dence, he should not have any objection to go for it; but, if he was to have the power to disregard this certificate, and set himself up for a judge in the case, he must go against granting him any such power, as he appre hended, that greater evil would arise, from leaving with him

power of

this kind, than allowing that section of the Constitution, to remain as at present.

Mr. BELL said, it was not intended to leave the Governor any such supervising power. He was not to have any control over the decision of the return judges at all, but was merely to have the power to issue a commission when satisfactory evidence was exhibited to him of the election of the sheriff. He had risen to say a few words in support of the amendment he had proposed, which he had found some difficulty in getting before the Convention in a proper shape. It seemed to him, howev er, that the course he was now pursuing, was the most appropriate means of reaching his object. At the outset of the Convention, it was avowed by gentlemen, that no alteration would be made in the Constitution unless for good and satisfactory reasons, and that no change would be made for the mere sake of change. Was there any reason why the Governor should, in the case of a sheriff, issue a commission before the officer enters upon the duties of his office? There was a reason particularly applicable to the office of sheriff. He is not only entrusted with the persons of the people, but he is entrusted with their property to a large amount, and if gentlemen will only turn their eyes to the acts of Assembly to be found in the digest which we have voted ourselves, they will find that sheriffs are obliged, by those acts, to give security to a very large amount, to be approved by certain judicial officers of the county; and, as an additional security to the public, this security is to be approved by the Governor of the Commonwealth. Now, one of the objects of the report of the committee, as it stood in the first instance, would be to take away from the community one of the securities they now have for their persons, and the protection of their property, to wit: the approbation of the Governor of the security given by those officers. It is in fact a repeal of an act of the Legislature on this subject. Now, gentlemen have here introduced in this report of the committee amendments never called for by the people, and amendments too, which had the extraordinary effect of repealing acts of the Legislature; because the Legislature, by an act passed in the year 1834, made it the duty of the Governor to approve of the security given by the sheriffs, and examine it before he issued their commissions. Then by the report of the committee, the Governor was not to issue a commission to these officers, and was not to interfere with the security they were to give. Now, if there was no other reason than this, he would consider it sufficient to induce him to oppose this part of the report of the commitDo we not all know now, that notwithstanding the security we have now in the approval of the judges of the court and the additional supervi sion and approval of the Governor, both the sheriff and his securities, on many occasions, have become insolvent, and the community are defrauded Then shall we take away a portion of this security? No sir, I would not take away any of the guards and checks which we now have. It seemed to him, that the object for which we have assembled here, was not to take from the people any of the securities which they now have for the faithful discharge of the duties of public officers, but to grant to them

tee.

greater security for their persons and their property, and to make the offi cers and servants of the people more responsible to them. He hoped, therefore, that this power might be left with the Executive as an additional security to the people.

Mr. STEVENS entirely approved of the object designed to be attained by the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL) and thought the report of the committee would be very mischievous in its operation if adopted, but he would ask the gentleman whether he reaches the object by his amendment. He would ask him if his object could not better be attamned by withdrawing his amendment, and moving to strike out the whole report of the committee, and merely to amend the old Constitution, by striking out the words "two persons shall be chosen for each office, one of whom for each respectively, shall be appointed by the Governor", and inserting, that only one person should be voted for, for each of these offices. Then we would have all the benefits of the old section, with the im provement which we had suggested. We should then have the sheriffs commissioned by the Governor, have him examine the security, and have the usual record made in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. If this was desirable, and he took it to be very desirable, then we should have all the benefits of it by a motion of this kind, if it should prevail.— This appeared to him, to be the plan best calculated to effect this object, and he hoped the gentleman from Chester would see the propriety of adopting it.

Mr. BELL said it did not now seem to him to be the better mode of getting along, to adopt the suggestion of the gentleman from Adams. There was always difficulties in the way in the outset on these matters. He knew there were several gentlemen who desired to bring forward propositions and he did not desire to shut them out. We must have a begining somewhere, and he hoped gentlemen would grant him the privilege of having a vote taken on this amendment, and after it is disposed of they will have the opportunity of bringing forward their propositions. His only object now, was to get rid of this objectionable feature in the report of the committee, and he hoped the committee would indulge him so far as to allow the vote to be taken upon it.

