present stood. Every thing must be provided for by law. He presumed, that the objection urged. to making the Governor a judge in contested elections, was not understood. He apprehended, that the objection was, on account of the certificate of the return judges, being made out, immediately after the election-when the result was known. Hence, it was supposed, that as the certificate conferred all the powers, which were heretofore confered, by the commission, signed by the Governor; that, therefore, the certificate took effect, from the moment the result of the election was unnounced! Now, there was the mistake, for an officer possessed no power, until he received the commission of the Governor; and so, with regard to the certificate of the return judges. In the interval, however, he was to give his security, and take the oath of office. No one, he, (Mr. A.) apprehended, objected to the provision in the amendment. In order to remove the inconvenience, which might arise, from giving the power to the Governor, to choose between two individuals elected, he would suggest, that the only alteration required, was simply to change the word "two," into "one.'

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, suggested, that the words "an appointment" should be substituted for "new appointment" in the eighth line.He would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, if he would so modify it, because it was substantially the same as the proposition of the committee.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, accepted the modification.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, said, that he had attentively listened to the observations of gentlemen in favor of altering the Constitution, in regard to the election of sheriff, and it appeared to him that the Constitution was better as it is, for it was practically what those gentlemen wished it to be. Although there had been five or six hundred elections for shetiffs since the adoption of the Constitution, yet gentlemen had only mentioned two or three cases in which the Governor had appointed minority sheriffs. No practical evil had resulted from the present provision, and many evils might arise under the alteration proposed. The office of sheriff was a high and important trust. It had been said, that the Governor had sometimes appointed minority sheriffs. Now, something might occur, between the time of holding the election, and the appointment of a sheriff, which might make it an act of prudence on the part of the Governor not to give his decision in favor of the highest on the list. Another thing, too, might happen, the individual chosen might not be able to find the requisite security. He knew that security was very high in Philadelphia.And what, then, was to be done in the event of a man not being able to obtain security? Was there to be no appointment, or was the other person, he having it in his power to get security, to be chosen? or, were the people to go into another election? As to a certificate being sufficient evidence, the provision does not state where it is to be filed-where the evidence is to be found. He prefered the amendment to the report of the committee, and the present provision of the Constitution to either.

Mr. HIESTER, of Lancaster, said, that he was a member of the committee on the sixth article of the Constitution, and was in favor of depri ving the Governor of the privilege of choosing one of two individuals to fill the office of sheriff. The object of the amendment was to prevent the

though he could not say how many times, and two intances had occured in the county of Lancaster. With regard to the manner in which the officer should be commissioned, he had no particular views or feelings. From the arguments which had been advanced on that floor, he had been brought to the conclusion, that the amendment of the gentleman from Chester contained the same provision as was in the report of the com mittee. He was, therefore, in favor of the report. He thought, that the objections urged by the gentleman from the city, (Mr. HOPKINSON) in regard to the security to be given by a sheriff, were removed by the section as reported by the committee, as well as by the amendment proposed for adoption by the gentleman from Chester. If the person elected could not give security, the Governor could still appoint. And, the section further provides, that where vacancies occur, the Governor shall fill them until the next annual election. There was then, no weight or importance to be attached to the objection made by the gentleman. He would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, notwithstanding that he was one of those who agreed to the report of the committee.

The question was taken on the amendment, and it was agreed to.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the second section, which is as follows:

SECTION 2. In every county, having, for the time being, five thousand or more taxable inhabitants, one person shall be elected Clerk of each of the county courts of the proper county; and, in every county, having for the time being less than five thousand taxable inhabitants, one person shall be elected, who shall be Clerk of all the county courts of the proper county. Clerks of county courts shall hold their offices for a term of three years, but no person shall be more than twice elected in any term of nine years.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Motgomery, moved to amend the report, by striking out all after the words "Section 2", and inserting as follows: "Protho notaries of the Courts of Common Pleas, Registers of wills, Recorders of deeds, Clerks of the Orphans' Courts, Courts of Oyer and Terminer, and Courts of Quarter Sessions, in each county, shall, at the times and places of election of Representatives, be chosen by the citizens of such county, and commissioned by the Governor. One person shall be chosen for each office, unless the Legislature shall otherwise provide. They shall hold their offices for three years, and until successors be duly elected and commissioned, if they shall so long behave themselves well, but shall be removed by the Governor on the address of both branches of the Legisla ture. Vacancies in either of the said offices shall be filled by the Governor, by appointment, which shall continue until the next general election, and until a successor shall be chosen and qualified as aforesaid".

