and cross-examine a witness, you will generally detect some inconsistency-something in the eye, the manner, or the countenance, which will convince a jury that he is not telling the truth. But, on the other hand, a man who tells his story consistently from beginning to end, will never be caught and convicted in this way, as the perjured man will. The rule then is a wise one, that where a convict is pardoned, he may be admitted as a witness; because the jurors have sense and intelligence enough to discriminate; and will convict a party upon the testimony of such a man, unless corroborated by other circumstances and the testimony of other witnesses.

Is there any objection, then, to adoptiug the same rule of conduct with a man who entertains certain opinions on the subject of religion, which do not fall in with the generally received opinions of mankind;—a man whose word would pass under any circumstances, when not under oath ? -a man in whom all of us would place unlimited confidence in all the business affairs of life? And yet we say, that such a man shall not be permitted to give his testimony in a court of justice; while the man who is a notorious thief, or a convicted felon, may give his testimony freely? Sir, this state of things is not in accordance with the general liberal principles of a republican government. And I hope the amendment will be agreed

to.

Mr. SHELLITO, of Crawford, rose to make an inquiry from the gentleman from the county of Philadelpha, (Mr. Earle.)

Did the gentleman from the county, wish to do away altogether with the oath taken by a witness in a court of justice? Or, if not, what oath would be taken from a man who did not believe in the existence of a God, or in a future state of rewards and punishments?

Mr. EARLE said, he would answer the inquiry of the gentleman from Crawford, by simply referring him to the fact that the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. Read) had no relation to persons who did not believe in a Supreme Being. It provided only that those who did believe in a Supreme Being should be allowed to give evidence and to hold office under the commonwealth.

Mr. M'CAHEN, of Philadelphia county, said that he was in favor of the adoption of this amendment, and that he would explain in a few words the reasons why he was so.

I believe, continued Mr. M'C. that under the existing provision of the constitution, honest and creditable witnesses are frequently denied the opportunity of giving their evidence in courts of justice. I am in favor of religious toleration all the world over, and I would do all that lay in my power to promote it. It is possible that in thus declaring my sentiments, I may be accused of infidelity. But to show that I am not justly open to such an accusation, I will here take leave to say that I have been educated in a sect which is regarded as consisting of the followers of the true religion; that I am entirely orthodox.

But, Mr. President, I will not, simply because I myself may entertain opinions which are considered by some portion of mankind as the only correct sentiments on the subject of religion, I say I will not deny to any other individual here or elsewhere the right to enjoy his own religious opinions. Why should I do so? Why may not men honestly and con

scientiously entertain different opinions on religions, as well any other matters? Surely, they ought to be at liberty to do so without running the risk of proscription or disfranchisement. And more especially ought this to be the case in this land of free and equal laws. For I hold to be the true standard of a republican government that the civil, political, and religious rights of every individual should be alike free and sacred; that they should not be trammeled, abridged, or tied down by intolerant provisions of any description. I believe that the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, if adopted by this convention and approved by the people, will enable many honest and good members of society to enjoy those rights to which, under the principles on which our government is founded, they are entitled equally with their fellow citizens; and which rights, if I correctly understand the representations which have been made by some gentlemen on this floor, are in the present instance, denied.

I will not reiterate the arguments which have been so ably urged by my colleague from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Earle)-that one man who declares his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, is admitted on the stand as a witness-while the testimony of another man who frankly declares that he does not believe all that he is asked to believe on this point, yet does believes to a certain extent, is rejected. They are arguments, however, which ought forcibly to recommend themselves to the consideration of every intelligent and reflecting mind.

