(Mr. Ingersoll) if he wished to have the judges of the supreme court to serve fifteen yeas from the first of January next? There was a similar proposition as to the court of common pleas. The gentleman might have voted for that, and he (Mr. H.) would have voted with him with all his heart.

But (said Mr. H.) I was levelling up and the gentleman from the county, was for levelling down. This was what he rose to explain. Had we not heard time after time, from one part of the house, that some of the judges are become physically incompetent and that some are political judges? It was true this argument had been levelled against the supreme court, and not the common pleas, and he had therefore, under all considerations, in vain to attempt to carry the graduated scale of the gentleman from Lancaster.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia county, would say a few words in explanation in some measure, of his change of vote. He felt at this moment the embarrassment which he always felt in attempting to put a good piece of work on a bad one. The principle seems to be insufficient both for the conservatives and the radicals. There is a difficulty when they come to fixing the terms of the judges in arriving at a practical result. The difficulty is, if the term of a judge is short, and he lives to the end of it, he may not be re-appointed. If there had been a provision introduced that judges should not hold their offices after they had reached the age of seventy years, there would have been no difficulty. But, as the provision now stands, it must create apprehension. Or if the term had been fixed at five years, there would have been no alarm, because the judges who behave well would have been sure to be re-appointed. It was dangerous to appoint for fifteen years. He had desired to fix a longer term of years, or that the age of a judge should be limited to seventy years. Reformers when they come to fix the practical details of their measures, frequently find themselves in difficulty, and seldom obtain any of their objects. He would be willing to concede the re-appointment of a judge, if the term was reasonably short. Whenever a judge misbehaved, he was willing to remove him, whether his offence was impeachable or not. The clause as it stands, was originally introduced with his vote. He had wished to extend the terms of the judges to seventy years of age, which would have been the most friendly provision to them. When such formidable difficulties presented themselves, the effect is to prevent reformers from trying to remove judges. He had always been friendly to the supreme court, and when that tribunal received censure from other quarters, he had not joined in the cry. He was willing to give them his approbation. Believing the choice to be between the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, and the gentleman from Luzerne, and that no evil would result to the people from its adoption, he had voted for the former, but finding that he had been assailed, not for what he had done, but for what he had not done, he should vote for a reconsideration of the matter.

The arguments from the reform members had great influence on his mind. If the convention made any distinction between the judges, it would cause great discontent among the people. Dissatisfaction already prevails to a considerable extent. We must shape our amendments to gratify those on whom we rely for success, and not to gratify those who

are against us. He had now ascertained that his consitituents were in favor of the principle of graduation as contained in the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne; and he felt bound to yield to their wishes, where they did not interfere with his conscience or with the public good.

As he was satisfied the provision would not interfere with the principle of equality, he would go for it. He would not advocate the principle that because a man was low in the world, you must press him down, and he was glad to hear his colleague argue against putting down the poor man. There was a certain degree of consideration due to judges who behave well, and he thought they need not be under any apprehension of the poor-house. As to the judge whose term would be the first to expire, he was regarded as comfortable in regard to worldly matters, and he might in the next few years, save a sum which by many tax-payers would be considered a handsome fortune. That judge could have no fear of the poor-house on account of his great legal experience, which would especially recommend him to re appointment. If his term was to expire to-morrow, he would be re-appointed. But he believed that judge would not retain office any longer if it was offered to him. He believed that he would be able to live in independence during the residue of his life. And as to the two judges whose term would expire the last, he did not perceive that there could be any difficulty. Appeals to our sympathy, in relation to these judges, seemed to be all out of place. If he had tears to shed, he would sooner shed them for those individuals who are denied the right of the trial by jury, and those poor and persecuted men who are bound to wear the chain of oppression, and drag it with them wherever they may wander without the hope of relief, debarred from the privileges which the law secures to all the rest of the human species. The salaries of the judges as they are now fixed, he looked upon as amply sufficient: and, if they live with a proper regard to economy, out of their future salaries, they can save before the expiration of their respective terms, sufficient to keep the.n in comfort afterwards. After mature deliberation he had come to the conclusion to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) and in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) and this vote he should give without being actuated by the least feeling of ill-will against the judges.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, asked that the question on the motion, be taken by yeas and nays, and they were accordingly ordered.