Mr. BROWN said, if the motion of the gentleman from Chester to strike out prevails, it will then be competent for any gentleman to amend the report of the committee by adding a clause, that the Governor shall issue a commission to those officers, so soon as they have given the security required by law.

Mr. M'SHERRY thought that the most proper and least embarrassing mode of proceeding, would be to take the question first on the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Chester, and then we can move to amend, as suggested by his colleague (Mr. STEVENS), or in any other minner we see proper.

Mr. FORWARD said, if the amendment of the gentleman from Chester prevailed, then he apprehended there would be no substantial alteration in the section of the old Constitution, except so far as it went to change the words two sheriffs and coroners, to one of each. If this was the true state of the case, why not take the old section and make the alteration in it, as suggested by the gentleman from Adams. He would adopt

well defined. We have had legislation upon it, and laws have been passed on the subject. Then, if we adopt this course, these laws will not be disturbed, and the legislation had on the subject will remain unchanged and undisturbed; and we will have an amendment exceedingly simple in its character, whereas, if a new section is adopted, the question will im. mediately arise as to what effect it will have on the legislation of the country, and the whole of the legislation of the State on the subject, may be laid aside, and new legislation would have to be adopted to meet the case. He thought the simplest course was the best one.

Mr. STEVENS said, in order to have the whole question decided by one vote, he would move to strike out the whole report of the committee, and amend the first section by striking out of the second line, the words "two persons shall be chosen for each office, one of whom, for each respective. İy, shall be appointed by the Governor. They", and inserting," one person shall be chosen for each office, who".

Mr. BELL then accepted this amendment as a modification of his proposition.

Mr. BROWN proposed further to amend the amendment; but
The CHAIR decided the motion to be not now in order.

Mr. WOODWARD suggested, as these officers were now to be elected by the people, and not appointed by the Governor, that the word "appointed" in the section, should be changed to the word "commissioned".

Mr. BELL so modified his amendment.

Mr. READ did not consider it of the least importance whether this last amendment was agreed to or not, because we can make the report of the committee suit the views of the gentleman equally well, and he believed better than this section as now amended. The only difference between the two now, was as to the certificate of the return judges taking the place of the commissions of the Governor to those officers, and he thought he had sufficiently cleared up that matter in the remarks he made a short time ago; and he would say no more on that subject now. But the gentleman from the city of Philadelphia, (Mr. MEREDITH.) had raised a difficulty about the case of a contested election. He would, however, now ask that gentleman, who raised this difficulty, merely because the commissioning power was proposed to be taken from the Governor, whether it was his intention to give the Governor the power of deciding in a case of contested election of a sheriff. Was the certificate of the return judges to be the evidence of the election of the sheriff, or was the commission of the Governor to be the evidence of his election? As to this matter of contested election, the course of proceeding, in relation to it, was well settled and defined, and he apprehended there would be no difficulty in relation to it. With regard to the security to be given by the sheriffs, an objection was raised against the report of the committee, because it would take from the people the additional security of having it passed upon by the Governor before he issues the commission. Now, do not gentlemen know, that the judges of the court of the county in which the sheriff resides, have to pass upon the security and scrutinize it. They are the only judges of the responsibility of that security, and the Governor is obliged to depend altogether on what they say in relation to it, without having any knowledge of the matter himself. It is not in the nature of things that

would be sufficient, and what would not. What can the Governor know about the liabilities lying against the property of a set of persons in Erie county, who offer a security for the sheriff of that county. To be sure the law said that he was to revise the decision of the judges in the case, but it was all a mere matter of form. The only difference then, between the section as amended and the report of the committee, was that the report of the committee, if it was adopted. would save the sheriff the trouble and expense of coming to Harri-burg to obtain a commission, when no good effect was to be expected from this commission. This was a matter scarcely worth troubling the committee about, and he did not know that he cared much which way it was decided.

Mr. MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, remarked that the gentleman from Susquehanna had asked, whether it was proposed, to give to the Governor, the decision of a contested election. He, (Mr. M.) would say "no." He thought that the gentleman would find, on refering to the statistic laws of Pennsylvania, that in the case of the election of county commissioners, it was competent for the aggrieved party, to make complaint to the general court of sessions, if the returns were unduly made. He would not deprive a sheriff of the same right, which the last clause of the section, would have the effect of doing. He believed, that under the existing laws, there was a mode of contesting the election of a sheriff. He was opposed, on that ground, to making the certificate of the return judges, authorize the confering of the powers of sheriff, upon a party, which had heen heretofore confered, by the commission signed by the Governor. He was very glad. that the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. BELL) had accepted the modification of the gentleman from Adams, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. FORWARD.)

