destroy one or two, if not more, of the most beneficent charities of the State.

I have submitted the amendment in good faith. As the section of the article to which I have referred has passed and received the approbation of a majority of this Convention, I do not desire to torture their patience by attempting its reconsid

eration, but I offer this amendment in good faith for the protection of a class of our people who deserve the protection and the security and the money of the people taken from the public treasury.

Mr. BROOMALL. Mr. President: I am very sorry that this question has been opened again, because it is the very question that was settled yesterday; but it is a matter which probably the gentleman who offers the amendment does not see in the same light in which I see it. He is proposing to do away with the whole section which we carried yesterday by so large a vote, in favor of any institution that will take within its walls two soldiers' orphans or two soldiers' widows. He does not propose that the Legislature may pay for the education of soldiers' orphans and the maintenance of their widows in these institutions; but he proposes that an institution established for any sectarian purpose, by simply getting within its walls two of the individuals that he favors, may be entirely exempt from the prohibition inserted in this Constitution by the section which we adopted yesterday after full debate

The gentleman may amend his amendment so as to avoid that difficulty; but he cannot get over the difficulty that it is spoiling and perverting the noble sectarian charities of the State by allowing them to dip their hands into the public treasury. I hope this proposition will be voted down. I want to see those institutions kept pure as they are now, and the only way to keep them pure is to keep them distinct charities as they are now, without connection with the State.

Mr. CURTIN. I will modify the amend ment so as to relieve it of the objection stated by the gentleman from Delaware, by making it read: "Existing institutions where the widows of soldiers are supported," &c.

Mr. BROOMALL. That does not do away with the difliculty.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Centre modifies his amendment, and it will be read as now modified.

The CLERK. The amendment as modified is to insert the following, as a new section:

"The Legislature may make appropriations of money to the existing institutions where the widows of soldiers are supported or assisted, or where the orphans of soldiers are maintained or educated."

Mr. BUCKALEW. I would suggest that the proper place to raise this question would have been in the nineteenth section, where there is an exception, "except pensions or gratuities for military service," and there it would have been proper to add, "or for the support of soldiers' widows and orphans." There, by a single clause, the member from Centre could have raised the question, and his proposition would have been put in the proper classification.

I do not understand that the chairman

of the committee gives a satisfactory answer to this proposition when he says that by a two-thirds vote these appropriations can be made. I do not understand that under the eighteenth and nineteenth sections the State will be at liberty to appropriate a dollar, except to an institution under exclusive State management. That is my understanding of those sections. Heretofore the State, by contract, has had its soldiers' orphans supported by literary institutions not under exclusive State management, though subject to State visitation: and I would like to vote, if the question can be properly raised, to continue that power. I do not know whether or not it will be exercised hereafter.

Mr. CURTIN. If there were any parliamentary way of raising the question in that form, I would do it.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I suggest to the gentleman that the proper mode would be, as soon as the pending section is voted upon, to move to reconsider the nineteenth section, and then to insert in the exception to that section "the support of soldiers' widows and orphans," and in that form I will vote with the gentleman because I understand that as to these meritorious classes of our people, they that we have now placed the question of would then be left on the same footing pensions and gratuities.

Mr. CURTIN. All I want to do is to put them on the same footing with soldiers who receive pensions.

Mr. BUCKALEW and others. Then let this amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. CURTIN. Very well, I withdraw my amendment for the present.

Mr. BROOMALL. I desire to offer an amendment as a new section.

Mr. CURTIN. I think on reflection I shall not withdraw my amendment, but ask for a vote upon it. I do not want to give it up.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from Centre (Mr. Curtin.)

Mr. EWING. As I understand the proposition offered by the gentleman from Centre, it is simplyopening a wide door again by which the Legislature may make appropriations to sectarian institutions or to a certain one, two or three institutions which are sectarian. I do not understand the gentleman from Centre to claim that, as the sections already adopted stand, the Legislature may not continue to support the widows and orphans of soldiers; but he claims that as they stand the State cannot appropriate money to sectarian institutions, and he says that one or two of those institutions where these widows and orphans have been supported are strictly sectarian. I know nothing about the institutions to which he refers, but if such be the case I, for one, say it has been a gross abuse of legislative power or of executive power whereby such arrangements have been made. I hope that the door will not be opened in the Constitution for such abuses, and especially if, as the gentleman says, the necessity will only continue for six years longer. That being the case, we certainly do not want this provision in the body of the Constitution. If there are any contracts or arrangements which should be kept up for a few years which justice or good faith on the part of the State requires should be maintained for a short time, let provision for them be put in the schedule and not in the body of the Constitution.

