in these latter days, that for a three hundred dollar office, we always have thirty or forty applicants. He would like to see things restored former state. He was not willing that the term of office should be long, but he was anxious to receive better qualifications for offices, on which so much of the public and private interest depended.

Mr. READ said he believed that time would be saved if the committee would stop here, and correct their mode of procedure. He did not think the motion of the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. STEVENS,) to strike out both the amendment of the gentlemen from Montgomery, (Mr. STERIGERE,) and the report of the committee, was in order. It would leave the committee in the same situation that it was in on the third article, when it was both too early and too late to amend the proposition to be voted for. If the CHAIR decides that it is in order to strike out both, then, if the amendment is agreed to, no further alteration can be made. The effect of its adoption would be to cut off all other amendments; and, therefore, we may be compelled to vote for it, though we do not like it, in preference to the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery. The proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, provided separate offices for each county, which was wrong.

The CHAIR, said, the motion of the gentleman from Adams, was in order, as it was an amendment, to an amendment which had been submited to the report of the commitee. It would not be in order, after its adoption, to strike out any part of it, but additions to it could be made.

Mr. SERGEANT suggested, as a mode of getting rid of the difficulty, that the time in the proposition of the gentleman, from Adams, should be left blank, and, if the amendment was adopted, the gentleman from Susquehanna, whose objection to it, was the time proposed, would have an opportunity of moving any other time. If the gentleman from Adams would modify his amendment in that way, it would remove the difficulty, under which the gentleman from Susquehanna labored.

Mr. STEVENS said, this would not affect the question of order. There would not be any difficulty in the matter. If a majority of the commitee, did not like the time, they could reject the whole proposition and bring up another. If a majority of the committee did approve of the amendment as it stood, then, there would be no necessity for the introduction of the amendment of the gentleman, from Susquehanna. He thought the term of three years, the proper term. If the committee thought otherwise, let them reject the whole proposition.

Mr. READ said, the decision of the CHAIR, left him in this predicament: he was obliged to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, although he did not like it, because he prefered it to the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery. There must be something wrong in a decision, which led to such absurdities. Every gentleman ought to have an opportunity to offer amendments, but this course would cut them off entirely.

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, said that he prefered the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, to the other before the commitée. As, however, he understood the CHAIR to decide the amendment of the gentleman from Adams in order, he would take an appeal from the decision, for the purpose of testing the question of order.

and after half a day had been spent in the discussion of it, to make an appeal. He made the question, whether the appeal could be received. Mr. CLARKE wished, he said, to give his views, on the subject of the difficulty, which had arisen, having done which, very briefly, he withdrew the appeal.

Mr. DUNLOP agreed with the gentleman from Adams, that those who did not like the proposition offered by him, could vote against it, and, if it was rejected, another would be offered. He was in favor of electing officers by the people, but was opposed to the provisions of this amendment, in some respects. He objected to its phraseology; for he wished, as far as possible, to adhere to the original language of the Constitution, which was well settled and understood; neither did he consider the term of three years, as sufficiently long for those officers. If this proposition was rejected, as he hoped it would be, he would offer one preserving the language of the Constitution, and leaving the term of office blank.

Mr. BELL would prefer, he said, to settle the whole question. He should vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, though he did not approve of the terms, in which it was worded.

Mr. AGNEW said, he had drawn out the proposition of the gentleman, from Adams, in the language of the Constitution, so far as it applied to the subject. He read the proposition, and offered it to the gentleman from Adams, as a modification.

Mr. STEVENS accepted the suggestion of the gentleman, and modified the amendment, accordingly.

The commitee then rose, and the Convention took the usual recess.

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON-4 O'CLOCK.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into committee of the whole, on the sixth article of the Constitution, Mr. CHAMBERS, of Franklin, in the Chair.

