The mountain sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1844-1853, 1852-09-02

| cure the adoption of that amendment, is fact
which no man here dare deny. But his efforts
were unavailing. The Federal and Abolition press
had prejudiced the public mind against the do
! ings OF the Convention they had prociaimed
their determination IN advance to oppose the
the whole, If Objectionable proposition should
be agreed upon; that proposition agreed
| upon, and the whole was rejected.
The Convention met again in April, 1851
General Pierce, Judge Woodbury., and other
Democratic members insisted upon again sub
mitting TO the people the amendment abolishing
the religious test. This was opposed by the
leading Federal members, concealing their hos
tility to this amendment under pretenee that the
Convention had no power to do any thing further.
This ground was also taken by the whole FEEDER
al press. But Gen. Pierce and his friends sue
ceeding in prevailing on the Convention to sub
nit the question again. At the Democratic eau
Gus before the vote taken in town meeting
Gen. Pierce made speech upon the subject and
urged his political friends to vote for this amend
ment and in the town meeting, while the bal
loting was going on, he addressed the people in
an earnest and eloquent speech in support Of
it. But the Federal press had kept up its war
fare upon the Convention, thus keeping alive
the prejudice against its whole doings and
this, with the excitement attendant upon the
most violently contest election that had occur
red for many years, caused the amendment to
be again rejected, two-thirds vote being requi-
red to adopt it.
Now let US look a little at the course of par
ties upon this question in years past. We state
it as fact which the files of the papers will
fully substantiate, that every Democratic paper
in the State has always urged the people to vote
for Convention on every occasion when that
question has been before them and the files of
the Federal papers viii show that previous TO
4c,og, o1oly- 5Ird UI Inese papers opposea ~
calling OF q Convention. The last time the cues
was submitted, previous to 1850, was at the
Presidential election in 1914. Every Democrat
ic paper in the State then advocated it mainly
for the purpose OF ab0lishing the religious and
property tests and e0ery Federal paper opposed
a. The Nashua Telegraph said-"We do not
think it worth while to incur the expense of a
Convention, and the risk Of improving it
(the Constitution at present. The Keenc
Sentinel admitted that its political friends had
opposed a Convention three times within ten
years, as they '1were unwilling to submit the
vision Of the Constitution, for trifing practical
defects, to such men" as then controlled the
State. The Exeter Neaos Letter advised the peo-
pie to '.let well enough alone"-that if Con-
ventiOn was called, ''they would probably mar
the Constitution in two instances where they
mended it in one'-that it ''would be as likely
to do hurt as good'-that the Constitution was
imperfect, ''but we are not at all certain that
it is so bad as it would be likely to be made by
any assembly that would now be convened to
revise it." The ". II. Statesmen said that the
bulk of the people were satisfied with the Con-
stitution it is''-that if it was revised ''some
very obnoxious features would be incorporated
into it, and that '.this consideration, in connec-
ton with the cost of the Convention, and the
necessity of the publication OF an entire new
code of laws, will cause the people to be ex-
ceedingly cautious in their vote" upon the ques-
ton. These are well known as among the old
est and most influential of the Federal papers
of the State, and the remarks we have quoted
are but samples of what was said by the whole
of them against the calling of Convention to
revise the Constitution.
At that time, as we have before stated, the
Democratic tickets for!the whole State were prin-
ted, BY THE ADVICE OF General Pierce, IN FAVOR
of Convention. This was denounced by the
whole Federal press as 'diction"-an attempt
to force the people to vote for a Convention and
they called upon the peoplesto resist this attempt
to dictate to them in the matter, thus directly
appealing to them to vote against q Convention.
The Patriot then said eve speak the univer-
sal sense of the Democratic party when we
denounce the provisions alluded to as violative,
grossly and deeply, of the plainest and most in
controvertible rights which are asserted in the
Bill of Rights" In another article the Patriot
said: eve believe we say with truth that
there is not an intelligent member of The Demo
cratic party in the State, who is not in favor of
a revision" Every other Democratic paper was
equally as earnest In favor OF revision. And
such was the difference between the two parties
then the press of each truly reflected the sem
timents of their respective parties.
When the time approached for the submission
of the question to the people again, the Demo-
cratic State Convention, October 18th, 1849,)
unanimously adopted the following resolution:
Resoloed That we are in favor of a revision
and amendment of our State Constitution to
such an extent at least as will free it from reli
gious tests, property qualifications and all other
illiberal and anti-republican features,
AS before remarked, Convention was held