*

Mr. W. H. SMITH. I shall insist on keeping the section already adopted as it is. I do not believe there is in it any prohibition on the Legislature as to providing for the maintenance of soldiers' orphans at all. The section says that "no appropriation * * shall be made for charitable, educational or benevoient purposes to any person or community, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution. It seems to me that to vote money for the support of soldiers' orphans and widows is not to vote money to "charitable, educational or benevolent purposes to any person or community," or "to any denominational or sectarian institution." The course will be as it

has been heretofore, I think, to vote a certain sum for the maintenance of these persons wherever they may be. They may be boarding at different institutions; and paying their board on proper vouchers is not voting money to those institutions, but it is voting money to support those orphans and widows. When that board money is paid to the institutions for the support of the widows or paid for the education of the orphans, it is not an appropriation for the institutions, but an appropriation for the soldiers' orphans and widows. I think the Legislature is abundantly able under the powers already given them by the sections we have adopted to make such an appropriation.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from Centre.

Mr. CURTIN. I call for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDENT. It requires ten members to second the call.

Messrs. Curry, Cuyler, MacVeagh, Worrell, J. M. Wetherill, Runk, Newlin, Dallas, Hay, J. N. Purviance, Baer, H. W. Palmer and Russell rose.

The PRESIDENT. The call for the yeas and nays is seconded.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, the result was as follows, viz.:

YEAS.

Messrs. Baer, Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Baker, Biddle, Bigler, Black, Charles A., Bowman, Brown, Buckalew, Campbell, Carey, Cassidy, Cochran, Curtin, Cuyler, Dallas, Dodd, Funck, Guthrie, Hay, Hazzard, Hunsicker, Lamberton, Landis, Lawrence, Lear, MacVeagh, M'Clean, M'Culloch, Newlin, Palmer, G. W., Palmer, H. W., Patterson, D. W., Porter, Purman, Purvi-ance, John N., Read, John R., Reynolds, Runk, Russell, Smith, Henry W., Stanton, Wetherill, J. M., Wetherill, Jno. Price, Wherry, White, J. W. F., Woodward, Worrell and Meredith, President— 49.

NAYS.

Messrs. Achenbach, Baily, (Perry,) Bannan, Black, J. S., Boyd, Broomall, Church, Corbett, Craig, Cronmiller, Curry, Darlington, Davis, Dunning, Ellis, Ewing, Finney, Fulton, Hanna, Hemphill, Horton, Howard, Lilly, MacConnell, Mantor, Minor, Mott, Patterson, T. H. B., Patton, Simpson, Smith, Wm. H., Struthers, Turrell, Walker, White, David N. and White, Harry-36.

So the amendment was agreed to. ABSENT.-Messrs. Addicks, Ainey, Alricks, Andrews, Armstrong, Barclay, Bardsley, Bartholomew, Beebe, Brodhead, Calvin, Carter, Clark, Collins, Corson, De France, Edwards, Elliott, Fell, Gibson, Gilpin, Green, Hall, Harvey, Heverin, Kaine, Knight, Littleton, Long, M'Camant, M'Murray, Mann, Metzger, Mitchell, Niles, Parsons, Pughe, Purviance, Sam'l A., Reed, Andrew, Rooke, Ross, Sharpe, Smith, H. G., Stewart, Temple, Van Reed and Wright-47.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the thirty-seventh section as amended.

The section as amended was agreed to. Mr. BROOMALL. I offer the following amendment, to come in as a new section: "SECTION The Legislature shall once in every five years submit to a vote of the electors of the State the question whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquors, or any admixture thereof, to be used as a beverage, shall be prohibited in the State, and shall carry into effect the result of such vote by appropriate laws." The amendment was rejected. Mr. NEWLIN.

I offer the following as

a new section. "The Legislature shall enact liberal exemption laws, and no waiver of the benefit thereof shall be valid."

I do not desire, Mr. President, to detain the Convention for any length of time on this proposition. I simply wish to call attention to the fact that in most of the States of the Union there are now liberal exemption provisions contained in the organic law, and in a number of them the phraseology is such that no waiver can be permitted. In this State, however, we know that it is otherwise.

