"Members of the General Assembly, before entering upon their duties, shall take and subscribe the following oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that to the best of my knowledge and belief I have been elected as a member of the Senate (or House of Representatives) in accordance with the laws of the State, and without the improper use of money or other corrupt or corrupting means. I do also solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will obey and support the Constitution of the United States, and of this Commonwealth, and discharge the duties of a member of the Senate (or House of Representatives) honestly and faithfully, and with sole de. sire to promote the public good, uninfluenced to the contrary by the promise or hope of pecuniary reward or gain to myself, or by any other corrupt or corrupting considerations."

Mr. CUYLER. Allow me to ask if that is an amendment to the amendment. Does the Chair recognize it as such?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. The gentleman from Philadelphia moves to strike out a part of the section, and the amendment to the amendment is to strike out the whole.

Mr. CUYLER. The proposed amendment to the amendment is a substitute for the whole section. It does not amend the amendment; but it proposes a substitute for the entire section. Can that be an amendment to an amendment which is a substitute for the whole section?

Mr. BIGLER. I certainly agree, if the gentleman chooses to occupy the attitude of a friend of the text, that he has a right to perfect that before the vote is taken on the motion to strike out. It would be proper, if the delegate insists upon it, that the vote to perfect the text should first be taken, and I shall have to submit to that.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sees no difficulty. The amendment offered by the gentleman from the city (Mr. Cuyler) was first offered, and the question will be first put on that amendment.

Mr. CUYLER. Mr. Chairman: I do not propose, at this late day in the discussions of this Convention, to enter into any lengthened argument in support of

reputable and disgraceful one. I must say, for myself, I have not a particle of faith in making dishonest men honest by oaths; and I do not believe that this section, as reported by the committee, if it were adopted, would exclude from the Legislature one single dishonest man, while, on the other hand, it would mantle with the blush of shame the cheek of every honest man every time he came forward to take that oath. Considered as a reformatory measure, it is simply powerless to do any good. There are a thousand ways in which bad men will evade it, and there is no form of words that we can adopt that will prevent bad men from evading it, or exclude them from the halls of legislation. It is not even a palliative-still less is it a cure for any of the ills that afflict the State. If we cannot devise a method whereby we can secure pure nominations for office, and if we cannot follow that up by devising a method whereby we may secure fair elections in our Commonwealth, we had better abandon our system of government entirely and seek to substitute something else for it. If we are to endeavor to make our legislators pure and keep them honest by requiring an oath to be taken that a rogue would blush to take, we have passed beyond that point where the Commonwealth is capable of redemption.

I am, therefore, opposed to the section, first, because I think it is entirely inefficacious; it is a mere waste of words. It will amount to nothing as a practical thing. It will not keep one bad man out, it will not bring one good man into the Legislature. Therefore, being useless, it should not be inserted in the Constitution. All that there is really in this oath is contained in the words that according to the amendment it is proposed shall remain in it. When he swears: "I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity; I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Pennsylvania," he has sworn to all that can be applied to the conscience of a true and honorable man to keep him in the pathway of duty. If he is not a true and honorable man, the additional words that are to be found in

this section will not make an impure man pure, or render him any more faithful in the discharge of his duties. I would not, therefore, put into the organic law a confession on the part of every individual who comes forward to take the oath that he is a legitimate subject of distrust, and that he must begin the very discharge of his duty by swearing that he is an honest man and has not done dishonest acts to place him where he stands. It is an insult to him to ask it; it is an offense to the Commonwealth; and it is perfectly useless as to any practical benefit.

Mr. LILLY. We all recollect that this subject was under discussion for about ten days, and it was fully and thoroughly gone through with. We listened for hours to a speech of the honorable gentleman from York, (Mr. J. S. Black,) who is not now here, on this subject, which entirely exhausted the argument on the side of this double-ender, iron-clad oath. We listened to several other delegates, and as I have said we consumed not less than a week, and probably ten days, in the discussion. Those of us who were here then fully understood it, I presume, when we voted down everything except a plain, straightforward oath as suggested by the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia. I think it will save time if we adhere to that action. I do not think a word more can be said by anybody on any point that will strengthen this ironclad oath.