Mr. S. said, that his amendment, with a slight modification only, was contained in a resolution submited by himself to the Convention, and was to be found on the twelfth page of the thirty-sixth resolution. It was intended to embrace all the county officers which were now appointed by the Governor, and they were designated by their appropriate names.Entertaining the opinion that the several officers should be distinct, he had, therefore, drawn his amendment accordingly. He objected to the section as reported, because it designated no officers, was too general, and blended

present stood. Every thing must be provided for by law. He presumed, that the objection urged. to making the Governor a judge in contested elections, was not understood. He apprehended, that the objection was, on account of the certificate of the return judges, being made out, immediately after the election-when the result was known. Hence, it was suppo sed, that as the certificate conferred all the powers, which were heretofore confered, by the commission, signed by the Governor; that, therefore, the certificate took effect, from the moment the result of the election was announced! Now, there was the mistake, for an officer possessed no power, until he received the commission of the Governor; and so, with iegard to the certificate of the return judges. In the interval, however, he was to give his security, and take the oath of office. No one, he, (Mr. A.) apprehended, objected to the provision in the amendment. In order to remove the inconvenience, which might arise, from giving the power to the Governor, to choose between two individuals elected, he would suggest, that the only alteration required, was simply to change the word "two," into one."

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, suggested, that the words "an appointment" should be substituted for "new appointment" in the eighth line.He would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, if he would so modify it, because it was substantially the same as the proposi tion of the committee.

Mr. BELL, of Chester, accepted the modification.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Philadelphia, said, that he had attentively listened to the observations of gentlemen in favor of altering the Constitution, in regard to the election of sheriff, and it appeared to him that the Consti tution was better as it is, for it was practically what those gentlemen wished it to be. Although there had been five or six hundred elections for she tiffs since the adoption of the Constitution, yet gentlemen had only mentioned two or three cases in which the Governor had appointed minority sheriffs. No practical evil had resulted from the present provision, and many evils might arise under the alteration proposed. The office of she iff was a high and important trust. It had been said, that the Governor had sometimes appointed minority sheriffs. Now, something might occur, between the time of holding the election, and the appointment of a sheriff, which might make it an act of prudence on the part of the Governor not to give his decision in favor of the highest on the list. Another thing, too, might happen, the individual chosen might not be able to find the requi site security. He knew that security was very high in PhiladelphiaAnd what, then, was to be done in the event of a man not being able to btain security? Was there to be no appointment, or was the other person, he having is in his power to get security, to be chosen? or, were he people to go to another election? As to a certificate being sufficient evidence, the provision does not state where it is to be filed-where the evidence is to be found. He prefered the amendment to the report of the mmmittee, and present provision of the Constitution to either.

Mr. HIST, of Lancaster, said, that he was a member of the com mittee on the bath ale of the Constitution, and was in favor of depriing the Govus of the privilege of choosing one of two individuals to il the offo of them. The object of the amendment was to prevent the

though he could not say how many times, and two intances had occured in the county of Lancaster. With regard to the manner in which the officer should be commissioned, he had no particular views or feelings. From the arguments which had been advanced on that floor, he had been brought to the conclusion, that the amendment of the gentleman from Chester contained the same provision as was in the report of the com、 mittee. He was, therefore, in favor of the report. He thought, that the objections urged by the gentleman from the city, (Mr. HOPKINSON) in regard to the security to be given by a sheriff, were removed by the section as reported by the committee, as well as by the amendment proposed for adoption by the gentleman from Chester. If the person elected could not give security, the Governor could still appoint. And, the section further provides, that where vacancies occur, the Governor shall fill them until the next annual election. There was then, no weight or importance to be attached to the objection made by the gentleman. He would vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, notwithstanding that he was one of those who agreed to the report of the committee.

