each other. Does that violate the constitution, or not? Is the law void, or not? Must the courts pronounce whether the law be constitutional or unconstitutional? If so, they will soon have enough to occupy their sole attention for half a century. But if the courts are not to decide the question, who shall do it? Shall the legislature pronounce upon the acts of its predecessior, and decide whether its acts were constitutional or not?

It really appeared to him not to be taking two wide a view of the matter, to say, that to adopt that section would be to lay the foundation of an unceasing controversy. He was unable to perceive that it could answer any one good purpose. It was a weak provision, indeed, if the legisla ture was corrupt. Nor would it prevent corruption, which could be carried on by so many devices, if the disposition existed. For these reasons, he was opposed to the amendment of the delegate from the county of Philadelphia, and also to that proposed by the gentleman from Union.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, thought that if there was any proposition on which all would unite-which would receive the assent of every member of this body, it would be one to prevent what was commonly termed "log-rolling"-a practice which had distinguished our legislature for many years, and which meant the uniting of dissimilar objects in one law. He could scarcely find language in which to express his utter astonishment and surprise at the opposition offered to the amendment. He had never, either in this convention or out of it, until this day, heard any one advocate the practice. He knew the people to be strongly in favor of an amendment of this character, and that they had, for a long time, felt the want of such a restriction. And, yet the plea was set up here against its introduction, that it would give rise to litigation! He trusted that gentlemen would not suffer themselves, without full examination, to be deterred by any trivial or light objection from giving their support to wholesome and salutary amendments, as they were deemed by those who brought them forward. As he had already said, experience had convinced the people of the necessity of such an amendment as the one proposed. They had seen it, particularly in the instance of the improvement bill, which the governor had very properly vetoed, and for which he had received the approbation of the people. The fact was, there was so much evil in proportion to the amount of good in the bill, that they could not desire its passage. And, he would ask, did we not see the legislature continually uniting dissimilar objects in one bill, some being for good purposes, while others were for bad? Many members there were, too, who knew not exactly what to do with respect to preserving their popularity-whether they would preserve it by voting for, or against, a bill. If a man should vote for it, he must take the evil with the good. Gentlemen would, probably, recollect the bill that was before the legislature, to authorize certain church-wardens to sell a church in Morgantown, Berks county, and to which were tacked divorces, bills for the incorporation of a great number of companies for different purposes, and among the rest one for the manufacturing of edge tools, none of which appeared in the title to the law. Every member who had heard that bill read, regarded it as a combination of evils.

The object of the amendment of the gentleman from the county, (Mr. M'Cahen) was to prevent a repetition of these legislative tricks, which were productive of much mischief. There were delegates here

who told the convention, in one breath, that they ought not to distrust the legislature; while, in the very next, when it suited their views, had themselves loudly proclaimed their distrust of those bodies, as for instance, in reference to the veto power, the impeachment of judges, &c. It seemed, according to the course of some gentlemen, that when the peo. ple are to be the sufferers, the legislature was to be trusted; but if, on the contrary, a judge was to be tried by the legislature, they were not to be trusted. It was true, that we had to trust all our agents; but, then, it was but proper that we should put all the restrictions we could on them, for notwithstanding they would sometimes run riot. Not trust the legislature! say gentlemen. The learned Judge, (Mr. Hopkinson) when in congress many years ago, considered it his duty, and did characterize the passage bill in which were included thirty or forty bank charters, as a fraud on the community.

of a

He (Mr. B.) asked if any one could doubt it? And did not that bill, notwithstanding the veto of the governor, pass the legislature by a vote of two-thirds? We had been told that we must not doubt the honesty of the legislature. Why, we were doubting all the time. He understood the gentleman from Union, (Mr. Merrill) to ask if we doubted that the legislature would put more than one act of incorporation in the same bill? Why, as to doubting, that was out of the question, for we all knew what had been done over and over again. Without reference to any party lines, or local feeling, resolutions had been introduced, and still were before the convention, to restrict the legislature from transcending their just limits, and doing that which would prove injurious, rather than beneficial, to the people of the commonwealth. One of the objects of the amendment proposed was, to prevent the governor from being placed in a dilemma as to the merits or demerits of a bill, as it had sometimes occurred, in consequence of log-rolling, that the evil which a bill contained preponderated over the good, and had caused it to be vetoed by the governor.

