0..2 . 4 it -5. A.... IP 3 W-i0 Z.Eta--YPbs , Ilecb Office of the Star & Banner COUNTY BUILDING, ABOVE THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER AND RECORDER I. The STLII & REPUBLICAN BANNER 18 pub 118110 d at TWO DOLLARS per annum (or Vol ume of 52 numbers,) payable half-,yearly in ad vance: or TWO DOLLARS & FIFTY CENTS, if a•d paid until after the expiration of the year. 11. No subscription will be received f a shorter period than six months; nor will the paper be dis continued until all arrearages are paid, unless at the option of the Editor. A failure to notify a dis continuance will be considered a new engagement and the paper forwarded accordingly. 111. Aar K11114E:a ENTS not exceeding a square will be inserted TIIIIEE times for $l, and 25 cents for each subsequent insertion—the number of in sertion to be marked, or they will be published till forbid and charged accordingly; longer ones in the same proportion. A reasonablededuction will b.l :n tae to those who advertise by the year. IV. All Lettorsand Communications addressed t o the Editor by mail must be past-paid, or they will not be attended to. TILE GARLAND. 'S 1' • - '.7 .1 ..7S. 0 (c74.:13/ k : " • .rye 4. 5 4.4 c. ; : Z ...gnit4:-...7 ~, - .A . 0.:- • ID ... . ...§33, 7 ;if' I p. :....ii i :---- 4„._ ~ •." ~ "." . -"With a wectesi flowerlenrich'd, From variousgardenscull'd with care." The - Widow4 Charge at her Daughter'., DT 1111111. SIOOIJUNET. DHA.T, gently thou, whose Inn,: has won 'rho young bird from the nest away, Where careless 'neath a vernal sun he gaily caroled day by day. The haunt is lone—the heart must grieve, From whence her timid wing doth soar; They pensive list, at hush of eve, Yet hear her gushing song no more. Deal gently with her!—thou art dear, Beyond what vestal lips have told, And like a lamb, from foi - aains clear She turns, confiding, to the fold. Sho round thy sweet domestic bower The wreaths of changeless love shall twine, Watch fur thy stop at vesper hour, And blend her holiest prayer with thine. Deal gently thou, whoa far away, 'Mid stranger scenes her foot shall rove, Nor let thy tender cares decay; The soul of woman lives in love. And shouldst thou, wondering mark a tear Unconscious from her eyelid break, Be piteous and soothe the fear That man's strong heart can ne'or partake A mother yields her gem to thee, On thy true breast to sparkle rare; She places 'neath thy household tree The idol of her fondest care. And by thy trust to ho forgiven, When judgment wakes in terror wild— sy all thy treasured hopes of heaven, Deal gently with the Widow's Child. sanzullaYiaiowa. TOO 2kIUCII COLOR IN THE BRUSII•—If there be any one mannerism that is univer• sal among mankind, it is that of coloring too highly the things we describe. We cannot be content with a single relation of truth— we must exaggerate; we must overdraw; we must have "a little too much red in the brush." Who ever heard of a dark night that was nut "pitch dark?" of a stout man that was not "strong as a horse?" or of a miry road that was not "up to the knees?" I would walk "fifty miles on foot" to see that man who never caricatures the subject on which he speaks; but where is such a one to be found? From "rosy morn to dewy eve," in our common conversation, we aro constantly outraging the truth. If some what wakeful in the night,we have "scarce ly had a wink of sleep;" if our sleeves got a little damp in a shower, we are, "as wet as if dragged through a brook;" if a breeze blow up while we are in the "chops of the channel," the waves aro sure to "run moun tains high;" and if a man grow rich; we all say that ho "rolls in money." No later than yesterday, a friend of mine who would shrink from a wilful misrepresentation, told me hastily, as he passed, that the newspa per "had nothing in it but advertisements," and that he had just sent off, by theShrews bury coach, "a codfish as big as a jackass." This habit of decoration in describing com mon things, most likely proceeds from that love of marvellous which most mankind en tertain. We wish to affect the minds of others; what is the use of telling a tale that will excite no wonder? or making a com plaint that calls forth no sympathy? or of representing a deed of injustice that will rouse no indignation? We wish to rnake our picture striking, and thus, like the pain ter, are induced to put("a Mile too much color in the brush." But ff - it—he thus in things little affecting us, still more is at the case where interest is concerned. In such cases, the most unblushing raisrepresenta• lions are made. Every newspaper has its .bargains," its "great saving," and its ',im mense sacrifices." "Fish all alive" is not 100 strong a term for the unbearckly tainted scaly fry offered for sale. Theitish cloth of the mercer is "flue as cambrte," the stole . meat of the butcher `fsweet,ne a nut," and the cheesemonger's hard, tough,lean cheetie, ciao fat as butter." These are general re• marks—how far do they affect you? To this inquiry may be added another—how Ihr du they afnct Ephraim Holding? I am sadly afraid that we are both culpable. Not that I plead gytlty tnyself, qr you with wilful misrepresentation, for the purpose of forwarding any individual interest; but that I feel that we are hoth amenable to the charge of speaking lightly and thou2htless ly—that we both, by putting occasionally "a little too much red in the brush," leave impressions not warranted by the facts we relate. (Ephraim Holding. TOE BOOK OF JASHER.