Mr. H. W. PALMER. Mr. Chairman: I have no doubt that the mind of the gentleman from Carbon is made up, and therefore he desires no further discussion. Perhaps some others are less fortunate. If the minds of all the delegate are made up, then there is no use for any further discussion; but before I vote on this subject I desire to put my reasons on record for the faith that is in me.

I do not supose that the question is whether we shall have an oath or not, because I believe everybody agrees that there should be some kind of an oath. The question is whether we should have a general oath or a specific oath; whether we shall have a firm, compact, binding and useful obligation, or whether we shall have a mere vague, glittering generality. The first part of this oath is substantially the old oath, as it is in the Constitution, except there is inserted here a provision to support the Constitution of the United States, which is not found in our present Constitution.

In the Convention of 1838 a great debate arose on that subject, and after much consideration it was determined that there was no use of putting in the Constitution of Pennsylvania an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and with great unanimity the Convention of 1838 voted out that provision. By the light of the experience of the days that have gone by since 1838, there seems to be no difficulty in the mind of any delegate here on that subject, and we hear no objection raised to inserting an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and not only to support, but to obey and defend it, words which you will find in this oath and which are not found in any other oath that has ever been required from public officers. An oath to support the Constitution did not seem to answer the purpose. Men sat in the halls of the National Legislature with that oath upon their consciences and upon their lips, plotting to destroy the Constitution, and therefore it seems good to the committee to put in something more here, to require that a man shall swear not only to support but to obey and defend the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the Constitution of the United States.

The official is next required to swear that he will perform the duties of his office with fidelity. No objection is made to so much of this oath. So far, it goes to what a man shall perform in the future, not to what he has done in the past. It seemed good to the committee to require something further of the officer on the threshold of official station. It seemed good to the committee to reqiure of him to say, on oath, that his election had not been purchased with a price, that he had not bought the office, that it had not been procured by fraud, by corruption, by violation of all the election laws of the Commonwealth.

Now, I inquire of delegates whether in their judgment the indiscriminate use of money which has obtained in the elections of this Commonwealth during years gone by is a desirable thing; whether it is a good thing that the offices of the State of trust and honor and profit are to be bought and sold in the market; whether it is a good thing that men are selected as candidates, not on account of their personal worth, not on account of their ability or fitness, but on account of the length of their purses and the amount that they will be enabled to contribute toward a campaign? The average ward politician,

in casting his eye about for the purpose of selecting a suitable candidate for office, chooses Mr. A not because he is fit, not because he is able, but because he is able to contribute. That is the great question now-a-days; and it has come to this pass that in many sections of this Commonwealth, no man can run for an office, no man can expect an office, unless he is a rich man, unless he has money to put into the campaign and wherewithal to buy his office.

The people cannot spare the poor men from the halls of legislation; they cannot spare the poor men from the bench and from the various other positions of trust and profit that are within their gift. Money, while good in itself, is not the sole qualification for high office; brains are sometimes desirable; but under the present system, for it has come to be a system, and is so recognized, it is the length of a man's purse and not his ability that often governs in his selection for an office. Therefore it seemed good to the committee to put here this provision, because it is the only place in the whole Constitution in which it can be inserted,

Now, should a candidate pay anything for an office? The theory of our government is that public officers are public servants. They are men who are selected from the body politic, and set apart to do a service for a compensation, for a reward. The amount of their compensation is fixed by law. It is fixed according to the value of the service they are to peform-not according to how much they have spent to get the office. Therefore, it seems to me that when a citizen is selected to be a candidate for office, he should not be called upon to pay a dollar for any expense, not even for printing tickets. They should be printed out of the common fund, and distributed, as election blanks are distributed, at the public expense. It is under this plea of " necessary election expenses" that all evils creep in. candidate is called upon to contribute for "necessary election expenses," for the printing and distribution of tickets, and the amount he is called upon to contribute is measured by the length of his purse. He is first assessed by the State Central Committee. He is then assessed by the county committee. He is then called upon by his ward club. Then every fireman's association, every hook and ladder company, every church, every meetinghouse, every charity and every bummer in the whole country side waits upon him

The

to bleed him, induce him to contribute to all sorts of objects, and when the election is over, if he has not got a large bank account, if his balance is not great, he is in a better condition to enter the poor-house than upon the duties of a responsible office.