He (Mr. B.) was entirely opposed to tacking one bill to another, and would have each bill stand or fall on its own merits. With regard to the amendment proposed by the delegate from Union, (Mr. Merrill) prescribing that three months' notice shall be given before the legislature shall pass any act of incorporation, he (Mr. Brown) considered it as no restriction to prevent a recurrence of the evil of which he and others com plained.

[Here a delegate said-two months.]

Mr. B. continued. Well, if that was all the restriction to guard against legislative fraud, then he would vote against the amendment. He would go with the gentleman from the city, and insert in the constitution that which would prevent the evil, he cared not what business it might create for the lawyers. If lawyers were to be the preservers of the public rights, and if no other means could be found to put an end to legislative fraud, we should at least be better off than at present. By the adoption of the amendment the legislature would be more particular how they passed bills than they now were. He, for his own part, saw no evil to be apprehended in incorporating such a provision. He hoped, then, without saying any thing further on the subject, that it would be adopted, whether it should produce litigation or not.

Mr. MERRILL said it had been asked if there had been no evil committed by the legislature of Pennsylvania. Undoubtedly there had; and he entertained no question but what there would be evil felt from some of the acts of this convention. Man was not perfect, and was continually liable to err. He was for imposing such a restriction only as would conduce to the public good, and not a restriction of that character which could be productive of no benefit; but, on the contrary, give rise to doubt and lead to litigation. This, he thought, would be the result of adopting the proposed amendment, and therefore he could not vote for it. He regarded the principle of the amendment as somewhat vague, and the language in which it was clothed, not free from ambiguity. The wording of the amendment should, at least, be clear and perspicuous. It is as follows:

"The legislature shall not combine in any bill any two or more distinct and separate objects of legislation, or any two or more distinct appropriations to distinct objects, except appropriations to works belonging to and carried on by the commonwealth. And the object or subject of each bill or act shall be distinctly stated in the title thereof."

As he had asked before, so he would ask now, what was the meaning of the word "objects"? What was meant by "distinct and separate"? Was it to be supposed that the legislature would pass a law which might be now considered a good law, and which, in eight or ten years hence, another legislature might regard as a bad law? He trusted our vested rights were not to rest on such a frail basis as that. But, it had been argued that the courts might have to settle the difficulty as to the consti. tutionality of an act, passed under certain circumstances.

The gentleman (Mr. Brown) had said there must be a constitutional provision as to the title of an act of assembly. Why, he (Mr. M.) asked if even there was no title at all, it necessarily rendered the law void? He apprehended that this matter was entirely beyond our jurisdiction.

This convention was not convened for the purpose of deciding upon the particular mode or manner in which the business of the legislature shall be transacted. He would now say a word with respect to the bank charters which passed the legislature some years ago, and to which reference had been made by the delegate from the county of Philadelphia. Did the gentleman understand that it was a legislative proceeding-that a law was passed incorporating twenty-five banks, and that the people sent such representatives only as would vote for them? And, those men represented the public will as well as any members of the legislature ever did. And this was fraud! What! were men who went to the legislature, and represented and carried into effect the will of their constituents, to be charged with committing a fraud?

He (Mr. M.) would contend that it was very wrong in any man to make so serious and grave a charge without being sure he could substantiate it. Owing to peculiar circumstances, the law became unpopular, and a cry was raised against the banks, and an electioneering clamour was gotten up against those representatives who had passed the bill in question. What member of the legislature, he would ask, had profited by that act? Could any gentleman here prove that members had profited? Why, then, were we to take up the cry of fraud, when there was nothing to sustain such a charge? Was such an assertion-such a misrepresen

What would

tation to go out of this body uncontradicted? Surely not. those who are to come after us think of such conduct as this? What would future legislatures think of it? The legislature of the present day, did not stand in higher estimation with the people, than the one which had been adverted to. He (Mr. M.) thought they represented the people as honestly and fairly, and that the institutions of the commonwealth were in as prosperous a condition as at this period. He knew very well that men frequently made mistakes, and often from error of judgment, and sometimes from bias or prejudice; but how could a man get up here and charge men indiscriminately with having committed fraud? He (Mr. M.) yielded to no man's judgment as to what was due to propriety and a nice sense of honor, and he felt himself bound to condemn such a course as derogatory in the extreme. He would admit that there had been some improper legislation in this state, and so there had in other states of the Union.