-It is proper to mention, as one of the literary curiosities of the day, that a work has recently appear. ed in New York, which is entitled "The Book ofJasher, referred to in the Bible in Joshua, and in the second book of Samuel." We believe M. M. Noah, Esq., tho able Hebrew scholar of the New York Evening Star. is the translator. "The preface to the Hebrew edition speaks of it as having been brought from Jerusalem with other sacred rolls and manuscripts, at the destruc tion of that city, and carried into Spain, where the Jews had their most celebrated colleges up to the eleventh century. On the discovery of priiding, the manuscript was copied, and carried to Venice, where it was printed by order .of the Jewish Con sistory of Robbins irLl6l3, and is now for the first time translated into the English language and published." A Goon JOKB.—A teamster lately lost from his wagon a keg of butter, which was found by a man who carried it. half a mile on foot, to the tavern of Mr. H. whose 'he found the owner, who thanked him for his trouble. Mr. H. (the landlord) observed to him, that he was well paid—that thank you was worth 25 cents, and thank you kindly was vyorth 3771 cents. He (the footman) soon called for dinner, which was forthwith provided. After finishing his meal he in. quired the price—the answer was 25 cents. He then said, "I thank you kindly," and moved off. The landlord immediately call. ed to him. "Here, atop, ray friend and take your change; there is 12i cents, your due —your bill was only 25 cents. Pennsylvania Legialaturt. Remarks of Mr. SMYSER (of Adams) made in the House of Representatives. June 181 and' 3d, on "the Apportionment Bill." MR. SPEAKER: — Nothing but a sense of duty arising from what I conceive to be the vital and fundamental principles of constitu tional law involved in the bill now under considerat ion, could have induced me at this late period of the session, to trouble the House with any remarks of mine upon it.— But, sir, believing as I do, that this bill pro- posed to be enacted into a law, involves a direct violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth, which I, in common with every member of this House, have sworn to support, most wicked and unjust in itself, and as a precedent, most dangerous in its tendencies, I feel that I should have failed to discharge my duty to my constituents, to the Constitution and to my own conscience, were I to content myself with a mere silent vote, and not lift my voice in most earnest and solemn protest against it. I am well aware that all opposition to the passage of this bill in this House, will, in all probability be of little or no avail. 'believe that it is one of those acts of legislation, which like the Mph Bill and many others, (as we were informed a few days since by the gentleman from Northumberland, Mr. Begins) when the last named bill was under consideration, has been already passed upon by a secret, irresponsible party caucus, out of door, unknown to our Constitution and contrary to every fair prineiple of legislation, and is only brought in here that it may re ceive the necessary legislative forms at our hands; this body composed of the represen tatives of the people, being the mere instru ments to register the decrees of this party cabal. That such a cabal existed, pretend. ing and assuming in violation of the Consti tution, to prescribe, control and regulate the tuition of this body, I had before been in formed ; but so monstrous and outrageous did such assumption to presci\be to the le- gislative bodies what laws should or should not be passed, appear to me, that I confess I was sceptical, until the matter was placed beyond all doubt by the distinct reference made to, it by the gentleman from Northum berland, on the occasion referred to. Still, though my voice may be raised in vain, it shall not be silent, and let the responsibility of this premeditated and deliberate infrac tion of the most sacred rights of the people, rest on the heads of those who have deVised it ; my hands shall be clean of the blood of the Constitution. Before entering on the constitutional Argu ments of this question, I will premise one or t.wo