The question pending, being on the motion of Mr. STEVENS, to strike out the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr STERIGERE) and the report of the committee, and inserting as follows:

To amend the amendment, by striking therefrom all after the word "Prothonotaries", and inserting in lieu thereof, as follows, viz; " and Clerks of the several courts (except the Prothonotaries of the Supreme Court, 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 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 themselves 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

until the next general election, and until a successor shall be elected and qualified as aforesaid".

Mr. PURVIANCE, of Butler, asked for the yeas and nays on this motion, and they were ordered.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, stated his objections to both the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, and that of the gentleman from Montgomery. He would vote against both, because, if they were rejected, any necessary amendment could be made in the Convention. He thought the time unnecessarily long, a proposition of fewer words, and a better process, might be substituted for the present amendment. It was not so good as the report of the committee, because, by the amendment, officers could hold their offices without limit, while under the report of the committee, they were limited. Rotation in office was the order of the day; it was the popular sentiment, and ought to be carried out. The term for which the Governor could retain office, was reduced from nine to six years. There were some inconvenience attending the changing of a good officer for another, but a balance of advantage resulted to the people. A length of time in office was apt to beget aristocratical habits. Believing, that the length of time in office should not exceed six years, and that the people, in the election of a Governor, had established that principle, the report of the committee had assailed the unlimited term, and nothing was said in its defence. He had another objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, and that was, that it placed it in the hands of the Supreme Court, to elect their own Prothonotaries. He was opposed to the investment of any patronage in the Judiciary. Much as he was against the confering of power in the Executive, he would rather it was there than in the Judiciary. The Judiciary should be above suspicion, and they could not exercise this power without dissatisfaction. When judges had been called on to appoint commissioners, and other officers, they had given them, in many instances, to their near relations, sometimes to the disadvantage of parties, because, lawyers did not like to object to the decision of the officer, if the judge was his relation. This was a very considerable evil, and ought to be remedied. While speaking of these practices, he would say, that he meant no attack on the respectable judge who was a member of this Convention, and who had appointed a relation to office. But that relation was a very good officer, and whatever he had said had no reference to him. If patronage be vested in the Judiciary, it ought to be limited, so as to prevent the appointment of relations of the judges. It would be better not to give the power, but to let the citizens elect the officers; and, if that course was not approved, the Governor had better appoint them, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen

ate.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, said, he held in his hand, ready to present to the Chair, an amendment which he had prepared, so to limit the terms of office, that an officer should not hold for more than six years out of nine, but the decision of the Chair cut him off from all chance of having his amendment placed before the committee.

Mr. STERIGERE, of Montgomery, was disposed to ask the attention of the committee for a few moments. Between his amendment, and that of the gentleman from Adams, as modified, there was no material difference.

in this point. He had used the names of the officers as they stood in the old Constitution, while the language of the amendment deviated from that instrument. The terms which he (Mr. S.) had adopted, were such as are in common use, and in this report the phraseology of his amendment might have the advantage. There was also a difference in another point. The amendment of the gentleman from Adams, authorized the appointment of the Prothonotaries of the Supreme Court, by the Supreme Court. His (Mr. S's.) proposition was, that Prothonotaries, and Clerks of courts should be appointed in such manner as the Legislature might direct. On reflection, he thought it would be better to leave this to the Governor and Senate. Public opinion was opposed to the vesting of this patronage in the courts. Although the courts were the best judges of their own officers, yet public opinion had taken a stand against it. The courts, however, had such control over their officers, as to render this objection of little moment.— He then made some objections to the report of the committee, as loose in reference to the election of Sheriff's and Coroners, and as objectionable in other parts. In reference to the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, to limit the terms of office to six years out of nine, it might be introduced as a proviso. Should the amendment of the gentleman from Adams be rejected, and the gentleman from Susquehanna would introduce his limitation as a proviso, he (Mr. S.) would vote for it again. There was no mode provided in the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, for the removal of officers, if they did not behave well. His (Mr. S's.) amendment provided, that such might be removed by the Governor, on an address from the Legislature. When there is a limitation to good behavior, it ought to be shewn how it should be determined, whether they behave well or not. He was not fastidious on this point. The objection of the gentleman from Union, (Mr. MERRILL) to the term of three years, he thought, would not weigh much with the committee. He did not believe, that a majority would agree to make the term five years. It was too long to make the officer feel a responsibility to the appointing power. With regard to the suggestions of another gentleman, that the Clerk of the Supreme Court should be elected by the people, he thought that it would be inconvenient, and had better be given to the Governor and Senate; some of the districts extend over about twenty counties. In regard to the county officers, he was indifferent. In some districts, the election of a Clerk of the Supreme Court, would be impracticable. He was in favor of the old Constitution, in this respect, rather than the amendment.