This state of things is a shame and disgrace to Pennsylvania politics. It is not confined to any section, but, according to the testimony of all the delegates who come up here from all parts of the State, it is wide-spread and universal. It has come to pass that no man can obtain an important office unless he has large wealth, and it costs from five to ten, and as high as fifteen thousand, dollars to be elected to some of the offices in this Commonwealth. Therefore the committee thought it good to insert this provision, not as a cure-all, but as some slight barrier to the tide of venality and corruption which is sweeping over the land.

We

The committee further inserted a provision in the oath with regard to the duties the officer is to perform in the future; that he would take no unlawful fees. know that is an evil that must be prevented somehow. The system of bribery and corruption and the taking of illegal fees is widespread; and it seemed to the committee that this was a good place to meet that evil, and so it was inserted in this oath.

There are objections made to this oath. The principal one seems to be that it would be degrading to a man to take it; and we hear from the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Cuyler) that no honest man could take this oath without mantling his countenance with the blush of shame. Well, I do not see it, to use a cant phrase. Why should it mantle his countenance with the blush of shame any more to take the latter half of this oath than to take the first half? The gentleman from Philadelphia is willing that he should be sworn to do his duty with fidelity. Why swear him to do his duty with fidelity? Is it imagined beforehand that he intends to be unfaithful to his duty, that you require him to swear to do his duty with fidelity? Why should he not blush to take that part of the oath? You swear him to support the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the Constitution of the United States. Why swear him to do that? Do you imagine in advance that he means to defy both those Constitutions? Not at all. The face of the honorable gentleman himself was not mantled with shame when he

swore in this Convention, as a delegate here, to perform his duties with fidelity. Nobody expected that he intended to do anything else than perform his duties with fidelity; but he was nevertheless required to take the oath. I see no force in that objection.

When a young student stands before the bar to enter the honorable profession of the law the Bible is put in his hand and he swears to use no falsehood, to delay no man's cause for lucre or malice and to use good fidelity as well to the court as to his client. Does that mantle his face with shame? Is it expected that he will use falsehood and delay his client's cause for lucre or malice and break faith with the court and with his client? Not at all. And therefore when an officer stands up and swears that he has not bought an election, that he has not corrupted the ballot-box and been falsely returned, neither will his countenance be mantled with shame. That objection-without meaning disrespect to any gentleman on this floor-seems to me to be a sickly sentimentality, without any force in it.

It is objected further that it is not good to multiply oaths; that this would be in some sense a multiplication of oaths, and that when oaths are multiplied they cease to be regarded. That objection is better made to all oaths, and if good at all should bar the introduction of any oath.

It is further objected that good men will not be put into office, nor bad nien kept out by this oath; that it will not deter any bad man and will not assist any good man. That sort of reasoning would apply to any kind of penal enactinent. You might as well say it does no good to pass a law against larceny because the laws against larceny do not deter thieves. One gentleman feared it would do no good to adopt this oath against the use of money in elections, because it will not deter anybody from doing it. My idea is that the same objection would apply to every penal law.

It seems to me that the reason why rogues are deterred from committing crime is because of the punishment affixed by laws. There is a sanction here so that if a man is guilty of the offences enumerated, or any of them, and if he does take this oath falsely, then the punishment follows swiftly. He is guilty of perjury, and on conviction he will be punished as for perjury. Of course it is perfectly well known to every lawyer in this body that the violation of an official oath carries with it no punishment now. It is

a matter of no earthly account. You cannot now indict and punish a man for perjury for violating any official oath; and therefore it seemed good to the committee to affix some punishment, and not only to affix punishment as for perjury but also to disqualify a guilty man from ever hold. ing any office of trust or profit under this Commonwealth. Now, do gentlemen mean to say that the prospect of taking an oath which to swear falsely would consign him to the felon's cell and disgrace him forever, would not deter a man from committing the crimes therein enumerated? He would be a very bad man and would be a very desperate villain that would buy his election or stuff the ballotbox with the prospect of taking that oath before him. No man can use money in elections without inviting some second party into the secret. If a candidate buys a man, there must be a man bought, and therefore he puts into the hands of that man the key of the penitentiary, with a power to open the door for him, because there is the oath he is to take, and when he buys a man he provides a witness to his villainy. Do you tell me that will not deter a bad man who is running for office from buying his election? Why, Mr. Chairman, that argument it seems to me is absurd. If there is any good at all in requiring an oath let us put in that oath something that means something, and instead of a vague and glittering generality, without sanction or punishment attached, let it be so ordered that when a man does cheat and then swear falsely, he can be indicted for perjury and punished for perjury, and forever dishonored among his fellows.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW. Mr. Chairman: I only desire to say a word on this subject. When it was up before this Convention before I refrained from saying anything, although my convictions at that time were as firmly fixed as they are at present. But I feel as though this amendment was proper, and I shall support it. I shall support the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Cuyler) for the reasons that he has stated.