matters, connected with the merits of the bill itself, supposing that we have a constitutional right to pass it,which ho,wev,e,r 1 most distinctly and unequivocally deny. This bill purports, and is•so presented to this House by the gentleman from Bucks (Mr. Roberts) who claims its paternity,to be a corrective of the errors and defects sup posed to exist in the Apportionment act of 1836, when the last septennial enumeration of taxables took place. Now, 1 say that as a remedial law, it is partial in its extent,and instead of correcting, aggravates the alleged defects of the act of 1836. It is partial in its extent. Wherein? By the apportionment of senatorial districts un der the law of 1835—'8, the counties of Lan. naster.and York,a re united into what is there made the 6th senatorial district, and jointly eject three Senators. By the same lay,the counties of Delaware, Montgomery and Chester, are united and farm the third dis trict, electing jointly the 'same- number of Senators. Now this bill declares that "un til the next enumeration r,f taxable inhabt• G. '97.6.EISINGFI S OI\T 230 WEN, ElDrrop. & PROPRIETOR. 41 The liberty to know, to utter, and to argue, freely, is above all other liberties.”—Mnaon. /21 1Y OM ar" (1 a ZP ca. co fr ZN6YlDciti 47 tiP 128 e 9 a ac) tants and an apportionment thereon, the • county of Lancaster shall be the Gth district and elect Iwo Senators. The county of York shall be the Eth district and elect one Sena , tor." This interference with the apportion ment of 1b36, separating the 601 district into two, to be called the 6th and 9th, is jus tified by the gentleman from Bucks, on the ground of the 7th section of the Ist article of the Constitution of the State as amended, and which is as follows:—"The Senators shall be chosen in diatriets to be formed by the Legislature: but no district shall be so formed as to entitle it to elect more than two Senators, unless the number of taxable inhabitants in any city or county shall at any time be such, as to entitle it to elect more than two," dtc. Now, it is said, that inasmuch as the present 6th district compo sed of more than one county, is "so formed ae to entitle it to elect more than two Sena tors," to wit, three; it is the duty of the Le gislature to remodel it so as to conform to the amended Constitution in this particular ! will not now enter into an argument to show that the prohibition contained in this article of the Constitution, bein g one of the amendments.adopted in 183 S, and not found in the Constantion of 1790, can have no retrospective operation, but extends only to such apportionments of the State, as take place from and after the adoption of the amendments. But, sir, I ask the gentleman from Bucks, why it was, that when his keen vision, eagle-eyed to discern faults in the apportionment law of 1837, rested on this supposed departure from constitutional re quirements, his keen penetration fulled to discover that the same objection presented itself to the third senatorial district, ns at present organized? His remedial bill, for the correction of the manifold errors of the existing apportionment, takes no noti. - .3 of the third district; although in purl delictu with the obnoxious 6th, no change is propo. sed in it; it is left untouched; and, Mr. Speaker, this will be considered the more remarkable, when we come to look at the taxable population of those districts and the fractions left unrepresented in each by the present arrangement. By the act of 1836, the senatorial ratio was fixed at 0250 taxa bles—necessary to entitle a district to three Senators, 27769. By the enumeration of 11835, the number of taxables in the 6th dis -trict was Lancaster 16583, (exclusive of the Columbia district not returned, but subse quently ascertained to be 56P;) York, 0559; ' total, 26142 taxables in tt.e district ; or, in eluding the Columbia district, 27210 —leav ing a deficit of only 1070, or one ninth of the ratio, short of the full number. Now take up the 3rd disti ict and compare it with this? By the same census, it was ascertained that Chester county contained 11682 taxables. Delaware Montgomery " Total of'taxables, 25355' Necessary to entitle to three Senators, 27768 Thus showing in the 3rd district, a deficit short of the ratio, of two thousand four hun dred and thirteen, or a little over one fourth of the ratio! And yet this district, with a deficit of 2413 taxables, is left unnoticed, whilst the 6th with a deficit of but 1070, is taken hold of, dissevered, broken up, to make it conform, forsooth, to the amended Constitution? There is no honesty or con sistency in this. The gentleman from Bucks when he adopted this principle, should not have been afraid to follow it wherever it might lead him. I will not pause to inquire in how far he may have been influenced by the prospect of an Improvement bill