from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop) was a conservative before. He should regard it as much more dangerous to give the governor the sole power of appointment, than to give it to the senate. Did not the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) know that the senate had eyes to see and ears to hear, as well as the executive, and upon whom that body would be a check. The gentleman from Franklin, had argued as if the governor were to possess the sole appointing power. That was no such thing. Did not the gentleman suppose that if while a cause should be pending in a court, the governor were to appoint a judge, would not the senate discover what he had done? Surely they would, and the consequence would follow that they would veto his nomination. He (Mr. R.) would ask whether the effect of this amendment would not be to exclude many a good man from being appointed? If for instance, it should happen that a judge of the court of common pleas, gave universal satisfaction, and the public desired that he should be placed on the supreme court bench, this amendment would prevent the governor from complying with their wishes. Mr. R. hoped that the amendment would be rejected, and that the convention would not resolve itself into a committee of the whole.

Mr. MERRILL, of Union, rose to explain a case referred to by the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop) and partly at the request of the member from Bucks.

Governor Snyder had no interest in the ease, but was in possession of the land as guardian of the owners who were minors.

The judges had been of his appointment, and the jury became so suspicious, that he was influenced by some improper motives, that they entirely disregarded his charge. He (Mr. Merrill) would not decide, whether this was a smaller evil, than the one apprehended by gentleinen here. Such however, was the fact, and the cause was tried several times -afterwards seven very respectable men as arbitrators decided according to the judges charge, and the same title was afterwards tried in the cir cuit court of the United States, and the decision in the same way. He thought this explanation but bare justice to the memory of a memorable and most respected governor of this commonwealth, now deceased; and to the feelings of his children and near relatives, to whom his reputation is deservedly most dear. Besides sir, this is a man of whom history will speak, and it concerns us all, it concerns the cause of free institutions all over the world and in all time to come; that no insinuated or implied impropriety of motive should be suffered to cast a shadow over the fair fame of such a man. His fame is the common property of every citizen; and no property ought to be defended more carefully or more zealously.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, said he thought that the motion of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Dunlop) had taken the convention by surprize, and might lead to a review of all that it had done. He would ask if it was not the prevailing argument when the subject of the judicial tenure was up before, that there was no danger that good judges would not be re-appointed, and that by limiting them for a term of years, the bad judges would be got rid of without an address to the legislature. It appeared that now the subject was to be gone into again. No one, as he understood, desired that good judges should be got rid of. Now, however, it seemed that a judge, in middle life, who had done his duty and

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 con tended 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 delegates 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 enter ed into to defeat the will of the people. He would vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery.

Mr. Scorт, 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 bench 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. Scott): 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 f 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

+

.1

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

4