given entire satisfaction to the people was, nolens volens, to be turned

out.

As he (Mr. H.) had already said, the argument and the principle contended for, had been that if the life tenure was taken away there could be no doubt that good judges would be appointed again. It was argued, too, that they would be independent. But, how that could be so, he was at a loss to perceive. Another argument used was, that if a judge knew that his re-appointment depended upon his good behaviour, he would conduct himself accordingly. Now, however, it seemed that this inducement for judges to be faithful and honest in the discharge of their duties, was to be withdrawn. For the future, then, it was to be a matter of no consideration how a man performed his duty, no consequence how corrupt or exceptionable might be his conduct. He was sure of his office for a certain time, and no longer. He (Mr. H.) would say, at least, if the life tenure (as it had been called) was to be abandoned, let the inducement to good behaviour be retained. Was it to be supposed that a man in the prime of life-of thirty or forty years of age-after being thrown out of office for some years, would be willing to take it again? He apprehended not.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, said, that he was opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Sterigere) because it was at all times difficult to apply general rules to meet particular cases. As had been correctly stated by the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Reigart) the governor does not possess the sole power of appointment, for the senate participates in it. And, it was not to be supposed that they would concur in any appointment, unless they were satisfied with it. But, as the constitution now stood, the governor possessed the sole power of appointment, and the senate had no control over him in that respect. At the present time, the judges would not be at liberty to resign for the purpose of being re-appointed. What, he asked, had been the course adopted by judges about to be tried for some misdemeanor in office? Why, finding that the court held out longer than the usual period, they would resign at such a time as would induce the governor to receive their commissions, and thus they were saved the mortification of being arraigned. He maintained that if the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, prevailed the effect of it would be to cut off valuable, honest, upright men, whom both the governor and the senate would be willing to re-appoint. The principles of the amendment he (Mr. B.) regarded as being like that which characterized an old law which was in existence in New England, in reference to the punishment of those who practised witch craft. If they were guilty they were to be destroyed, and if they were not, they were to meet the same fate. Whether worthy, or unworthy, these judges were to be cut off.

Now why, he would inquire, not re-appoint a man if he shews him self worthy and faithful in the discharge of his duties? Let those judges be nominated to the senate three months before the expiration of their appointments, if they deserved to be re-appointed. There was no danger to be apprehended from the adoption of this mode of proceeding. The governor of the commonwealth would not venture to nominate unworthy men. He hoped that the convention would not go into committee of the whole.

This body had provided by the fifth article of the constitution that the legislature shall have the power to propose amendments to the constition, when deemed necessary. Let, then, the constitution, as amended, be submitted to the people, who would either accept or reject it, as they might think proper.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, observed that he did not think the argument of the gentleman from Mifflin, (Mr. Banks) a very sound one. The gentleman was entirely mistaken in supposing that his (Mr. S's.) amendment would have the effect of cutting off worthy and competent judges. That would be the result, however, of the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop) as had been truly stated by the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Hopkinson.) It ought not therefore, to be adopted. With regard to what had fallen from the gentleman from Mifflin, relative to witches, he would only say that he knew more about them than he (Mr. S.) did, for he had nothing to say on the subjet. We had introduced amendments to limit the tenure of the judges to ten years, and he having considered it was liable to evasion, like the rule adopted in this convention, limiting a member to speak but one hour, had thought proper to propose the amendment now pending, and which he trusted would be adopted.

