In regard to the court of common pleas, it is created by the constitution, but it is in the power of the legislature, at any time they think proper, to take away from that court its entire jurisdiction. That, however, could not be done in reference to the supreme court. The judges of the common pleas are the creatures of the legislature; and the language of the constitution of 1790 is that "until it shall be otherwise directed by law, there shall be appointed in each county not fewer than three, nor more than four judges.' The justices of the peace are under the control of the legislature.

He sup

He had a word or two to say.in relation to the associate judges and the justices of the peace. The difference between them and the law judges was important. They do not appropriate the whole of their time to the duties of their office, as was the case with the latter. He would ask gentlemen who had talked so much about principle, and of the want of adherence to it on the part of others, how their objections tallied with their avowal now that they do not object so much to the tenure of the supreme court, as to the effect of establishing a principle in respect to the court of common pleas. The avowal had been distinctly made, that, although it might be right to permit the judges of the supreme court to remain in office, as the constitution of 1790 guarantees, yet that it would not answer their views in regard to the court of common pleas. posed that there would be no great difficulty in bringing this as an argument to bear upon the argument of the reformers here, when gentlemen were found changing their grouud between Saturday and Monday, and trying to bring about a reconsideration of the vote taken in reference to the supreme court. What, he would ask, does this avowal amount to in relation to the president judges? Why, certain gentlemeu do not like the common pleas judges, and they want to get rid of them. And, in order to effect that object, they would not hesitate to sacrifice the supreme court judges. He would suppose, for instance, that the president judge of the thirteenth or fifteenth district, or of the eleventh, or that the president judge of the seventeenth or the seventh, should happen to be objectionable to certain lawyers in any of those districts.

Mr. AGNEW explained :--As his district had been referred to, he begged to say that he was not among those who complained of the president judge.

Mr. WOODWARD would also explain that the remarks of the gentleman had no application to the eleventh district.

Mr. PORTER resumed: The application he had made to these districts was merely hypothetical. He had not supposed that the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Agnew) had any complaint to enter against these judges. Such an idea had not entered his (Mr. P's) mind. But, he merely supposed these president judges to be objectionable to some gentlemen, as perhaps accounting for the course they had thought proper to pursue. He was sorry to see gentlemen taking these remarks to themselves. He did not believe that any gentleman here would suffer his personal feelings to operate on him. He thought they were governed by purer and loftier motives. He would certainly acquit them of being influenced by any such feelings. He would suppose that they would throw their personal prejudices on the altar of principle which should govern us all. His friend from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) in the course of

his observations, spoke of the pleasure he always felt to hear him (Mr. P.) speak, but that it was much lessened when he heard the same thing repeated. He would tell the delegate that a wiser man than either he or him (Mr. Porter) made this remark eighteen hundred years ago, that a man was very apt to "see a mote in his brother's eye, but could not see the beam in his own."

But it could not be too often told,could not be too often impressed upon this convention, nor could it be kept too much in view, that the proceeding contemplated by gentlemen here, would, if carried out, destroy the last link of refuge left for the constitution of Pennaylvania—that was in the supreme court. He beliewed as firmly as he believed any thing on earth, that if the judges of the supreme court were to be on the tenure proposed by the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) as he (Mr. P.) supposed they would, and made liable to the political fluctuations of the commonwealth, a more deadly blow could not be inflicted on the administration of justice in Pennsylvania by any other amendment that could be proposed.

The gentleman from Bucks (Mr. M'Dowell) had asked whether the convention have a right to appoint the judges. He (Mr. Porter) would inquire whether we are not the representatives of the people of Pennsylvania, and have any other limit or restraint upon us in regard to the judiciary than our sense of duty. That was all by which we are bound. We have a right to say, if we thought proper, that every officer holding a commission under this commonwealth shall go out of office on the very day the people adopt the amendments, or that they shall not. We may save the commissions of those now in office, as we have a right to do, and for which we have a precedent in the constitution of 1790, which we have met to reform and amend. He would repeat what he had already said, that the members of this body are limited only by a sense of their duty.