The question was then taken on the amendment to the amendment, and decided in the negative, by the following vote, viz:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Baldwin, Barclay. Barndollar, Barnitz, Bell, Biddle, Chambers, Chandler. of Chester, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Clark, of Dauphin, Cline, Coates, Cochran, Cope, Cox, Cunningham, Darlington, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donagan, Doran, Dunlop, Farrelly, Forward, Harris, Hays, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Jenks, Konigmacher, Long, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Reigart, Royer, Russel, Seager, Scott. Serrill, Sill, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Sergeant, President-56.

NAYS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey, Clapp, Clarke, of Beaver, Clarke, of Indiana, Crain, Crawford, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Dillinger, Donnell, Earle, Fleming, Foulk

rod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein. Hiester, High, Houpt, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Krebs, Lyons, Magee, Martin, M'Cahen. M'Dowell, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Read, Ritter, Rogers, Scheetz, Sellers, Seltzer, Shellito, Smith, of Columbia, Smyth, of Centre, Stickel, Taggart, Weaver, Weidman, White, Woodward, Young-64.

A motion was made by Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver,

To amend the amendment as modified, by striking therefrom all after the word "commissions," in the first line, and inserting in lieu thereof the following, viz:

"Of the judges of the supreme court now in commission, shall expire on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1839, and the commissions of the president judges of the several judicial districts and of the legal associate judges of the first judicial district now in commission, shall expire on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1840."

Mr. DICKEY, of Beaver, moved further to amend the amendment as modified, by providing that the commissions of all the judges of the supreme court, now in office, shall expire on the first day of January,

1839.

Mr. D. said that he had only a word or two to say. The amendment which he had just introduced had formed a part of one that he had offered before the second reading was gone into, and which related to the other judges also. He, however had confined the present amendment to the disposition of the supreme court judges. The principle for which he contended, had been ably argued by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll.) He maintained that the scale. of graduation proposed by the delegate from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) contained no principle of justice, and intimated that it might effect the particular purpose which he and some other gentlemen might have in view. It might be very convenient for the gentleman from Luzerne, to get rid of a deaf judge in his district; and the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'Dowell) to get rid of a fox; but he desired that principle might guide them in their proceedings.

Mr. M'DOWELL, of Bucks, declared that he had never since he became a member of this convention, doubted but that the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) was the most knowing observant, and acute man in or out of it. He was possessed of an admirable foresight. He could even see things before they existed, and knew of things that never had and never would exist, equally as well as he did of things actually in exis tence. He was one of your motive-mongers, too-was aware of every man's motive, and what was operating on every delegate's mind in reference to the judiciary question.

It was true that he (Mr. M'D.) had said to the gentleman the other day, in private, that he believed the amendment which had been offered by him, was the only consistent one. He had also said so on this floor; but, that he was fearful the people would not be satisfied with it, as he thought it would be doing too much to say that the commissions of all the judges should expire on the same day.

The gentlemen knew the reasons why he (Mr. M'D.) did not vote for the amendment of the delegate from Lancaster, (Mr. Reigart) it was because it was an amendment of his (Mr. M'D's.) own, put into that gentleman's hands. He had told the gentleman from Beaver, as well as

others that he wished the commissions of all the judges of the court of common pleas to expire at the same time. But the amendment of the delegate from Montgomery, (Mr. Sterigere) had taken him and others by surprise, and he had hesitated, as he stated yesterday, as to what he would do; but he afterwards made up his mind that if the supreme judges were to be kept in office for fifteen years, he would have voted to continue the judges of the common pleas, in office, for ten years.

Mr. DICKEY, replied that he was happy to hear that the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. M'Dowell) confessed himself to be the author of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Reigart.) He had examined it, and found it to contain the discrimination to which he was totally opposed. The classification of the judges, which was proposed by that amendment was, indeed any thing but an honest and fair

one.