My proposition, I submit, is not liable to the objection that it is of a legislative character, because it leaves the amount of exemption entirely to be fixed from time to time by the law-making power; but it prevents the benefit of the exemption being waived. It seems to me the only logical reason upon which an exemption law can be based is that the enactment is required for the protection of the persons who are to be benefited by it; and if they are allowed to waive that protection, the provision becomes nugatory. Those who are able to make binding contracts in such manner as to protect themselves, do not require any such provision, and those who do require an exemption should not be allowed to waive it. We frequently have cases where a dissolute

and drunken husband waives the benefit of the exemption law either in giving a judgment under it, or in signing a lease or other instrument, and his family are brought to utter destitution. I do not think that any sound policy of law requires that, and hence I propose to cut it off absolutely.

Mr. LILLY. The gentleman from Columbia (Mr. Buckalew) desires me to suggest the word "reasonable" instead of "liberal."

Mr. NEWLIN. I will accept the modification.

The PRESIDENT. The amendment will be so modified.

Mr. LILLY. I am in favor of this proposition of the gentleman from Philadelphia. There has been an immense amount of harm done all over this Commonwealth by the waiver of exemptions. In the first place the exemption laws are entirely for the benefit of the wife and the children of different parties; but a man comes along and induces the head of a household to buy a sewing machine, or a clock or something else and takes his note. He does not ask him to pay any money, but he takes his note; and when he comes to read that note, on the bottom is a printed form waiving the exemption of everything. Then the time comes along in a few months when the note is due and everything is swept away from that man. Now, this provision is necessary to protect the wife and the children. I believe that it ought to be adopted.

Mr. BAER. I move to amend by striking out the whole amendment and inserting the following in lieu of it:

"The privilege of a debtor, being a householder or head of a family, to enjoy the necessary comforts of life shall be recognized by wholesome laws exempting a reasonable amount of property, not exceeding in value $1,000, from seizure and sale for the payment of any debt or liability contracted after the adoption of this Constitution: Provided, That such exemption may be waived by the debtor at the time of making the contract, and not otherwise. In addition to the exemption above authorized, the tools of a mechanic, the sewing machine of a wife, widow, or maiden, and the household furniture of a householder or head of a family, not exceeding in value $300, shall be absolutely exempt from all liability whatever, and shall not be sold or assigned without the consent of husband and wife, where that relation

exists, signified in such manner as may be prescribed by law. And all contracts waiving this absolute exemption are hereby declared void."

I wish to call the attention of the members of the Convention to the fact that the proposition of the gentleman from Philadelphia authorizing the Legislature to pass liberal exemption laws does not fix the amount. I propose to make $1,000 the limitation, and to provide that that limitation may be waived at the time the contract is made, but not otherwise. But my amendment goes further and provides that three hundred dollars shall be absolutely exempt from all liability whatever, so that three hundred dollars worth of property, including the household furniture, the bed and bedding, and something of that kind, shall be forever exempted, and that this exemption may not be waived by the debtor at any time, nor shall that portion be sold or assigned without the consent of the husband and wife, where that relation exists, which, although legislative in its character, is, I think, highly proper for this Convention to do.

I admit it is legislative in character, but I also assert that the Legislature has failed up to this time to guarantee to poor men their rights in this respect. At the very last session of the Legislature they asked for protection in this regard, but it was refused, and it always will be as long as the legislative body is composed of politicians. They will look at the chances of re-election. This body is organized differently, composed of men who have no regard to the political future, and who can afford to make provisions to protect the poor man against the ravages of traders who sometimes take advantage of his necessities.

As the matters now stand the exemption law of this State amounts to nothing at all. A sharp dealer procures a waiver note, a note that is called a cut-throat in common parlance, which simply takes away every farthing that the family have, and the law may be waived by any man. He may go and contract a debt for whiskey, and after the contract is made, sign a note of this kind which takes away every dollar that the family have.

If you look at pages 601, 602 and 603 of the volume of American Constitutions you will find that eighteen of the States of this Union have provided liberal exemption laws, and Pennsylvania, the great Keystone of the arch, has nothing that is worthy of her great name. It is high

time that something should be put in the fundamental law that shall protect the poor man in these days of extravagance and high prices. The $300 of exemption to-day does not amount to as much as the four beds and cow did under the former laws.

If you want to win the heart and the sympathies of the poor man to our work here, do one act at least in his favor. All that we have done up to this time is for the rich; not a single thing do I see yet that is in favor of the poor man. Let us do this, and we will merit and receive the prayers of hundreds and thousand of poor women of this Commonwealth who are to-day in distress because of an exemption law on the statute book that amounts literally to nothing, and it is a disgrace to the State. I hope that the provision I have offered will pass, and that by a unanimous vote.

Mr. WORRELL, I offer an amendment, to strike out the word "maiden" and insert the words "single women."