I think that the credibility of the witness should be a sufficient test of his competency to give evidence; that if his reputation and character for truth and veracity are without blemish, he ought to be received as a witness, whatever his opinions may be on the subject of religion. I believe that if this is denied to him, his property and his liberty will be at stake, and that he is not placed on an equal footing with his fellow citizens ;and I think we should not have a word in the fundamental law of the land which would leave a doubt as to that point, upon the minds of the people of this commonwealth. I think that the rights of every man, high and low, rich and poor, ought to be guarded equally and alike, notwithstanding the opinions he may entertain on matters which have divided mankind from the earliest ages of the world down to the present day. I do not think that the opinions of men touching religious questions, should be allowed to have any influence either on the decision of the courts, or on the characters of winesses. This is not the age, nor this the land, in which such intolerance-to call it by no harder name-should receive countenance and sanction.

These are my opinions, and I do not hesitate to express them freely and without fear. And, entertaining such opinions, I shall vote in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, because I believe that it will remedy an evil complained of, and that it will give to a portion of our citizens who have heretofore been denied participation in them, those rights which, in my view, are and ought to be inalienable.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said that he was opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, though he did not feel any disposi tion to enter into an argument upon it.

So far as concerns the section of country from which I come, continued Mr. F. I must say that I have no instructions from my constituents to make any change in this provision of the constitution, and that I do not

think any is wanted. I speak for myself and for those whom I represent. And if any demand for change has been made in other parts of the state, I know nothing of it.

It may be true that this provision operates harshly upon some of our citizens, who can not, with all their efforts in that behalf, reconcile their minds to a belief in a future state of rewards and punishments; yet I believe, at the same time, that it is a provision which is essentially necessary to the preservation of our institutions in their strength and purity. And, it was doubtless so regarded by the framers of the constitution of 1790— a set of men in whose judgment we are entitled to place great and implicit confidence, not only in regard to the liberality of their religious opinions, but also in regard to their experience in all matters essential for the security of our constitutions, and the promotion of the happiness and welfare of our people. To me it is a new idea, that attempts should be made to strike out this provision. I knew of no such intention and I shall vote against it without saying any thing more on the subject. Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, said,

Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of this amendment, and I will say a very few words in explanation of my reasons.

Whenever we can enlarge the rights of the people, without innovating upon the social compact, probably it is our duty to do so.

It had been agreed generally that the constitution of 1790 seemed to suppose the exclusion of that class of persons who call themselves universalists, but whose particular tenets-whose belief, he could not pretend to explain-for he would make but a poor exponent of tnem. It was to be recollected that about the year 1790, at the commencement of the French revolution, the most irreligious and destructive doctrines were proclaimed, subversive of all order and good government; and then it was that the fathers of this country saw the imperious necessity of providing against their introduction among us, and hence they required that a man should acknowledge the being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments. He believed that at that time the doctrine of universalism was not known in the United States. He solemnly avowed himself to be a believer in rewards and punishments-in eternal happiness or misery. And, that his conduct in this world was influenced by that belief.

He believed that in the vote he would give on this amendment he would be acting under a solemn responsibility to that God, whose name was invoked. And, if he could believe that this amendment would weaken the attachment to the belief of those who profess it or would weaken the belief in those rewards and punishments, he should be careful to avoid offering the vote he was about to give. He understood that if an oath was given in courts of justice, for he had seldom visited themthe witness swore by God. He was brought up where it was not the practice to swear on the bible. But, nevertheless, he believed that he would have to answer at the great day for his conduct. Here was an evident looking forward to the infliction of punishment, perhaps that influence has as he professed it had upon him-had the most salutary effect.

But, it was now found at this day, and in this city, as we are told by

one of the

men conversant with law, that there were among our best citizens men who entertained such peculiar tenets as must, if openly professed, exclude them from the witness box of our courts of justice. If that were so, then we ask them to do one of two things, either to forego rights of citizenship, or to profess their belief in the being of a God which they do not acknowledge. We invite them to the same species of hypocracy as Ananias and Sapphira practiced. While there would be cruelty in the one case, society would suffer wrong in the other.

