Which balance may be considered as taxes of the State

Which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. SHELLITO, of Crawford, presented a memorial from inhabitants of Crawford county, for the introduction into the fundamental law, of some restrictions on the power of banking, corporations, &c.

Mr. RITER, of Philadelphia, presented two memorials of similar import, from citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia.

These memorials were laid on the table.

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia, submitted the following resolution, which was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That the fifth article of the Constitution be amended as follows, viz:

I. The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court of fifteen Judges, County Courts of one Judge for every thousand neighboring people, and a Justice of the Peace for every neighboring people, with all such authority, legal and equitable, as the Legislature may grant, and such other Courts, Judges or Justices of the Peace as may be created by law, but no law alteriug otherwise than by enlarging the Judicial system fixed by this Constitution, shall be valid, without the concurent votes of two thirds of the Legislature, and the Governor's approval.

II. The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over all suits and crimes. Three of the Judges thereof shall, in rotation of the whole fifteen, hold two sessions annually, at Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburg, each for determining matters of law, while the other twelve Judges, in like rotation, shall hold Circuit Courts twice a year, in each county of the State, for trying matters of fact according to particular provisions by law, but no law shall abolish the Circuits.

III. County Judges shall hold Courts of Common Pleas, Quarter Sessions, Orphans', Register's, and all other Courts necessary for taking cognizance of all crimes, misdemeanors, and suits, for more than fifty, and not more than one thousand dollars. Provision shall be made by law for assigning all crimes of the most dangerous kind, and all suits for a thousand dollars or more, to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for trial, together with appellate and revisary cognizance of all crimes and suits,

IV. Justices of the Peace shall have cognizance to institute prosecutions for all offences, and exclusive original jurisdiction of all suits for not more than fifty dollars. And all Judges shall have power to institute prosecutions.

V. There shall be a reporter of the proceedings of the Supreme Court, who shall hold no other office, nor practice law while reporter, who shall attend all the Sessions of that Court in banc, and write down all their proceedings, which he shall publish in print, within three months after the close of each session, and within that time deposit, free of expense, with the Secretary of the Commonwealth, as many copies of his printed reports as will furnish the Executive with six copies, the Legislature with twenty, and each Judge of the State with one.

VI. The Chief Judge shall be paid quarterly four thousand dollars, and each of the other Judges of the Supreme Court three thousand five hundred dollars a year, and the reporter not less than two thousand dollars a year, but no judge shall receive any other perquisite, allowance or emolument, than the said salaries. Justices of the Peace shall be compensated by fees fixed by law, and no Judge or Justice of the Peace shall hold any other civil office.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

All the preceding business having been disposed of, the report of the committee of the whole, on the fourth article of the Constitution, came up for consideration, when,

On motion of Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, the further consideration of this article was postponed.

FIRST ARTICLE.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, in the Chair.

The question being on the motion of Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia, to strike out the first section, and insert his substitute as modified.

The CHAIR: (Mr. PORTER, of Northampton,) said-In presiding over this committee, it is my duty, applying the rules of the Convention as far as they are applicable, "to preserve order and decorum, and in debate to prevent personal reflections, and confine members to the question under discussion". In the performance of this duty, I will, therefore, without reference to any thing which has heretofore occured, require of the gentlemen addressing the Chair, a strict conformity to this rule; and I trust, after this intimation, that no occasion may occur requiring me to remind gentlemen of it.

Mr. DENNY, of Allegheny, moved to amend the amendment, by striking out the last word "directs," and inserting, in lieu of it, the word "authorizes," which Mr. INGERSOLL accepted as a modification of the amendment.

Mr. DUNLOP also suggested a change in the phraseology, which was accepted by the mover as a modification, and the amendment was made to read as follows:

"The respective powers of Government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are, by this Constitution, severally distributed and established, in three distinct branches, viz: the legislative, the executive, and judicial; neither of which separate branches shall exercise the authority of either of the others, except where this Constitution so authorizes".