being passed, containing an item of $lOO,OOO to be expended unnecessarily in relaying the north track of the Columbia Rail Road, where it passes through the county of Ches ter, that thus the dominant party might be enabled to throw hands enough upon the line in the district to enable them to carry the two Senators to be elected in that district the ensuing fall; for air, it is unparlimentary to talk about motives here. I pass to another part of this bill, in which I shall be coin• pelled in part,to travel over the same ground already so ably occupied by my friend from Allegheny (Mr. Darsie ) The bill proposes to erect the counties of Perry, Juniata and Huntingdon, into a district, to be called the 12th, to elect one Senator—and the coun ties of Mifflin, Union and Northumberland, into another to be called the 24th,to elect one Senator also. By the law as It now stands, the counties of Perry, Juniata, Mifflin, Huutingdon and Union, in other words, the same counties with the exception of North. umborland, compose the Bth senatorial dis• trict and elect two senators. Now, let us see whether the bill under 'consideration, effects any improvement upon the law of 1836. By the enumeration then made, .tt is ascertained that the Bth senatorialidistrict as it now exists, then had 17873 taxables; necessary under the ratio, to entitle tt to two Senators, 18512, leaving a deficit 'of only 639 short of the.entire number. The taxa ble population of . the counties now proposed to be formed into the 12th district - , to wit: the counties of Huntingdon, Perry and Ju niuta, was 11109; necessary under the ratio, to entitle it to one Senator, 9250; thus show. ing a balance of 1E53 taxables, who will tin der the proposed arrangement, he left unre presented ! • The taxables of the counties proposed to be erected into the 24th diAtrict, to Wit: Union. Northumberland and Mifllin, was 10697; necessary under the rati0,9256; thus showing an excess over the ratio of 1441, whom It fir proposed under this bill, 13900 do U 9773 " Deficit, to disfranchise; add this to the last named excess of 1853, and you have as the effect of the proposed improvement in the present Bth senatorial district, an aggregate of 3294 taxable inhabitants unrepresented, absolute ly disfranchised and thrown out of the pale of representation, instead of the present defi ciency of only 636 ! Does this need any comment? Surely not; it speaks for itself; there is no speculation here; it is a matter of arithmetical calculation, a matter of figu res which cannot lie; argument would only tend to weaken the force of a conclusion so plain and undeniable as this. I shall, there fore, leave it to be answered by the gentle man from Bucks as best he can; and I defy him to gainsay or refute it. Ho may get over or around it, but he cannot meet it suc cessfully face to face. 1 now proceed to another, and what I con ceive to be the most important branch of the ergument in opposition to this bill I mean the constitutional objection which I stated in the outset of my remarks. The portions of the Constitution which have a bearing on this question, consist of the fourth and sixth sections of the first article. The 4th section declares that "Within three years after the first meeting of the General Assembly, and within every subs( quent term of seven years an enumeration of the taxable inhabitants shall be made in such manner as shall be di reeled by law. The number of Representa tives shall. at the several periods of making such enumeration, be fixed by the Legisla ture and apportioned among the city ofPhil adelphia and the several counties, according to the number of taxable inhabitants in each, I and shall nos er be less than sixty nor greater ! than one hundred." The 6th section provides that "The num ber of Senators shall, at the several periods' of making the enumeration before Mention. ed; be fixed by the Legislature, and appor. tioned among the dist, tcts formed as hereaf ter directed, according to the number of tax able inhabitants in each, and shall never be less than one fourth, nor greater than one third of the number of representatives." In the part of the Constitution just quot ed, no change is made by the amendments adopted in 1838; but it remains the same as that of 1790. It is unnecessary, there fore, to inquire what would be the effect on this question, if the proceeding were sup• posed to take place under the amended In strument of 1838; for it is admitted by the advocates of this bill on this floor, and it has been so recognized and held by our ablest jutists, that . the Constitution of 1838, is sit amended, not a new instrument; that all the provisions contained in that of 1790, that remain unalteied, have not been re enacted ie 1838, but have continued in bind in the like manner and take the like eflbct, without