Mr. READ would be gratified, before he voted, if the gentleman from Montgomery would say how many officers it would be necessary to appoint. The arrangement of the courts might be changed in the fifth article, and it was possible, that the number of courts might be reduced. He did not wish to act in the dark.

Mr. STEVENS further modified his amendment.

Mr. BELL said, that every person appeared to have abandoned the report of the committee, except the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. EARLE,) who raised a feeble voice in its support. That gentleman goes against the amendment of the gentleman from Adams. and against the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, and supports the report of the committee, upon the ground that it provides for rotation in office. It provides that no county officer should hold his office for

more than six years, in any term of nine years. This is the true republican doctrine, which he prefers to either of the other two amendments; and therefore the radical and reformer has made up his mind to vote against both the other propositions, acceptable as they may be, and go for this rotation principle alone. He had heard a great deal, here and elsewhere, with regard to rotation in office, and he must confess, he never had any faith in it. It only amounted to turning one man out, and putting another in his place, without any good resulting from it. What he understood to be the true principles of rotation in office, was to give the people the power of rotating the officers in such manner as they thought proper. That is, to give them the power of keeping the officers in during life, or of turning them out every few years; and he would beg leave here to say, that if he had not found this principle of limitation in the old Constitution, in some cases, he would have gone against it in every particular. Why, sir, what is this doctrine which is preached here by those who love the dear people more than they love themselves? It is directly in the teeth of the doctrine of democracy. It deprives the people of the exercise of a right which it is their highest duty to exercise. It is saying to the people, that although you may prefer a certain individual, and although that individual may have discharged his duties with the utmost fidelity and ability, you shall not elect him. This was not the doctrine of true democracy; but must be a doctrine of some spurious offspring from the democratic family. He would go against the report of the committee, for the reason that it placed this restriction upon the people, and none other. He would not go for any proposition which would prevent the people from electing whom they pleased, and when they pleased, and for what term they pleased.Now, with respect to the merits of the propositions of the gentleman from Adams and the gentleınan from Montgomery, he approved of the former, because it was more perfect, in many of its features and provisions, than the latter. It goes further than the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, and provides for more contingencies, and obviates greater difficulties. He approved of this proposition, for the very reason that he disapproved of the other. He approved of it, because it gave to the Supreme Court the appointment of its clerks. It is said it would be inconvenient to give the election of these officers to the people, because of the size of the districts. He had no doubt it would lead to inconvenience, and we must vest the power of appointment somewhere. Where, then, was this power to be vested? He was opposed to giving any appointments to the Executive, when we can place them elsewhere. He would not consent that the Governor should have the appointment of any officer, if there could be found any other convenient place to place it. There are some instances, to be sure, in which he must exercise this power, but the people have objected to its being exercised so extensively, for a long period of years, because of the numerous frauds it has given rise to, and the corruption it has introduced into the administration of the Government. Well, sir, where is there to be found a better place to vest these appointments, than in the Supreme Court, whose officers they are. But the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia (Mr. EARLE,) tells us he is opposed to giving this patronage to the courts, because of the tendency to have it abused. Now, he apprehended that gentleman spoke solely with reference