of the fourth line, the words " and commissioned by the Governor." He said he could not see the necessity of retaining these words, inasmuch as we did not leave with the Governor any discretion in making an appointment. When it was left with the Governor to make a choice between two sheriffs elected by the people, then there was some reason for the distinction. But not now, when the whole power was given to the people. He thought that as the Governor was not to appoint these officers, there could be no reason why he should commission them. There was no propriety, then, in leaving in the Constitution, the words which he had just moved to strike out. He hoped that lus motion would be carried, and that the amendment, as amended, would prevail. The report of the committee, now before the committee of the whole, contained fifteen distinct propositions, and the article of the Constitution to which this report was applicable, contained only five propositions, and the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, embraced no less than four of the proposi tions of the standing committee. If we could embrace all those propositions in one section, he thought it was our duty to do so. And, if we did not, confusion might ensue, and we should be presenting to the people four different sections, when one would answer the purpose. He was also opposed to the proposition in the report of the standing committee, because it fixes a ratio for the officers of a county. How, he would ask, was that to be ascertained? Was that to be done after the election of the county officers had taken place? For, according to the report, unless it were ascertained that a county contained five taxable officers, his right to office could not be known. He (Mr. P.) would, therefore, dispense with that proposition, and take that of the gentleman from Montgomery instead, which, in his (Mr. PURVIANCE'S) opinion, answered every purpose.

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, said his opinion was that the amendment to the amendment ought not to prevail. It struck him that it was as necessary that the county officers should be commissioned by the Governor, as that the sheriff should. The county officers were obliged to give bonds for the faithful discharge of their duties. If they were not commissioned by the Governor, to whom were they to give those bonds? Who was to supervise them? Who was to judge of them? There was also another reason, and he thought it a powerful one, why the provision ought not to be stricken out. He had been told that the revenue to the State, derivable from granting commissions, amounted to upwards of ten thousand dollars, per annum. Then, why, he would ask, would gentlemen cut off this reve

nue?

Those who hold the offices, were willing to take them and pay the He could see no good reason why the provision should be stricken out, and he would therefore vote against it.

tax.

The question being taken on the amendment to the amendment, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. STEVENS then moved to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the word "prothonotaries", and inserting the following: "and clerks of the several courts (except the prothonotaries of the Supreme Courts who shall be appointed by the court for the term of three years, if they so long behave themselves well,) recorders of deeds and registers of wills, shall, at the times and places of the election of representatives, be elected by the citizens of each county, or district, over which the jurisdiction of said courts extends, and shall be commissioned by the Governor. They

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 ast 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. Î'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.

The

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. 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.

of the fourth line, the words" and commissioned by the Governor." He said he could not see the necessity of retaining these words, inasmuch as we did not leave with the Governor any discretion in making an appointment. When it was left with the Governor to make a choice between two sheriffs elected by the people, then there was some reason for the distinction. But not now, when the whole power was given to the people. He thought that as the Governor was not to appoint these officers, there could be no reason why he should commission them. There was no propriety, then, in leaving in the Constitution, the words which he had just moved to strike out. He hoped that hus motion would be carried, and that the amendment, as amended, would prevail. The report of the committee, now before the committee of the whole, contained fifteen distinct propositions, and the article of the Constitution to which this report was applicable, contained only five propositions, and the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, embraced no less than four of the propositions of the standing committee. If we could embrace all those propositions in one section, he thought it was our duty to do so. And, if we did not, confusion might ensue, and we should be presenting to the people four different sections, when one would answer the purpose. He was also opposed to the proposition in the report of the standing committee, because it fixes a ratio for the officers of a county. How, he would ask, was that to be ascertained? Was that to be done after the election of the county officers had taken place? For, according to the report, unless it were ascertained that a county contained five taxable officers, his right to office could not be known. He (Mr. P.) would, therefore, dispense with that proposition, and take that of the gentleman from Montgomery instead, which, in his (Mr. PURVIANCE'S) opinion, answered every purpose.

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, said his opinion was that the amendment to the amendment ought not to prevail. It struck him that it was as necessary that the county officers should be commissioned by the Governor, as that the sheriff should. The county officers were obliged to give bonds for the faithful discharge of their duties. If they were not commissioned by the Governor, to whom were they to give those bonds? Who was to supervise them? Who was to judge of them? There was also another reason, and he thought it a powerful one, why the provision ought not to be stricken out. He had been told that the revenue to the State, derivable from granting commissions, amounted to upwards of ten thousand dollars, per annum. Then, why, he would ask, would gentlemen cut off this revenue? Those who hold the offices, were willing to take them and pay the He could see no good reason why the provision should be stricken out, and he would therefore vote against it.

tax.

The question being taken on the amendment to the amendment, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. STEVENS then moved to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the word "prothonotaries", and inserting the following: "and clerks of the several courts (except the prothonotaries of the Supreme Courts who shall be appointed by the court for the term of three years, if they so long behave themselves well,) recorders of deeds and registers of wills, shall, at the times and places of the election of representatives, be elected by the citizens of each county, or district, over which the jurisdiction of said courts extends, and shall be commissioned by the Governor. They

these officers would sometimes have to be combined. Several would have to be held by the same person in one county, while they would be separated in others. If, in such a county as M'Kean, different individuals were to be elected for the several offices, a man had better be a beggar at once than to fill one of them. Take Warren and Clearfield; would you have separate officers elected for each of those counties? It was certainly better to leave it to the Legislature to determine how many offices one man should fill. He was for leaving all detail to the Legislature, while we settled the principles.

Mr. BROWN said, the reply did not meet his objection, but was calculated by special pleading, to draw off the attention of the committee from it. In the first place, we have provided in a previous section, that sheriffs and coroners are elected by citizens of the respective counties. Why should not the prothonotaries, and other county officers be chosen by the same citizens, and at the same time? He asked what was the object of making a difference in the phraseology, and why the advantages of preceding provisions in the Constitution were not preserved here? The amendment provided that the elections should be made by the people. This was not the language of the Constitution, as used in the preceding articles. Our elections were not by the people, but by the citizens qualified to vote.The language was altogether too loose-he hoped it would be modified and made in accordance with that of the first section, giving to the Legislature the regulating of the elections. The amendment then says that the Legislature shall regulate by law the mode of election, and the number of persons in each county who shall hold said offices, &c. What did this mean? This looked suspicious. It did not provide, that these officers should be elected by the citizens in like manner with other officers. The amendment in fact, did not provide who were to elect these officers, nor how they were to be elected. It did not say that they should be elected by the citizens qualified to vote at the general election. He was willing to leave all that was necessary for the Legislature to regulate, but he would certainly wish the provision to be made more definite, before he voted for it.

Mr. MERRILL asked the attention of the committee to the terms for which the offices were to be filled. Believing that it was the interest of the people to have the offices well filled, he asked if it was not advisable for that end, to fill them for a longer term than three years. There were many considerations of an urgent nature in favor of filling them for a longer term. Very frequent elections were not advantageous or desirable. The vacancies which occasionally occured, and rendered special elections necessary, would be so frequent as to be very burdensome to the people, even if the officers were to be elected for a longer term than three years. The elections should not be more frequent than the perfect security of the people required. Was it probable also that the duties of the office would be better performed, if it was held for a sufficient number of years to make it the interest of the officer to perform it well, than if it was to be held only for a very short time? Many clerks of courts were well qualified for their situations, in consequence of long experience; but it would require a new clerk the same series of trouble and time to acquire the same degree of skill in the discharge of his duties. A man will have much less inducement to prepare himself thoroughly for the office, if he is to hold it for