Mr. CHAUNCEY, of Philadelphia, observed, that the report of the committee, on this section, was not unanimous. A majority of the committee were satisfied with the Constitution, as it is, and a certain portion of the minority, were not inclined to make the changes, now proposed. The minority, certainly. did not agree to the propriety, of amending the first section, by adding to it the last sentence. and plainly for the reson, that there must be a provision of law, in relation to the certificate, and there would be no provision at all, by which it would be ascertained, in any proper mode, that the certificate was given before the officer entered on his duties. It was on this ground, that they objected to the insertion of the provision, proposed by the gentleman from Chester. The minority committee did not deem it necessary to make a report, but they concured, that no amendment to this article of the Constitution was required.

Mr. SCOTT, of Philadelphia, felt satisfied, that the result of these changes, would be the adoption of Legislative measures, in reference to them. We had already some information, as to the course to be pursued on that subject, hereafter, in the case of the occurence of a modification of the laws. For the last two or three years, there had been many instances of at kind. Anl, he was afraid the same fate awaited the Constitution of Pennsylvania. He was apprehensive of this, because the idea had been thrown out, that a provision should be incorporated in it, requiring that no one shall exercise the office of sheriff, unless he shall have given security for the due execution thereof, according to law. He thought it would be

laws shall not require from that officer, the execution of those securities, as done under the old Constitution. He was of opinion. that, in case the propose:l alteration should be made, the provision of the existing laws should be expressly extended to the sheriffs, appointed in the manner proposed by the amendment.

Mr. AGNEW, of Beaver, understood that the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, was on the report of the committee. He wished to call the attention of the committee, to the fact, that the standing committee had omited a few words, in this section, which were rather material, and were in the old Constitution. The words were, "they shall hold their offices, if they shall so long behave themselves well." He did not know whether it was the object of the committee, to provide by a

Mr. READ, (interrupted) he would refer the gentleman, to the tenth section, for the language he had just mentioned. The committee thought it better to insert it there, than to repeat it in every section.

Mr. AGNEW resumed. He did not know that the committee would be disposed to adopt it. It was a new provision. He had merely wished to call the attention of the committee to the fact, for he did not know, whether the omission was accidental, or intentional. With regard to the last clause of the amendment, he would state an objection, which had struck his mind, and which had not been noticed, by any gentleman, who had yet spoken on the subject. He alluded to the words, "powers heretofore conferred." Now, he apprehended, that in order to ascertain what the powers, heretofore conferred, were, we must have reference to an existing clause. "The certificate of the return judges, of the election of sheriff or coroner, shall confer all the powers heretofore confered on sheriffs and coroners, by the commission signed by the Governor." Now, this provision, he thought loose, vague, and inexplicit, and calculated to give rise to doubtful constructions If the intention of the framers of it, was to prevent the Legislature, hereafter, from altering the powers and duties of the sheriffs, they should introduce a provision, the language of which was more distinct and definite than this, and not calculated to induce doubts and differences of opinion, as to its precise meaning and intention. The only objection, ever made to this section, was the one mentioned by the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. WOODWARD) viz: that the Governor had the power to choose between two persons elected. The election of the officers, was left with the people, and of that they did not complain. They did not object to the term of office-to the restriction, that no man shall hold it more than six years-nor to the multiplying of vacancies. The only objection, he repeated, which he had heard, was the giving to the Governor the choice of two individuals. If, then, the modification which the gentleman from Chester had accepted, should be adopted, the people would be satisfied with it, as the effect of it, would be to prevent the Governor from acting unfairly, by choosing a minority sheriff, because he happened to be of the same politics as himself. A case of that sort had happened, in the county in which he, (Mr. AGNEW) resided; for a minority sheriff had been appointed, and the occurence gave rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction, at the time. An instance had also arisen in the county of Allegheny, a few years ago.

He was opposed to the provisions in the latter part of the report, be