The gentleman from Bucks had remarked that this was not a case in which our sympathies were to be invoked, but one of inexorable justice. Now, he would ask that gentleman whether it would be right, or just, or humane, to turn a man out of office in his old age to seek a living as he may, who had spent the greater part of his life in his country's service, to which he had devoted his faculties and all the energies of his mind. What a spectacle would it be to see a man who had presided over the supreme court, as its chief justice, for eighteen or twenty years, obliged to go into a court of quarter sessions, to eke out a scanty pittance for the subsistance of his family-when, perhaps, if he had not entered the service of the commonwealth he might have been comfortably off in his circumstances. In mentioning this fact, he (Mr. Porter) appealed not to the sympathies of gentlemen, he only asked even-handed justice for the servants of the commonwealth, who had done all they could for it. What, he would inquire, would be the effect of adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne? The present Chief Justice, Gibson, was appointed in May, 1827; Judge Rogers, in April, 1826; Judge Huston, in April, 1826; Judge Kennedy, in November, 1830; and Judge Sergeant, in February, 1834. By the graduation proposed, Judges Rogers and Huston would go out in 1845 or 1846-two together. And, yet we were told there was no danger of all the judges being off the

bench by that time. Supposing that death should be busy among them, and carry of three, and the other two leaving the bench at the same time, would there not be an entirely new bench appointed thereafter? Gentlemen might talk as they pleased, but he had seen too many instances of term judges being turned out.

Look at the list of judges of the city and and county of Philadelphia, and compare it with those who preceded them. And it would be found that in neither case, were the old judges continued. They were all new without a single exception. He had no doubt about the fact. How was it to he accounted for? It was because their politics did not suit. Men always feel a disposition to confer office on their political friends, rather than their opponents. Under the new constitution, then, the governor, whose patronage has been much curtailed, would feel it necessary to husband it all for his political friends.

The gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) had advocated, in order to excite sympathy for the judges, that they should go out at certain times. Did not the gentleman see what would be the effect of such an arrangement-that it might result in a change of the whole bench, and perhaps, in its judicial decisious. The gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'Dowell) had excited a laugh as to the probability of the judges of the supreme court dying, or not dying. He (Mr. P.) envied not the feelings of the man who could create a laugh on such a solemn question as this was. The gentleman (Mr. M'Dowell) knew that he entertained for him no other feeling than that of kindness and respect; but he was sorry that he should have gone so far as to treat so serious a subject as this with

levity. There was always something solemn connected with the subject of death, and to which we should bring none but the most solemn feelings.

The gentleman has not looked much into the operations of the human mind, or he would have seen how men start and catch at the idea of some new theory-some new practice.

In physic-how many men are there in that art continually producing new theories, and each claiming his own to be the best? And how much is the pride of human nature gratified by even the professors of our holy religion, who are continually striving to strike out some new lights, which their forefathers knew not of. Was not every man desirous to display his vanity in some way or another? Vanity is stamped upon every thing in the shape of humanity. We had seen it in this convention in reference to politics-when men have brought forward their theories, and pretend to be wiser than their fathers.

Now, if the gentleman from Bucks, had not seen this, he certainly had not observed human nature as closely as he ought. It had, unfortunately, happened too often, that the services of men who had rendered the country, the greatest service in civil station, had not been properly appreciated. If however, a man should have happened to have served six or twelve months in the revolutionary war, he was allowed a pension as a matter of course. But the same justice was not to be meted out to the venerable judge, who had grown grey in the administration of the law, and who was left, with his family around him. None of that pecuniary aid was to be granted to him that was allowed the man who had carried a musket on his shoulder for a few months.

He could only regard this motion to reconsider, then, as involving the sa.ne principle that we had already seen carried out. A judge might have devoted his whole life to the service of his country, and then go down to his grave unknown and unhonored, and be no more thought of. Let a man however, display on the field of battle, on one single occasion only, the moral courage which a judge has to bring to his aid in giving a decision, and his name is handed down to posterity and recorded on the rolls of fame. He would ask gentlemen whether treatment of this sort was right in point of principle? was in accordance with the inexorable justice which the gentleman from Bucks, insisted upon ? Whether it was humane or just to turn a man of three score years out of office who has passed the greater part of his life in the service of the commonwealth? If that was justice, then had he greatly mistaken it indeed. He had frequently deprecated the unceasing desire which animated men for change at the present day. Of all the attempts he had witnessed to effect a change, this one he regarded as the most fraught with dangerous consequences.