let, interruption, or change. as if no amend ments had been made. Consequently, in all its unchanged provisions, we are lo re gard it as ordained and established in 1790, and not in 1838, when the amendments were adopted. Standing then, on the broad platform of the Constitution, the fundamental and or ganic law of the State, the position I take is this; that no apportionment of Senators and Representatives can be made, nor the State be districted for that purpose, either wholly or partially, without first making an enume ration of the taxables; which is to form the basis of such apportionment ; and that such enumeration and apportionment, can only be constitutionally made every seven years. and no oftener. The last enumeration was made in 1835, and on the 16th of June, 1836, the last law Was,paised, apportioning the senators and representatives upon the basis of that enumeration. The seven years which the Constitution requires to intervene, will not have expired until the 16th of June, 1843 ; and yet it is now proposed, to re model in part, the districts and apportion ment, and that too, without any new enume ration at all ! I am aware that some expounders of the Constitution, who scarcely know the mean ing of the term, have availed themselves of the phrase "within every subseqUent term of seven years thereaTter," to construe it to mean that the Legislature might new-dis trict and apportion the State, at such inter- vals of time as they choose, provided they did not exceed, or in other words, provided they fell short of, or "within" seven years. But such a construction is plainly untenable, as is evident from the uniform practice of every Legislature since 1793, 1 believe, when the first enumeration and apportion ment took place agreeably to the 4th section of the Ist article; and also, front plain and obvious principles of right, reason, and com mon sense. There is not a single instance to be found in the legislative history of the State, in which the Legislature have departed froM the ieptinnial principle of construction. In no case has any Legislature pretended to pass an apportionment law short of the full period of seven years from the one immedi ately next preceding : nor, so far as I have been able by the most diligent examination to ascertain, was the attempt ever, beretolo re made. On the contrary, the very express language of every successive law on the sub ject, without a solitary departure, is that, ,such law is to continue in force for seven years from its enactment. So alai, the act of the 6th January, 1821, entitled "an act to provide for the enumeration of the taxa. ble inhabitants within this Commonwealth," which is the existing law on the subject, and regulates and governs the niode of procedure expressly, and in terms directs the coinnus sioners of the'several counties of this t eom• monwealth, 'every .seven years after the passage of the _act," to issue their precepts to the respective township, ward, or district assess•irs, requiring them within thirty days to make out an alphabetical list of the taxa ble inhiibitants of hie district. The construction then, for which I con tondos borne out and sustained by the action of every Legislature that has ever assembled in this Commonwealth, including in the ear tier ones, many of the fathers and framers oldie Constitution; and I appeal to my friend the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Konig roacher,) and my venerable friend from York across the wa) (lir. Stickle,) both of whom were members of the Reform Convention of 1838, and may therefore be presumed com petent to decide questions of constitutional construction, whether I am not right in the view *which I have taken on this subject. Again; if it were competent for the Le gislature to new•apportion the State at in tervals short of seven years, there is nothing to prevents its being done annually, by each succeeding. Legislature, as well as every four, five, or six years. The consequence would be, that each political party as it ac quired. the preponderance, would seek to ar range the districts to suit themselves; and thus we would have perpetual change, un certainty, contention and'confuston,the very state of things which the framers of the Constitution sought to, avoid, when they cur rouut'ed the authority of the Legislature over this subject with all the guards and re strictions of a specially delegated power as to the time and manner of its exercise. If they intended that the Legislature should exercise this power, as often as they sew proper, why say any thing in the Constitii. tion at all about the time, seven years, or any other? Will the gentleman from Bucks answer me this? I hope he will be able to give a satiefactery reply. 