In respect to appointments by the governor, he would remark that all experience had shewn that men had always been appointed by our different executive magistrates from among the political party to which they themselves belonged. Now, he entertained no objection to that. If competent men were not to be found in his (Mr. S's.) party, they might be taken from any other. He cared not what might be the politics of the men -whether they were federalists, anti-masons, or any thing else. Good men would be found in every party, and they would administer justice with perfect equality to men of all conditions. His desire was to obtain the appointment of judges, unassociated by party feeling, if possible. He wished to deprive the judges of all political motives in reference to their re-appointments; and also, to take away from the governor and senate any feeling of this kind entering into the appointments they may make. One political party was as liable to be influenced by political feeling as another. With respect to his amendment, he would observe that it did not provide for particular cases, as the gentleman from Mifflin, (Mr. Banks) had remarked. It was to be a general rule. Believing that the amendment was of great importance, he had consequently drawn the attention of the convention to it.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, said that he was opposed to the amendment of the gentlemen from Montgomery and Franklin. For his own part, he could say that he was disposed to let well alone, for what had been obtained was in as good a form as could be got. The inference that was to be drawn from the amendments of those dele ates was that there was danger to be apprehended from the governor, and the judges combining together to cheat the people. The gentleman from Montgomery, had said that the language of the section went to show it was the determination of the convention that no judge on the supreme court bench should hold his office longer than fifteen years, and on that of the court of common pleas, ten years; but that, in his opinion, these limitations might be avaded. And, if so, it must be by the governor and senate. He (Mr.

F.) could not believe it possible that such a combination would be entered into to defeat the will of the people. He would vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery.

Mr. Scorг, of Philadelphia, regarded the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, as calculated to deprive the community of the services of useful, talented, honest and honorable judges. The effect of it would be to render their re-appointment impossible, and thus would the judicial beneh of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, be hereafter deprived of every ornament in the profession who might have adorned it by their learning and talents. Yet, on the other hand, he (Mr. Scptt) saw another great evil that would result, if this body should not adopt the amendment. By the change which we had already made in the constitution, we were putting into the hands of the executive one of the strongest possible instruments of corruption. If, then, the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, were to be negatived, we should be placing at the feet of the governor, and under the control of the senate, the judiciary for all time to come.

This was one of the grievances- -one of the melancholy results of a change in the judicial tenure from good behaviour to a term of years. We now felt that this must necessarily follow from a change of the tenure. We were reduced to the alternative of either bestowing upon the executive one of the greatest instruments of corruption ever bestowed upon power, or of depriving this great commonwealth of the services of eminent and distinguished judges for the future. It was possible that such a state of corruption as this might exist hereafter-as for instance, the executive and the senate being desirous to induce this or that judge, to give an opinion in accordance with theirs, in order that they may carry their point-renew his appointment for ten years, on that score ! Of the two evils, then, to which he had adverted, this was the greater, and therefore, he would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery. He would now make a remark or two, in reference to what had fallen from the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) in reference to what had fallen from his colleague, (Mr. Chandler.)

That remark was made in the course of an address to this convention, and probably I ought not to say any thing more in reference to it, because I know that my colleague is fully competent to take care of himself. He needs no aid at my hands. But, in behalf of all our delegation, I beg leave to say, that although they may, and probably do, entertain the hope that the people will not be satisfied with the amendments proposed to them by this body, yet that no vote has hitherto been given, and that no vote will hereafter be given by any member of that delegation on the principle of doing that which would bring the amendments into disrepute.

Our course has been manfully, openly and fairly to resist the adoption of every amendment which seemed to us to be injudicious and improper; but never, in a single instance, have we given a vote with the intention to create disgust. I felt at the time that there was a little unkindness in the observation. I am glad to find, however, that it did not go so far as I had at first thought it was intended to go, because it came from a gentleman who, I believe, would not wilfully do injustice to any man, however much he might differ from him on questions of public policy.

As regards the matter now before the convention, I find myself between

two bitter alternatives-in all kindness of spirit be it said-but nevertheless, I am between two bitter alternatives. I am reduced to the alternative either of voting for that which will deprive the commonwealth of able judges on the one hand; or on the other, of voting to strip them of their legitimate power and authority, for that which might be the instrument of corruption and injury. I prefer the latter alternative to the former, and I shall give my vote accordingly.

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, said.

I beg leave to say, that I did not make the observation which has been alluded to by the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. Scott) in any spirit of unkindness towards the city delegation. I merely stated a fact from which I endeavored to draw an inference in relation to the question at that time before the convention. Beyond this, I did not intend to go. Nor did I even in that, allude to the member of that delegation who has just taken his seat, (Mr. Scott.)

