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 tax. He could see no good reason why the provision should be stricken out, and he would therefore vote against it.

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

shall hold their offices for three years, if they shall so long behave them. selves well, and until their successors shall be duly qualified. The Legislature shall provide by law the number of persons in each county who shall hold said offices, and how many, and which of said offices, shall be held by one person. Vacancies in any of the said offices, shall be filled by appointment, to be made by the Governor, to continue until the next gene ral election, and until a successor shall be elected and qualified as aforesaid."

Mr. BELL, of Chester, moved to amend, by inserting the words, "and how many and which of said offices shall be held by one person.

The CHAIR said, it was not now in order to offer amendments-there being one already pending.

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, moved to amend the amendment to the amend ment, by striking out "three," and inserting "five."

The CHAIR decided the motion to be out of order.

Mr. DUNLOP said, that he proposed to change the word "three" to the word "five." The gentleman from Adams (Mr. STEVENS) and himself had had a conversation.

The CHAIR said, that the amendment was not in order at that time.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, remarked that he should be puzzled how to vote in reference to the amendment of the gentleman from Adams. He wished to learn from the Chair, whether the amendment, should it prevail, would be an amendment of the report of the committee?

The CHAIR declared that it would.

Mr. Brown, of Philadelphia, remarked that he would be somewhat con servative on this question. He should vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, as at present advised. We had just adopted an amendment to the old Constitution, providing for the election of sheriffs and coroners. He (Mr. B.) desired to put all the county officers on the same footing, and wished the same phraseology to be used in reference to all of them. He regarded the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, as too complex. If the amendment should be negatived, he would offer a section, in precisely the same words, so as to place them all on the same footing. He (Mr. BROWN) did not believe that there was any disposition on the part of the people, to fill offices in any other way, than by electing the officers. He trusted that the amendment would be rejected. He asked for the reading of the first section of the sixth article.

[The section was here read by the Secretary.]

Mr. B. resumed. Now, this was a section which the gentleman from Adams had taken, and by altering it, had rendered it ambiguous and complex, at least in his (Mr. B.'s) opinion. He saw no reason for making a distinction between one officer and another. The old Constitution was clear and explicit, as to the choosing of sheriffs, coroners, &c., and every body understood it.

Mr. STEVENS Said it was true that, in speaking of the same officers, the same language ought to be used. But this was a new provision, as to which there was no settled language, and respecting which, no law existed. We have a Constitutional provision and language in relation to coroners and sheriffs. The election of the officers by the people, embraced in his amendment, was a new thing. What would be the effect of using the same language? Sheriffs were elected to perform a known duty.

Bu

t

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 qualifiel 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

of the court, who was accurate and skilful, not only saved the time of the court, but was important to secure a proper administration of justice. It was a matter of much consequence, that correct and proper entries were made. An unskilful clerk, by a single improper entry, would sometimes produce much confusion and difficulty. If three years was the time fixed, the election of these officers would take place at the election of Governor, and become connected with it. He did not think that officers, solely for the accomodation of the public, should be elected on party grounds, and thus embarrass the other elections. The office of prothonotary was not a political one. It was not an office in which the people, as a body, were interested. It was one, in which the suitors in court were more immedidiately concerned. To be sure, the public had an interest in the proper discharge of the duties of every office; but this was especially important to parties, to the counsel, and to the court. The office of Prothonotary, he thought, ought to be filled for a long term, so as to make it an object for the officer to attend to its duties, instead of employing some young man to do it at half the salary. The duties of the Recorder of deeds did not require so much experience. But the office of Register, was one of the greatest importance. Just as sure as that we live and have estates, just so sure it is that we shall die and leave estates to be settled. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, to every one, that the office of Register should not only be filled with a person of integrity, but of skill and ability, and one who is competent to give advice in matters relating to the interests of widows and orphans, and other persons who are concerned. If we wished men of skill and character to take this office, we must make the term longer than three years. The shortness of the term was an objection to this and every other proposition, relating to this subject, before the committee. He urged the objection now, because, if the amendment was adopted in this form, it would not be altered. He was in favor of electing these officers by the people, but he objected seriously to the term of three years. He hoped we should give the offices such stability and value as will induce men to take them, on whose skill and integrity we can confidently rely. He would greatly prefer the term of five years.

Mr. STEVENS modified the amendment by inserting after the word "shall", the following: "at the times and places of election of representatives".

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, confessed, he said, that this was a subject in which he felt a great deal of interest; and it was one, concerning which, he professed to know something, having himself served as a clerk in a Prothonotary's office, where there was as much business as in any other in the State. He knew all about this matter, from personal observation and experience, and he would say, that there was no office in the Commonwealth in which the people were so much interested as in the office of Prothonotary. There was no man's estate which did not pass through the courts once in every thirty or forty years. These were offices of the highest importance, therefore, in reference to the rights and interests of the community, and the whole public were interested in having them filled with honest, faithful, and competent men. There was hardly any man who did not, at some time in his life, have business with the courts, and therefore ignorant and dishonest officers were an injury to

petency and honesty; but of late years, they have oftener been appointed for their partizan services. He was acquainted with the clerk in a certain county who spelled writ, "rit", and write,"rite". To such a man was the business of the public intrusted, when no private man would employ him to do the most trivial business. The offices have become the rewards for partizan services, and both parties, (for he made no distinction) give them to those whose services had been most efficient in the election. There was another consideration which ought not to be overlooked. A great part of the fees of the lawyers, especially those taken for advice, arose out of the blunders of incompetent, care'ess, or dishonest officers, connected with the courts. What, then, is the remedy? He was opposed to their appointment by the Governor, because, this mode has not worked well; and he was also opposed to their election by the people, unless some provision against incompetency was adopted, like that in the Constitution of Ohio, requiring the candidates to first be examined, and declared qualified by the courts. This examination was necessary in order to protect the interests of the public. No lawyer is admited to practice, unless he is examined and pronounced qualified. Why, then, should the Prothonotary and clerks of the courts, into whose hands the property of the community-of widows and orphans must pass, be subjected to the same ordeal. It was as important that a clerk should be well qualified, as that a lawyer should be. We have no right to commit the business of the public to the hands of bunglers. But even competent men should not hold the office too long. Three years was about the right time with the capacity of re-election; five years he considered too long. He did not wish to see a Prothonotary continued ad infinitum. It was necessary that a man should be long enough in office to understand his business. If he is a competent man, he will soon understand it. He may better understand it the longer he is in office; but he will also better understand the fee bill. If the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. STEVENS) was agreed to, he should then offer an amendment, requiring an examination and approval of the candidates by the court. There was great propriety he thought, in leaving it to the Legislature to regulate the manner of appointment, and the number of offices to be held by the same person. In good old times, offices were not so much cut up and divided as they were now. Several offices were then held by the same person, which allowed the officer to keep a clerk and attend well to his duties. But now, in the smallest counties, each office is filled with a separate person, and the consequence is that the salary is not sufficient either to support him, or enable him to perform assistance in his office. If you have business with the officer, you cannot find him nor a clerk at his office; but you must hunt him up in his garden or his field, where he is hoeing his corn and digging his potatoes. He has too much to do to provide for his own subsistence, to look after the interests of the public. It was better in these small counties, both for the officer and the public, that those offices should be consolidated and held by the same person. The discretionary power to allow this must be placed somewhere, and no where could it be reposed with more propriety than with the Legislature. In former times, when these offices were not so much cut up, they paid a revenue to the State Treasury, but now no office