He felt deeply the importance of the subject, and if he had expressed himself warmly, he asked the indulgence of the convention. He knew not how long he should remain at the bar, but he was sure that he would never go upon the bench. Mr. P. concluded, by declaring that although he was disposed to go for the shortest terms, consistent with the welfare of the commonwealth, yet he could not support the proposition of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward.) He desired to subserve the best interests of the country, which he loved in common with others, who doubtless entertained the same wish, although gentlemen differed as to the mode of accomplishing it. He asked gentlemen to pause and reflect before they acted, as consequences of the most serious character might result from hasty and rash changes in reference to the supreme

court.

Mr. AGNEW, of Beaver, said that as reference had been made to him, or rather his district, he felt it was necessary that he should say a few words. He had gone hand in hand with the gentleman from Northamp ton, (Mr. Porter) on the subjest of the judicial tenure. He did not suppose that the gentleman, in naming his (Mr. A's.) district, meant to insinuate that he was dissatisfied with the present judges and wished to get rid of them. If he knew himself, he thought he could say, without hesitation, that in the discharge of his duty here, he was not influenced by any feeling of that kind. He had voted to retain the supreme court judges for fifteen years, and he was disposed to vote to make the term of office of the other judges, seven years. He had no desire to make any distinctions.

He made these remarks merely for the purpose of clearing himself from the supposition, which might be entertained, that he was referred to in connexion with his district. Some gentlemen here seemed determined to sacrifice the existing judicial officers-to get rid of men, too, of their own party. If the Van Buren men-if the democrats, would cut the throats of their own judges, why be it so. If they persisted in turning them out, all that he could say was, that he hoped they would put in men of the same party to which he belongs. It was a fact, and probably was known to most of the members of the convention, that the Chief

Justice of the supreme court headed the Jackson electoral ticket: and if his party here, were, from any cause, now anxious to cut him off, he certrinly should not object. Was it not notorious that the greater portion of the judges at present on the bench, were of the Van Buren party? Although, however, he was opposed to it, still he would let the judges retain their seats. He hoped that the judges would be allowed to remain in office for the time assigned them hereafter by the new constitution.

He wondered whether gentlemen who had manifested so much anxiety and who were so ready to dispense with the services of the present incumbents, would exhibit a like disposition to withdraw their own sons from the bench, if there were any on it-whether they would be willing to say that they should all be ousted at once as soon as the constitution shall go into effect, or at the shortert terms for which they may be appointed. That proposition had been put down by a large vote, and it had been decided that the judges should not be put out. Yet, a motion had been made to reconsider. Gentlemen had pretended to say that the proposition contained a principle, but yet no one seemed to understand it. He would like to know on what principle it was that gentlemen here would put out one judge, and put in another, whilst they allowed a third to retain

his seat.

What principle would give A a preference over B. Was there any principle in that? He wished that the convention would exercise a little of the appointing power, if he might call it so, with regard to the judges of the the court of common pleas, and discriminate between them. The convention, it is true, was not sitting as a court of impeachment; but, he might remark that it was well known that charges had been made that judges had interfered with politics-had stepped directly from the bench, and addressed political meetings. This he had witnessed himself. He repeated that he was willing to make some discrimination between the judges of the common pleas, and to say who should go out and who stay in.

He thought that the convention should act with great care, and after much consideration and deliberation, in reference to the judges of the supreme court, who ought not in his opinion to be turned off in their old age, except on the ground of misconduct. He conceived that there was no principle in the system of graduation proposed to be adopted, although many delegates seemed to think there was. He could see no reason why the debate should have been stopped in reference to the court of common pleas, in order to reconsider what had already been done as to the supreme court. He was entirely at a loss to perceive why the vote on the amendment should be reconsidered. If we acted on any principle, it should be to turn all out.

Mr. WOODWARD, of Luzerne, said, he had remarked in the morning that if the motion to reconsider should prevail, he would offer a modifi cation to the amendment submitted by him. Since he had made that statement, the senior delegate from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) and other respectable gentlemen had had an opportunity of expressing their sentiments, and of offering amendments, if they had chosen to do so.

In pursuance, then, of the notice which he had given, he would move to modify his proposition so as to make the commission of the earliest