I do not think that oaths make dishonest men honest. I think the effect of our placing such an oath as that here proposed in the Constitution is to make us agents to add a few more perjured lips to the Gospel that is pretty well smeared already. Neither do I believe in this oath.

If I believed in a more specific one, I do not believe in this oath because it includes more than a man's discharge of official duty. That is the difficulty. It includes something that he is bound to refrain from as a citizen of the Commonwealth as well as an official. What is expected of an official is that he shall discharge the duty of the office which he holds with fidelity to the trust imposed upon him. What he has improperly done therefore to secure that office is an offense against the whole body of the people; it is a substantive offence against the people, and its punishment should be provided for in your penal code, as you must at last have a penal code for the purpose of enforcing the provisions that are contained in this Constitution.

Now, I take it that all that is required of the official is that he shall fairly dis charge his official duties properly and with fidelity. If he has violated or transgressed the law, punish him; and if you have no law in your statute book or in your penal code that makes influencing the electors corruptly an offense, there should be one placed there. We have laws, almost without number, in relation to the elections of officers; and that is the proper place to reach the man who attempts corruptly to influence electors. It is said that we have corrupt influences pervading our whole State at election times for the purpose of securing the success of one candidate or another. Will any gentleman pretend, for one moment, that this oath will change the system of elections; that because, forsooth, a candidate is prevented from expending money, that will prevent his friends from expending money, and going on as they have gone on and as they will go on as long as power is a goal that is sought for by men, and as long as partisan zeal can be excited? There is nothing curative in this as far as the people are concerned.

Now, I have attempted to separate official duty from the duty of the citizen. If a man be corrupt as a citizen, punish him; but this oath, as the amendment fixes it, is surely sufficient to impose upon the conscience of a man his duty in official station. When we come to the individual man, let us look at its effect. Take the first proposition; we have upon the one hand the bad man; we have have upon the other the good man; the bad man seeks for official preferment, the good man is sought for by his friends to accept office. The latter turns to the Constitu

tion of his State and he says, "Here is an oath which, if I accept this office, it will be almost impossible for me to take; and should I be elected my hands are tied; I cannot go into the Legislature to take the office and take that oath if I do as those have done heretofore in the political history of my country." Suppose that,over-persuaded by his friends, he does accept the position, he gets his nomination; then they come to him to carry on that election as other elections have been carried on heretofore. He says, "No, that I cannot do; look at this oath of office? Neither directly nor indirectly can I contribute anything." I say, therefore, the man's hands are tied whose conscience is keen to his obligations, and he folds his arms and says: "I will not move hand nor foot." The bad man, however, who has no regard for his oath, who will take it as the fish will the worm, has all the advantage. He goes among the people expending money as others have expended it, debauching them as they have been debauched before, and spreading the evil of this corruption, whilst the good man's hands are tied so that he will not move a step.

Under such a state of things as this, I ask the gentlemen who will fill your legislative halls? Will you elevate the class of your legislators or will you decrease their qualifications so far as honesty and integrity are concerned? The man who will corruptly influence electors will not hesitate at the threshold of his official duties in taking that oath for one second ; and therefore, instead of purifying your Legislature and making it better, you open the door for the corrupi scoundrel whose conscience is impervious to any such thing as perjury.

Mr. H. W. PALMER. When the fish takes the worm he gets caught generally. Mr. BARTHOLOMEW. Sometimes I am not very lucky at catching fish.

Mr. H. W. PALMER. That is what the worm is used for-to catch the fish.

Mr. BARTHOLOMEW. We understand you wish those men to be caught by tak. ing this oath. Where is the oath taken? The gentleman is a lawyer, and has seen, day after day in court, men coming up and swearing to support the Constitution of the United States, and the oath administered in a voice that neither he nor any other human being understands. The only point is, "give me half a dollar;" and then another man comes up: "Take off your hat and take your pipe out of