11 . then, as think I have conclusively shown as well by argument as authority, the lair construction of the Constitution is, that an apportionment law can only be enac ted septennially, how is it that those, who advocate this bill, get over the difficulty?— Why, they call their bill a supplement! A supplement, (thus it reads,) "to the act en titled 'an act to fix the number of senators and repremmatives and form the State into districts in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution,' passed the sixteenth day of June, A. D. 1836." A most brilliant and astonishing discovery indeed! That although true it is, you cannot constitution. ally pass other than a septennial bill, yet you may change the name, and by calling it a "supplement to, an act," instead - 01, an "act," you may do it when you pleasel• I have often, Mr. Speaker, heard that "names are things," but I never before heard of so striking'an illustration of the maxim. What is there in a name! Much truly,accurding to this view of the case. You may not pass this bill now, if yoti call it an act; but only change its name to "a supplement to an act,' and you may pass it when you please. Why this beats cockfighting! - But, says the gentleman, this is not a general apportionment bill; it only propo ses to change a portion of the districts, to correct the manifold' defeete of the general law of 1886;' and the gentleman asks, with much appearance Of confidence, whether, when one Legislature abuses its trust by passing a law unfair., unjust, and um. qbal in its details, a enbeequent Legislature cannot apply a remedy, or whether the abuse must remain unredressed until the expiration of the seven years. To this my reply is, that it is easy to allege the existence' of abuses; 'and ir on a bare allegation of abuse, it could be competent for the Legislature to change the apportionment of the State,made in pur -1 suance of law and Constitution; it will be equally competent for any subsequent Leg islature on the like allegation, to pursue a similar course; and thus every district in the Slate might, in the language of the gentleman from Bucks, be "gerrymander ed" back Wards and forwards, according to the fluctuating ascendency of political par ties in the Legislature: for it is to be recol lected, that the Legislature setting up the allegation, is the sole judge of its truth and sufficiency; and it requires no very strong evidence, as we all know experimentally, to convince party feeling, when such convic tion is prompted by party interest. Besides, if, at any tiled, on pretence of unfair practices by our predecessors,' we may change, alter, or repeal what they have done in apportioning the Slate; we have a right and are in duty hound to make the re. medy ',commensurate with the evil;l•aed therefore, all that will be required 'to et 'at the whole of any septennial apportionment lain, will be to make the alleg ation of wrong sufficiently extensive; and if we allege that the whole is wrong; we can change the whole, cn precisely the same principle that we can change a part. If we can touch one part, we can assail any and every part; for' when once the attack is made, there is no constitutional line of demarcation to indicate where we must stop; ths constitutional pro. hibition extends to the whole, and not to any particular portion. If, however, - we should be so scrupulous as not to be willing to "go the whole hog," but should conceive ourselves in duty bound to leave the tail, we may on this "supplemental" distinction or the gentleman, re-model and' change every district in file State, one excepted; and then, calling our bill a "supplement" and riot rn act, we plead that we ate guiltless of a viola tion of the Constitution, inasmuch as having left one district untouched, it is not an entire new apportionment. Can it be, that the posi tive requirements of the Constitution can be so easily evaded? And can a construction which authorizes such in evasion be correct? Let every man's common sense answer. L0KE.002411 0 , 115 , 4 84343% But, the gentleman hum' Bucke,supposes . the case of the Logi.slatere entirely mil ling, at the septennial period, to discharge the duty, imposed upon it by the 4th and 6th sections of the Ist article of the Consti mien; and asks, must the people remain on the old basis of tepentatton, and without re• medy for the Next seven years'? I answer tha't the case supposed is by no means a parallel to the oleo before us, but is radically and essentially distinct and different. The case supposed, is of an entire failure . to do the duty; and of necessity, it must re - , main to be performed by the next Legisla ture. But in the present case, this Consti tutional duty has beet, performed, at the time and in the mode prescribed by the Con stitution, by the Legislature of 1835 6; and being once exercised, it is placed beyond the reach of any succeeding Legislature be. fore 1843. Once done, the duty, the pow er