One of the gentlemen from the city of Philadelphia-whom I took occasion to compliment on his candor-stated, in the course of some observations which he submitted to the convention, that the hope of the party with whom he acted consisted in a belief that the people would be so much disgusted with these amendments, that they wouid reject them all. And it was to that remark that I alluded, not, as I have said, in any spirit of unkindness, but only because it was made in the course of debate on this floor, and, having been so made, was to be regarded as a legitimate subject of comment by any gentleman who might be disposed to speak of it.

It is a source of some gratification to me to find, that my recollection in this particular is sustained by that of several gentlemen around me, who were present at the time. I assure the gentlemen from the city, one and all of them, that I did not allude to this observation for any purpose of reproach, but simply because it appeared to afford me an argument against the proposition then before the convention.

Mr. CHANDLER, of Philadelphia, rose and inquired, does the gentleman from Luzerne allude to me, as the member of the city delegation, who made the observation alluded to?

Mr. WOODWARD. I'do, sir.

Mr. CHANDLER. I do not remember that Iever made use of the words attributed to me, but I do know my feelings to be such as the language used by the gentleman from Luzerne would imply. But I never, at any time since the commencement of the labors of this body, have indulged the thought that any vote of the conservative members would tend to disgust the people.

I have, however, entertained the hope that that which the gentleman from Luzerne and his party did, would be found to be so unpalatable to the people that they would not accept the amendments.

I do not desire that this amended constitution should be adopted by the people. Of my wishes and feelings in this particular I have made no secret. I have taken my position fairly and openly against the principles and doctrines which have been introduced here. I have done so without fear of the consequences, and with a just confidence in the verdict of those who alone have the right to judge me. But whilst I have been

thus opposed to most of the amendments, I certainly would not vote for any thing which I believed to be wrong; and I do not believe that the people would accept any thing that was wrong. And I now, in my plece disclaim for myself and my colleagues, any intention of proposing or advocating any proposition for the purpose, or with the remotest view of disgusting the people with the amendments and thus securing the defeat of all of them.

Mr. WOODWARD rose to say, that he had never intimated that here or elsewhere.

Mr. CHADLER resumed :

I am anxious to set myself right in this matter, if not before the people themselves, at least before the representatives of the people here assembled -amongst the chief of whom I esteem the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward.) I should be sorry that he should take away with him any wrong impressions of my sentiments.

My colleague (Mr. Scott) has expressed precisely my own opinion. He never desired that the people should accept the amendments. Nor did I. But he, like myself, desires that the people should have a fair opportunity of saying whether they would accept them or not-that they should not be put to them in a lump, so as to compel them to take the bad for the sake of something good.

As to the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Sterigere) I entertain the same opinion towards that, as has been expressed by my colleague, (Mr. Scott,)

I, for one, am opposed to almost every amendment which has been introduced into the constitution, and when I have voted against them, I desire that the people should have an opportunity to do so likewise. I feel as sincre a regard for the best interests of the people as any delegate on this floor, and I can unite with the gentleman from Luzerne and others in their most fervent aspirations in that respect.

I regard all their civil and political rights; and I desire by all my votes here to give them an entire and perfect exercise of those rights in all things; and, amongst others in relation to the amendments which we are about to submit to them, so that they may know what is good and accept it, and may know what is evil and avoid it.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, said:

The question immediately before the convention is on the motion of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop.) The effect of his amendment, if I understand it, would be to prevent the re-appointment of the judges.

1 did not distinctly hear the argument in favor of the original proposition, but, from the little I did hear, I suppose it is intended to prevent the governor from finessing on the subject of appointments; or, in other words, to prevent a judge from resigning before his term of service is quite out, in order to get a new appointment for ten years. I am afraid that this might interfere with the republican doctrine of rotation in officewhich according to the coustiuction of the office-holders, means to go from one office into another; but which, according to the construction of the people, means out of office, and not in. If this latter is the intention of the amendment, I do not know that I should be in favor of it; because