Mr. MACLAY said he would take this occasion to state in a few words, the reasons which would govern him in voting on the proposition under consideration, as well as on all other propositions, which might be submitted to this Convention for effecting alterations in the Constitution. He subscribed, he said, to the doctrine which had been advanced by several

members of the Convention, that no changes in our Constitution ought to be made, except such as were so plainly expedient, that there could be no reasonable doubt about them. A member of the Legislature, assembled under the provisions of the Constitution, may vote either for or against any measure proposed, as the reasons for or against it may seem to preponderate. But something more than this, he contended, was required, when we are called upon to vote for changes in our Constitution. As the Constitution is the supreme law, and entitled, in several respects, to a preeminence over the common laws passed by the Legislature, so the reasons for any change in its provisions ought to be proportionably strong.

He was, besides, he said, opposed to many changes in the Constitution, on the ground of their injurious tendency. In all Governments that are intended to be permanent, there ought to be certain principles held sacred, and which the people should be accustomed to consider as fixed and unalterable. But, frequent or numerous changes in the Constitution tended to unsettle every thing. They tended to destroy respect and veneration, as well for those parts of the Constitution which were not changed, as for those that were.

There was another consideration, he said, which induced him to lean against many changes in the Constitution. It was this-the impossibility of being able to determine beforehand, what would be the effect of such changes: even changes which, at first view, might produce important results. We have all seen, said he, laws and acts of the Government, both of our own State and of the United States, which have been attended with consequences altogether unexpected. There was, in fact, no telling what would be the result of an experiment until it was tried.

With regard to the proposition immediately before the committee, he would only observe, that he had heard nothing said in its favor, which at all convinced him that it ought to be adopted. On the contrary, he felt satisfied that the Constitution as it now stands, is better than it would be with the proposed amendments. He should, therefore, give his vote against it.

The CHAIR then put the question, and stated that the noes appeared to have it. A division was called for, when

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, rose, and said he had hoped that the proposition would have been more favourably received. He was not about to inflict a speech on the committee. He was not prepared to do so. But one or two ideas had struck him, which satisfied him that the amendment ought to be adopted. True, the President had, on Saturday, taken the ground that no change ought to be made for the mere sake of change, or unless the necessity for it was obvious: and that if any change was made, it should be clearly demonstrated that it would be useful and beneficial to the public interest. Now, he thought this would be useful. At the moment, when he heard the proposition of the President, he would confess, he was strongly impressed with the similarity of the reasoning to that of the Sultan OMAR who, having taken the city of Alexandria, which possessed the most celebrated library in the world, was asked what was to be done with this library. His reply was, if the books contained what was in the Koran they were of no use; and if they did not, they ought to be destroyed-therefore, they were destroyed. The Sultan's mode of reasoning was somewhat similar to that of the President. The

:

balance between the different branches of the Government had ben overthrown by the encroaching and overwhelming power of the Legislature, which must be the strongest from the nature of its construction; and as the strongest man will always hold on to all the power he possesses, and will grasp all he can obtain from the weak, so it is with the Legislature. There has been always a strong, and for a long time, a growing disposition in that branch to exercise what is called the remedial power. The Legisla. ture claims it, and of late years, and (said Mr. C.) I blame not one party more than the other, or one Legislature more than another, but so it is, I believe, for many years back, the application of this power by the Legislature has, in an especial manner, infringed on the duties of the Judiciary, and in some degree on the sphere of Executive duties. He thought the declaratory clause highly appropriate, that each department should act in its own sphere, and that each one should be a check on the others. The remedial power had been exercised so much by the Legislature, that the eyes of the whole Commonwealth were turned on that branch as the one which was to be applied to for the remedy of all grievances. Every man (said Mr. C.) who imagines he has a grievance, which ought to be settled by the Judiciary, and under the authority of some general law, comes to the Legislature, fills the galleries and the lobbies with his friends, and tells a fine tale about the great hardship of his case; and then there is so much of the milk of human kindness in the bosoms of the members-and as the money does not come out of their own pockets, but from the public treasury that his story seldom fails to obtain for him the relief he desires and thus thousands after thousands are voted away. Instead of this course of things the remedy for grievances should be administered under the operation of known laws, and wherever doubts arise the settlement of those doubts should be left to the Judiciary. The Legislature has, and the fact is notorious, got to infringing on the other branches; and it is high time that the Constitution should apply a remedy, and declare, in the outset, that the different branches are separate and distinct, and thus interpose a barrier between them which will prevent one from encroaching on the others. Better is it that the laws should be known, and the lawmakers unknown. If laws are made which the people know they must abide by, it is far better for the interests of the Commonwealth, than that individuals should fall into the practice of coming to the Legislature, calculating on the success of their powers of persuasion on the good nature of the members; as I have often heard it said on the floor of the House, the reason why a man does not go into Court is because it costs him too much money. He would be very willing to go there, but it costs too much. By his own powers of speech, or perhaps by a mere letter, he can obtain what he wishes here, while he would require an attorney to attend to the business at home, where his immediate neighbors would be cognizant of all the circumstances, and would know on which side the wrong lay. Again, on the subject of divorces; how many applications for divorce succeed here, which in a Court of Justice would not be able to stand for half an hour. The Legislature had been assuming powers, one after another, until the eyes of the whole Commonwealth were directed towards it, as the great dispenser of favors, administering all the beneficent action of the Government; and while this department is magnified, the others are diminished in the public estimation. The secret of liberty depends on

keeping them each in its proper sphere. Our's is a Government of checks and balances, and it is important that they should always be preserved. I know, sir, that the Legislature of a country must possess great power. I know also that it must exercise great power: but it is this growing disposition to encroach on the other departments of the Government, of which I complain-this disposition to swallow up the other branches under the pretext of exercising this remedial power. In looking over the different Constitutions on Saturday, I found that in fourteen or fifteen of the States, the same clause is introduced, and in nearly the same words, declaring the several branches separate and distinct; why then should this Convention refuse to adopt the clause? He hoped that it did not arise from a settled determination to make no change. We came here (continued Mr. C.) to make such changes as seem to us to be good and proper, and I am prepared to vote for such. I will look at the merits of every proposition, not at the party that offers it; because I think that all changes which are wholesome ought to be adopted, and that we are not to act merely on the principle that this or that provision can work no harm. I do not go for this amendment on that ground, but to let it be seen that the people desire to keep the several branches separate and distinct, and not to let any one branch encroach on either one of the others. I hope the committee will agree to adopt the amendment.

Mr. FLEMING, of Lycoming, rose to say a single word.

Mr. BANKS, of Mifflin, interfered for the purpose of asking the mover of the amendment to modify it, so as to leave out all after the word “Judiciary".

Mr. INGERSOLL said he could not accept that modification.

Mr. FLEMING resumed: His objections to the proposition were simply these: The amendment stated that the three branches shall be independent of each other. He wished to know, before he could vote for it, the precise extent of the independence of each. The latter part of the amendment was particularly objectionable to him; neither was to exercise the authority of either of the others, "except where this Constitution so directs". The extent of the independence of each, therefore, was to be defined by some future provision in the Constitution, and he wished to see that provision before he could vote for the amendment. He desired to see something like a schedule of powers, so that he might not be working about with his head in a bag, not knowing what he was about. What good reason was there that something like chancery powers should not be given to the Legislature, so that this body should have the authority of a Chancellor over the other branches. He would ask the learned gentleman how they had got along before, when the powers of an equity Court were not sufficient to relieve an individual. There was no remedy but by an application to the Legislature. Instances are to be found where it had become necessary for the purpose of protecting the rights of an individual, to go to the Legislature for relief. If it were settled that the three branches should be absolutely independent, and not interfere with each other, he did not see how the Convention could carry out a schedule of their separate, and distinct powers.

Mr. INGERSOLL said the division would be carried out.

Mr. FLEMING replied that this carrying out was a difficulty not to be gotten over. It would be obvious to every gentleman who attended to the