He should, therefore, vote for the amendment, because it required in the individual a firm belief in the existence of a God, and an accountability to that Being by the oath which he takes in his name, whether it be right or wrong.

Mr. MARTIN, of Philadelphia, county, said that he was desirous to vote for the amendment, and in doing so wished to relieve himself from any thing that might appear like sanctioning or giving encouragement to infidelity. However, he did not apprehend any such opinion being entertained. Even if, as some supposed, the present provision of the constitution was not sufficiently broad and comprehensive, and that evils had arisen out of it, on that account-he could see no good reason why the amendment proposed by the delegate from Susquehanna should not meet the approval of the convention.

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, observed that he would vote against the amendment, and in favor of the existing provision. There was very little difference between the language of that provision and the terms of the amendment proposed by the delegate from Susquehanna (Mr. Read.) The language of the present constitution was

"That no person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."

The language of the amendment was as follows:

"That no person who acknowledges the being of a God, and his own accountability to the Supreme Being, shall on account of his religious sentiments be disqualified to give evidence or to hold, any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."

He did not like the terms of the amendment so well as the existing provision of the constitution of 1790. He knew of no responsibility except to a future state. He himself believed firmly and implicitly in future rewards and punishments. He did not think that those whose belief did not go to the extent ought to have the extension given them as was proposed by the amendment of the delegate from Susquehanna. He did not know that the section of the constitution was the rule of evidence, Indeed, he was inclined to think it was not. And, for the reason that there were three forms of an oath taken Some made oath on the Evangelists; another simply affirmed, and there were others again, who affirmed by declaring that they would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He saw no necessity for adopting the rules of the constitution, as there were rules enough independent of the constitution. We had also, rules by act of assembly. There were rules laid down in the com

mon law of the land. He recollected that there was a man at Williamsport, some years ago, who openly taught infidelity and blasphemy. But he was stopped in his career by an appeal to the common law of the state. We know that in an adjoining state infidelity is widely and openly preached. Now, he had no wish to see any such practice followed in Pennsylvania. He regarded the present provision, as an excellent rule, and therefore he would support it, and vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna.

Mr. CURLL, of Armstrong, was opposed to any innovation on this section, and thought the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Susquehanna was rather a begging of the question-whipping the devil round the stump. He had heard talk here, of a future state in this world. Now, that was the first time he had ever heard of a future state here. If a man was not impressed with the belief that he was accountable to God at a future day for his actions and conduct, there was no restraint upon him. In his (Mr. C's.) opinion, the amendment was not so well calculated as the existing provision, to restrain men from doing mischief, and to preserve order in the community.

The yeas and nays were required by Mr. READ and Mr. FULLER, and are as follow, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Biddle, Bigelow, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey, Chandler. of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clapp, Coates, Darrah, Doran, Earle, Grenell, Hastings, Martin, M'Cahen, Myers, Payne, Read, Ritter, Scott, Serrill, Sterigere, Taggart, Thomas, Weaver-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Ayres, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Brown, of Lancaster, Brown, of Northampton, Chambers, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Craig, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donagan, Farrelly, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Harris, Hayhurst, Hays, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Long, Lyons, Maclay, Magee, Mann, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Overfield, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Purviance, Rogers, Royer, Russell, Saeger, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Sill, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Snively, Stickel, Sturdevant, Todd, Weidman, Woodward, Young, Porter, of Northampton, President pro tempore-85.

So the question was determined in the negative,

Mr. BIGELOW, of Westmoreland, moved to amend the section by striking therefrom the words "and a future state of rewards and punishments. ." where they occur in the second line.

The question being put on this motion, it was determined in the negative.

The report of the committee, as far as relates to the fourth section, was then agreed to.

The fifth section being under consideration, which reads in the words following, viz:

"SECTION 5. That elections shall be free and equal."

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, moved to amend the said section by adding to the end thereof the words as follow, viz: "The election laws shall be uniform throughout the state, and no greater or other restrictions.