It seemed as though it had been brought forward, and also supported, by many gentlemen, from an anxious desire to get rid of the present judges of the court of common pleas. He would repeat what he had already said, that the graduation scale was destitute of principle. We were not sent here to make distinctions or discriminations between the judges-not to appoint one for fifteen, another for ten, another for five, and so on. He insisted that all the judges should be treated alike. If the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) should prevail, he (Mr. D.) would submit one which would leave it to the people of the commonwealth to say whether the judges should be removed in the manner proposed. He asked for the yeas and nays.

He

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, said he trusted that the gentleman from Beaver, would modify his amendment so as to include the judges of the court of common pleas as well as the judges of the supreme court. (Mr. S.) would then vote for it with great pleasure. He must say that he disliked the amendment of the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) in many other particulars than those which he was about to point out as requiring to be modified by the gentleman from Beaver. If he recollected the language of the schedule, it provided that the governor should remain in office until the third Tuesday in January next. Now, the proposed provision in relation to the re-appointment of the judicial officers, would give the present governor an opportunity of exercising his preference and re-appointing those whom he thought fit, instead of the next governor, whomsoever he might be

He desired that a fair opportunity should be given for the people to vote for the next executive on these appointments. He hoped that the gentleman would so modify his amendment as to make it read that the commissions of the judges of the conrt of common pleas shall expire about the middle of January, and those of the supreme court about the middle of February, so that every executive should appoint the first year after his own appointment. He would now proceed to give a reason or two why he preferred the amendment of the gentleman from Beaver, to the proposition to re-appoint the supreme judges for fifteen years, and the common pleas for ten. He thought that all who had reflected on the subject must have perceived the danger there was in appointing the judges for very limited terms. They would be apt to swerve from the discharge of their duties, and so shape their conduct and decisions as to please popular

demagogues and a popular party, who would use their influence to obtain for them some popular appointment. Gentlemen who went for graduating the time when the commissions should expire, were leading the judges into temptation, according to their own doctrine. He could not see how any delegate who was an advocate for short terms, could go for this arrangement. It was rank inconsistency, in his humble judgment. Now, if all the judges were placed on a similar footing, the temptation of which he had spoken, would be taken away, for the supreme judges were not likely to be dropped.

:

If the supreme judges were to be continued in office for fifteen years, old age would have overtaken them, and probably there would not be more than one who would be capable of efficiently discharging the duties of his station. If, on the other hand, you cut them off in one or two years hence, you took away temptation from the path of duty. He trusted that one of the two principles would be adopted, and that the proposition now before the convention would be so amended as to present the the whole question fairly before it, so that we should see how gentle nen would vote. Before resuming his seat, he would refer to the motion that had been made by the gentleman from Beaver, to strike out. For what reason, he asked, had it been proposed that the first commission shall expire on the first of January, 1840? Why not during the session of the legislature in 1839? The reason was plain enough to his mind. The governor whoever he might be-would come into office on the third Tuesday of January, 1842,-so that the commissions would expire between two and three weeks before the close of one gubernatorial term, and the commencement of another. Therefore, the new governor would not have an opportunity allowed him of re-appointing any of the judges.

Supposing that Governor Ritner should be re-elected next October, or even the term after, how easy would it be for the senate to postpone acting on his nominations till their next session, as had been done by the senate of the United States, and thus would his power be rendered wholly nugatory. Appointments made immediately after an election are not always founded upon the highest recommendations for worth and capability, but are generally given as rewards for past services. He believed that there were many gentlemen in this body sustaining the proposition of the delegate from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) who, when its practical operation came to be explained to their constituents, would find some difficulty in reconciling their course. And, among them was the gentleman from Lancaster, (Mr. Hiester.) Their constituents would understand the matter, if they did not. He (Mr. S) knew that any attempt to change any vote would be in vain, therefore, he spake with reluctance.

Mr. DICKEY, having modified his amendment, as originally offered, moved to amend the amendment as modified, by striking therefrom all after the word "commissions," in the first line, and inserting in lieu thereof the following, viz:

"Of the judges of the supreme court now in commission, shall expire on the twenty-seventh day of February 1839, and the commissions of the president judges of the several judicial districts and of the legal associate judges of the first judicial district now in commission, shall expire on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1840."