is exhausted for the next seven years; it, is gone—it is futieltis efficii: and this be cause the Constitution makes it eo,by decla ring that it shall not be exorcised oftener than once in seven years-1t contemplates its exercise by the propel. Legislature: and being exercised, declares that it shall net be again exercised for seven years thereafter. The cases are widely dill:trent. I will illustrate my meaning. Suppose the term of service of one of cur United States senators to have expired; and that the Legislature of Pennsylvania fails on the day designated by law, to elect a successor. No one will pretend that such election Can not be held at any convenient' day after wards. But, suppose such senator to have, been elected, commissioned sworn, and to have taken his seat in the Senate as a mem ber of the body; will any one pretend (rat the Legislature could afterwards revoke,or annul his commission, vacate his seat, or al ter his rights and duties as a member 7—, Surely not; and yet if the power to supply an ()mission of duty, carries with it the right to change; metLfy or revoke at pleasure in the one case, it is difficult to imagine why it should not in both. Much of the difficulty on this subject has arisen from not attending properly to the distinction between powers specially and generally conferraby the Constitution.— The power to pass laws is general; hence any Legislature may repeal the acts of an other. The power to district and apportion, the State is given specially, that is, to be exercised only every seven years; hence, once exercised, it cannot bu again done, un til a weti years have expired; and this, be cause the general power of the Legislature to pass laws, is in this, particular instance given, subject to this restraint; and to disre gard it on the part of the Legislature,would be usurpation. Much, Mr. Speaker, has been said about the unconstitutionality of the last apportion ment law of 1886, as reason why we have the right to repeal, modify or change it; and the reason and the only reason t have heard assighed why :t is unconstitutional, is that the Legislature that passed it, grossly abused their :trust, and that the law i , n une qual and unfair to some of the districts.-- Why Mi. Speaker, the abuse of a legal or constitutional right,' is one thing; the as• gumption of an unconstitutional powor, is an other. The evidence is contradictory and ' . does not sustain the charge. The accuse= Lion is, the doing of an unconstitutional act;: the evidence is, the doing of constitutional act, but in an improper manner. Now, it is not every abuse of power that is unconsti tutionahhowever blamable in other respects., The very charge of abage, implies the right to use. But, sir, I think it is rather too lato at this day, to question the constitutionality of the. act of 1836. Why, sir, by so doing t we call in qUystion, our own right to the seats we occupy as members of this House, and the right of the members of every Legislature that has assembled since its passage. For, sir, it is under that very act, that wo and, they have been elected; and if the act, yn der which we hold ie unconstitutional end void, as alleged, we have no right to . pasa laws; our acts are void for being' made. without authority; and efery,law, on your statute book, enacted by the Legislature of, 18:36-7. 1837-8, 1838.9, es well as by the present, is a dead letter. Do not gentlemen see the dilemma in which they are placing themselves? Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Rucks has taken occasion to refer in no very mea sured terms of obloquy rzid censure to tho Legislature of 1835.6; and on this subject he has displayed a copiousness of language and felicity of invective,which show at least, that he himself feels deeply nn what he ex presses himself strongly. Ni' hat the na t ure of those feelings may be I will not too cloao• ly attempt to analyse. I, sir, do not :stand , here the eulogiSt or apologist of that their nets have become history. I believe, that their actions will,when the party heats and passions of the day shall have subsided, be admitted to compare advantageously with those of any other Legislature that ever as• sembled in this or any other State; and that in after years, when you and I shall have been gathered to our fathers, and the pres ent age shall find a fair and impartial histo rian, the history of that memorable session, , will be regarded as an Oasis in the desert, —a green spot in the wilderness from whose' fountains, the future statesman may imbibe lessons or wisdam,and beneath whose shade, the weary and overburthenod spirit may re*- cline with complacent delight in the contem plation of duties fearlessly performed and benefits lavishly bestowed upon crooked' and perverse generatiOn.",
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers