy. In the next place, taking it for granted that it should come entirely from them, what is the foundation or what must be the foundation of a recommendation of that nature? Is it because they have become sensible, that the present powers are not sufficient to conduct the affairs of the United States, and that a more vigorous and energetic government became necessary? Who ought to be the best judges of this necessity?—men in Congress reflecting abstractedly, or the body of the people on this continent, feeling and knowing this necessity? I therefore think it would be advisable to be guided in an alteration rather by this maxim than by the other. If a thing, Sir, ought to be done, it is little matter whether it be from the reflection of Congress or the feeling and sensibility of the people; and I own that I always feel a contempt for those languid and trammeled sentiments which move but like a piece of mechanism. And what are the consequences of taking up the subject without waiting the result of Congressional deliberation? We lead the way, and do great honor to ourselves in marking the road to obtain the sense of the people on a subject that is of the greatest moment to them and to their posterity. How did this business first originate? Did Virginia wait the recommendation of Congress? Did Pennsylvania, who followed her in the appointment of delegates, wait the recommendation of Congress? The assembly of New York, when they found they had not the honor of being foremost in the measure, revived the idea of its being necessary to have it recommended by Congress, as an excuse for their tardiness (being the seat of the federal government) -and Congress to humor them complied with their suggestions. How it happened to take effect in the other states I do not positively say; but I am rather inclined to believe it was adopted from the influence of example, rather than from the recommendation of Congress which happened to take place in the interval between the sittings of the legislatures.

But we never heard that it was supposed necessary to wait their recommendations. No such argument was made use of on this floor when the law was passed. The delegates to the convention were appointed without the recommendation of Congress, and they reported the result of their deliberations to this House. What reason then is there for waiting any longer to determine whether it is proper to call a convention to consider of it or not? I don't see for my part what Congress have to do with it; though doubtless I should not object to waiting a few days to hear their opinion. This has been done even until now, which is so near the close of our session as to make a longer delay improper, therefore waiting their recommendation is no argument for prolonging the consideration of the subject before us. But there are certainly strong reasons why we should call up and determine the question, whether a convention should be called or not? The advantages to the state are that it will be to her honor to take the lead in adopting so wise a plan, and it will be an inducement for other states to follow. We no doubt remember the influence the example of Virginia and Pennsylvania had in getting a general delegation appointed, and that example will no doubt as generally be followed in adopting the result, for it is everywhere fully and sensibly felt that an alteration in the federal government is requisite; and I think there can be little hesitation in agreeing to the resolution for calling a convention. As for the day of election, that is but a secondary consideration, and may be determined when it comes before us. We surely shall unanimously agree to the first resolution at this time, for delay would argue a lukewarmness that must be injurious to the cause. Every person who should hear we had the subject ten days before us, and notwithstanding avoided entering upon it, must conclude we are unfriendly to it; and it will be cause of triumph to our enemies, who wait only to see us refuse that government which alone can save us from their machinations.

As it is fully in our power to appoint the mode and manner of calling the convention, I hope gentlemen will turn their thoughts, and say what is the proper time; for if it is

delayed until the next House, it will be some time far advanced into another year, before a convention can sit to ratify the plan of our future government; by which means the force of example would be for delay, and a measure so extremely necessary would be left exposed or perhaps neglected, unless the ardor of our citizens should induce them to do what our timidity would decline. The influence which this state may acquire by decision will be lost, and many of the advantages lessened by an unnecessary delay.

Mr. Findley. I do not intend to reply to the arguments used in favor of the present measure, but only examine the ground on which we stand. When the question was on postponement, I did not think it right that gentlemen should have introduced the observations which they did, nor that the manner of speaking which some used was proper. It was only addressed to the passions, and in my reply I do not mean to justify such language by using what may be similar. No, Sir, I intend to address the judgment, and not the passions of any man. I have no doubt but a convention might be called, and will be called. That it ought to be called, and will be called, is seen so clearly, that I shall add nothing to enforce it; therefore I take it that the propriety of calling a convention is not the question before us. After declaring my sentiments so far, I shall proceed, Sir, now to examine the ground on which we stand: I believe we stand on federal ground; therefore we are not in a state of nature. If we were in a state of nature, all the arguments produced for hastening this business would apply; but as we are not, I would observe that the most deliberate manner of proceeding is the best manner. But the manner in which this subject has been introduced is an indeliberate manner, and seems to argue that we are not on federal ground. The design of carrying this through, I say, Sir, is a presumption that we are in a state of nature. If that is the case, then it can only be proper to use this expedition. What I mean, Sir, by a state of nature is with respect to the confederation or union of the states, and not any wise alluding to our particular state government. Now my opinion is, Sir, that we are on federal ground: that

the federal convention was a federal convention; that it had the powers of a federal convention, and that they were limited to act federally; that they have acted agreeably to the limitation, and have acted federally. I know by some of the arguments which have been used that some gentlemen suppose otherwise. Well then, Sir, we will have recourse to the confederation itself, and then to the law which appointed delegates to the convention, and let them decide whether we are on federal ground or not.

The sixth article of the confederation says: "No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue." It may be said this don't apply. Well, let us examine what it says further in the thirteenth article: "The articles of confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state." Now, did we act in conformity with these articles by passing the law appointing delegates to the convention, or did we not? I say we did. I know the contrary has been said, but let us have recourse to our own act. I don't mean, as I said before, to reply particularly to any arguments, but to establish the point that we have all along acted upon federal principles, and that we ought to continue federal, and I have no doubt but we shall. But what says the preamble of the law? Hear our own words, Sir: "Whereas, the general assembly of this commonwealth, taking into their serious consideration the representations heretofore made to the legislatures of the several states in the union, by the United States in Congress assembled," etc. It has been mentioned that we took it up in consequence of Virginia's having engaged in the measure; and as the reasons are only mentioned in the preamble, they may not deserve much attention, but the second section of the law decides this