But, as he had said before, man is imperfect, and liable to err, and it was in vain to expect that assemblies of men would not sometimes commit errors as well as individuals. If the gentleman would restrict the legislature, he must put something more efficient in the constitution than the amendment he had offered.

He (Mr. Mr.) desired not to place any temptation in the way of the legislature to overstep the line of their duty, nor was he afraid of their doing so. He, however, wished to make applicants for acts of incorporation do their duty by giving public notice of their intention to apply for

them.

He was sure that the amendment of the delegate from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. M'Cahen) as it was framed, could not be carried into effect without throwing our whole system of legislation into confusion. We must put trust and confidence in our representatives that they will act fairly and honestly; and if we cannot trust them, we cannot trust the people themselves.

Mr. BROWN explained that he had done injustice to the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop) in stating that there were bills of divorce, beside the bill to incorporate an edge-tool manufactory, tacked on to the act for the sale of certain church property. On referring to ps. 743-4 of the acts passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania in 1835-6, he had discovered his mistake, and found the following:

An act to authorize Isaac Worrell and Richard Stout, surv ving trustees for the free-will Baptists of the borough of Frankford, to sell certain real estate; and to authorize the church-wardens of the protestant episcopal church of Morgantown, in the county of Berks, to sell and convey certain real estate, and for other purposes."

And, then comes a "whereas" and a section, and then comes another "whereas." Next comes "section two," empowering the church-wardens to sell a certain lot of ground; and section three, sets forth the title to a lot of ground in the county of Schuylkill. Next comes sections four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen; and last of all comes section fourteen, (which is like Pandora's box,) with all these things at the bottom. The section incorporates the Franklin edge-tool factory.

Now, if any delegate will say that that was judicious legislation, and that the governor ought to approve such a bill, then all I can say is, that his notions of proper legislation are very different from mine.

Mr. AGNEW hoped gentlemen would not forget to distinguish between the objects the mover of the amendment had in view, and the means by which he desired to attain them.

The gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Brown) had spoken of its being the general wish of the people of Pennsylvania, that some provision should be incorporated in the constitution to prohibit the legislature from passing any act embracing objects of an entirely different character. We all united in the desire that the legislature would not act in a hasty and careless manner, but that they would examine well and deliberate long before they gave their assent to any project. The question which the convention had to decide was the means by which the legislature should be prevented, in future, from doing those things complained of by the delegate (Mr. M'Cahen.) That gentleman seemed to that the amendment which he had introduced would prove effecLet us examine the amendment:

suppose tual.

"The legislature shall not combine in any bill any two or more distinet and separate objects of legislation, or any two or more distinct appropriations to distinct objects, except appropriations to works belonging to, and carried on, by the commonwealth. And the object or subject of each bill or act, shall be distinctly stated in the title thereof.”

Now, the question is, whether this amendment is calculated to produce the object desired.

not?

The crimes of murder and larceny are distinct subjects; and, if you combine provisions in regard to them into one law, will it be constitutional or unconstitutional, under this amendment? Unless you define what is a single subject or object, the whole matter is left open for discussion and dispute. It will be impossible to setile what laws are constitutional and what are not. Legislation will be embarrassed and uncertain. I ask the gentleman whether a bill of this sort is constitutional under the amend ment or not? A law is passed creating a company for a certain work, and authorizing a subscription to its stock by the state of Pennsylvania. This is a common mode of legislation. Yet the work and the authority given the company is one subject, and the subscription to its stock by the state, is another subject. Will this law be void under the amendment or The object of the charter and of the subscription may be the same. It be intended to effect a great public object, such as a bridge across So far it is one object; but to incorporate a company, and to subscribe stock, are two different operations. In one view of the subject, the object would be single, but the legislature cannot tell whether, in view of the provision in the constitution, it is single or not. It would depend upon the views which those who judge the constitutionality of the law might entertain. Again: the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, provides that the legislature shall not combine any two distinct subjects in one bill; but I apprehend that a bill is not an act of assembly, for a bill is the form of a project of an act, before it is acted upon. A bill is the subject of legislative action. It is not an act until it has been passed upon. Will this amendment, then, prevent the

may

a river.