The question was taken on the amendment, and it was agreed to.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the second section, which is as follows:

SECTION 2. In every county, having, for the time being, five thousand or more taxable inhabitants, one person shall be elected Clerk of each of the county courts of the proper county; and, in every county, having for, the time being less than five thousand taxable inhabitants, one person shall be elected, who shall be Clerk of all the county courts of the proper county. Clerks of county courts shall hold their offices for a term of three years, but no person shall be more than twice elected in any term of nine years.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Motgomery, moved to amend the report, by striking out all after the words "Section 2", and inserting as follows: " Prothonotaries of the Courts of Common Pleas, Registers of wills, Recorders of deeds, Clerks of the Orphans' Courts, Courts of Oyer and Terminer, and Courts of Quarter Sessions, in each county, shall, at the times and places of election of Representatives, be chosen by the citizens of such county, and commissioned by the Governor. One person shall be chosen for each office, unless the Legislature shall otherwise provide. They shall hold their offices for three years, and until successors be duly elected and commissioned, if they shall so long behave themselves well, but shall be removed by the Governor on the address of both branches of the Legislature. Vacancies in either of the said offices shall be filled by the Governor, by appointment, which shall continue until the next general election, and until a successor shall be chosen and qualified as aforesaid".

Mr. S. said, that his amendment, with a slight modification only, was contained in a resolution submited by himself to the Convention, and was to be found on the twelfth page of the thirty-sixth resolution. It was intended to embrace all the county officers which were now appointed by the Governor, and they were designated by their appropriate names. Entertaining the opinion that the several officers should be distinct, he had, therefore, drawn his amendment accordingly. He objected to the section as reported, because it designated no officers, was too general, and blended

and should be kept distinct. He had another objection also to the report of the committee, and that was the ratio of five-thousand taxables, making the officers separate when the number was greater, and blending them when less. Now, he could see no good reason why this should be done. For instance, in some counties, like Montgomery, the number of taxables might exceed five thousand, where some of the offices, such as the Clerk of Oyer and Terminer, and the Clerk of the Court of Sessions, would not be worth holding alone. He prefered to vote for all these offices together, because the election of each would apply to all. He regarded the provi sion in the third section as entirely unnecessary. He was of the opinion, which had been expressed by several gentlemen, that there ought to be as little alteration made as possible, in the phraseology of the Constitution. And, he wondered why the gentleman from Adams (Mr. STEVENS) should have made the objections he did, in reference to the sheriff and coroner.He (Mr. S.) thought, the best way was to make the offices distinct; but, at the same time. allow the people to give, if they thought proper, more than one office to the same individual.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, observed that it was impossible, owing to the manner in which the committee were proceeding, to determine what ought to be done with this section. The committee having passed over the fifth article, relating to the Judiciary, without noticing it, it was, as he had already remarked, impossible to know what to do. The committee on that article, in drawing their report, did so, under the impression that the number of courts was to be reduced. And, therefore, it was that they denominated the officer Clerk of the County Court". Not having yet acted on the fifth article, we could not go on understandingly, and provide for the clerks of those courts. He would leave the article, in question, at the disposition of the committee. Foreseeing the difficulty that would arise, in passing over the article, with respect to county officers, he had this morning voted against adopting that course, for the purpose of consi dering the sixth before the fifth article. The Convention could not know what to do, as it was not kno wn what officers were wanted. The fact was, that we had commenced our work wrong. We should have taken up the sections in numerical order. Under the circumstances, he was at a loss to say what was the best course to be pursued in regard to this arti cle. He thought we had better postpone the present article, until the fifth was disposed of.

Mr. I'URVIANCE, of Butler, would suggest to the gentleman from Mont gomery (Mr. STERIGERE) that he had better modify his proposition, by striking out all that part of it, which relates to officers being commissioned by the Governor, and to insert two additional officers-" County Sur veyor and County Treasurer", to be elected by the people.

Mr. STERIGERE thought, that the County Surveyor was more properly appointable by the Surveyor General. With respect to the individual filling the office of the County Treasurer; he was the mere creature of the law, and should be under the commissioners of the counties. The office, too, was a very responsible one. It had been suggested to him, (Mr. S.) before, that the County Treasurer ought not to be an elective officer. He would acquiesce in the suggestion, if the committee thought proper.