The PRESIDENT. That amendment is not in order, as there is an amendment to an amendment pending.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I must protest against the observations of the delegate at large from Somerset (Mr. Baer) when he says that everything that has hitherto been done by this Convention is in the interest of the rich against the poor. I protest that that delegate has not done justice to his integrity when he makes that statement. Every restriction which we are throwing around the Legislature is in the interest of all the citizens of this Commonwealth, the poor more than the rich; the restrictions we are throwing around corporations, the prohibition against special privileges, is in the interest of the individual citizen and against the aggregation of capital. Enough for that, Mr. President.

I am opposed in this place to the incorporation of this section. It is not the right place for it to be put. We are now considering the article on legislation. I submit that the proposition of the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. Newlin) is so vague and indefinite that it practically amounts to nothing. If this Convention is going to assume the privilege of doing something in this regard, let it create a homestead law under the proper head, and place it in the article entitled "the Declaration of Rights." That is where it belongs. Any instruction to the Legislature to pass an exemption law is like a

proclamation to the idle winds; you have no assurance whatever, that that which the delegate from Somerset so earnestly advocates will be secured. I am, myself, in favor of a specific homestead exemption law. I am in favor of designating that which shall be exempt from the clutch of the creditor. I am in favor of exempting the homestead of every man in this Commonwealth to the value of a thousand dollars and such personal property, indicating it, as shall be deemed equivalent in value. When the proper time comes, when the article on the Declaration of Rights is under consideration and the delegate from Somerset or any other delegate offers that proposition, I shall cheerfully vote for it; but I submit that under the head of the article on legislation it is improper, and I hope it will not pass at this time.

Mr. NEWLIN. I trust the Convention will not adopt the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Somerset, because it is liable to the objection that it legislates and goes into detail.

I desire, also, to call the attention of the Convention to the particular objection urged to my amendment by the chairman of the Committee on Legislation. It occurs to me that it is a very favorite method here of defeating a proposition that cannot be defeated in any other way, to suggest that it is a very proper thing, but that it belongs somewhere else. Men may differ as to where this provision should go, but it seems to me that this is as good a place as any, and is the proper place, for we are here considering the article on legislation, and we are here making a mandate to the legislative body, and I can conceive of no other and better place to put this provision.

Mr. D. W. PATTERSON. I merely wish to observe briefly that I am opposed to the amendment and to the amendment to the amendment, and I feel that I should oppose both because I am a friend of the poor man. I am opposed to such action because it is mere legislation in the first place, and it is manifest to every member that our Constitution will be very voluminous and we should not increase it more than we can possibly avoid. In the second place, I maintain that the proposition would work a hardship to the poor man. Gentlemen say that the existing exemption laws work a hardship. I say that my experience and observation has been very different. Take away the restraint of

waiving the exemption and you do an injury to the poor man and the man of limited means. I have seen that provision alone afford to a man an opportunity to get a start in business, to get a responsible endorser starting him with a small sum that enabled him to succeed in business in after life. I have seen hundreds of times that provision permitting the waiver of the exemption to enable a poor man to get a house and roof over his head and his family, when without that provision he would have been utterly deprived of the comforts of a roof over his head to protect him and his wife and children from the storms. Hence I maintain that the principle of allowing the waiving of the exemption is a great advantage to the poor man, and I should be sorry, with my present convictions, to see it taken

away.

I hope that the amendments will be voted down by this Convention because truly they are legislation, and I maintain that the Legislature at any time are willing to do all that they can to advance the interests of the poor man.

Mr. DARLINGTON. I wish to add a single word only. It strikes me that all this effort is in the wrong direction. While I agree with every gentleman here-I presume there is no difference of opinion among us-that a poor debtor should be allowed the privilege of having a certain amount of his property exempt from execution, so that his wife and family should not be turned out of doors, yet it is a privilege which he may waive if he sees fit and which he does waive if he does not claim. I know that this has caused a family sometimes distress. You cannot make any law or any provision of your Constitution that will not at some time or other have that effect in some individual application of it. You must make a law for all alike. Now, why should not I, supposing myself a single man, with no family dependent upon me, be allowed to say to another, "you lend me such an amount of money, and, if I do not pay it, obtain your judgment and exccution and sell all I have?" Why restrict the power of the borrower to contract with his creditor that in the event of his inability to pay in cash the creditor may take everything the debtor has, in execution in the case supposed? Nobody is dependent on me; nobody has a better right to it than my creditor. If the Legislature can devise a scheme whereby a poor man's family shall be protected from