PRESIDENT did the other day, when he spoke of the practice of settling the claims of voters at the election windows, thus preventing others from getting the opportunity to vote. If he had gone to an election in the country, he would have found that these claims were not settled at the windows, but elsewhere. The gentleman has told us of the great evil to result from giving this patronage to the Judiciary; and among other things, tells us that the courts will have the appointment of the auditors. Why, in the country, it is a very difficult matter to get a man to fill this office. It actually goes a begging. There is no patronage exercised by the courts in the country, and there was no danger to be apprehended from giving them the apppointment of these officers. If any gentleman could point out a more appropriate place for vesting these appointments, he would go for it; but if not, he would go for the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, because it placed the appointment in the Supreme Court. There was another particular in which the proposition of the gentleman from Adams was preferable to the other; wnich was, that it avoided a difficulty in vesting in the people the election of county officers in the different counties. Now, we all know that in some of the more wealthy and populous counties, such for instance, as Philadelphia, Lancaster, Chester, and Berks, several of the county offices, which were elective, were to be bestowed on different individuals, while in some of the smaller counties, you must combine them together, and confer them upon a single individual, because taking them separately, the fees would not be sufficient to pay for the services of any person. It was impossible, in the fundamental law, to provide for the different cases which must be regulated, in some measure, by the amount of population, and business to be done in the different counties. But the proposition of the gentleman from Adams was plain and simple, and we must leave something to the Legislature, because we cannot legislate for posterity, and provide for all the different cases which may arise in the long course of years. The Legislature must have the right of regulating these different offices and of saying how many offices shall be exercised by one man, and where they shall be separated. It must be left with it to provide, as the population of the counties increases, a due distribution of the offices; and no doubt they would be governed in their action by the desires of the people in those counties, and make provisions to suit their convenience. There was another feature in the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, which did not find a place in the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, which was, the provision for the removal of those officers upon the address of both Houses of the Legislature. Now, he knew there were several gentlemen who were in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, who were opposed to this kind of removal. Taking all these matters into consideration, he thought the proposition of the gentleman from Adams the best we could get, and he should give it his support.

Mr. EARLE did not understand that this was a question merely between the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. STERIGERE,) and the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. STEVENS.) as the gentleman from Chester (Mr. BELL) considers it. If we disapprove of the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, it does not follow that we must adopt the proposition of the gentleman from Adams; and if we prefer this latter

more than six years, in any term of nine years. This is the true republi can 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 ro tation 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 doc trine 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 gentleman 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 Su preme Court the appointment of its clerks. It is said it would be incon venient 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 con sent 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 corrup tion it has introduced into the administration of the Government. 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 giving this patronage to the courts, because of the tendency to have it abu sed. Now, he apprehended that gentleman spoke solely with reference

Well,

PRESIDENT did the other day, when he spoke of the practice of settling the claims of voters at the election windows, thus preventing others from getting the opportunity to vote. If he had gone to an election in the country, he would have found that these claims were not settled at the windows, but elsewhere. The gentleman has told us of the great evil to result from giving this patronage to the Judiciary; and among other things, tells us that the courts will have the appointment of the auditors. Why, in the country, it is a very difficult matter to get a man to fill this office. It actually goes a begging. There is no patronage exercised by the courts in the country, and there was no danger to be apprehended from giving them the apppointment of these officers. If any gentleman could point out a more appropriate place for vesting these appointments, he would go for it; but if not, he would go for the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, because it placed the appointment in the Supreme Court. There was another particular in which the proposition of the gentleman from Adams was preferable to the other; wnich was, that it avoided a difficulty in vesting in the people the election of county officers in the different counties. Now, we all know that in some of the more wealthy and populous counties, such for instance, as Philadelphia, Lancaster, Chester, and Berks, several of the county offices, which were elective, were to be bestowed on different individuals, while in some of the smaller counties, you must combine them together, and confer them upon a single individual, because taking them separately, the fees would not be sufficient to pay for the services of any person. It was impossible, in the fundamental law, to provide for the different cases which must be regulated, in some measure, by the amount of population, and business to be done in the different counties. But the proposition of the gentleman from Adams was plain and simple, and we must leave something to the Legislature, because we cannot legislate for posterity, and provide for all the different cases which may arise in the long course of years. The Legislature must have the right of regulating these different offices and of saying how many offices shall be exercised by one man, and where they shall be separated. It must be left with it to provide, as the population of the counties increases, a due distribution of the offices; and no doubt they would be governed in their action by the desires of the people in those counties, and make provisions to suit their convenience. There was another feature in the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, which did not find a place in the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, which was, the provision for the removal of those officers upon the address of both Houses of the Legislature. Now, he knew there were several gentlemen who were in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, who were opposed to this kind of removal. Taking all these matters into consideration, he thought the proposition of the gentleman from Adams the best we could get, and he should give it his support.

Mr. EARLE did not understand that this was a question merely between the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. STERIGERE,) and the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. STEVENS.) as the gentleman from Chester (Mr. BELL) considers it. If we disapprove of the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, it does not follow that we must adopt the proposition of the gentleman from Adams; and if we prefer this latter

if we reject it, we can then offer another amendment which will be more acceptable, perhaps, than either of those now before the committee. In fact, we ought to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, if it did not meet our views in every particular, and to his mind there were several objections to it. In relation to what had been said by the gentleman from Chester, it was a matter of opinion altogether. It was a matter of opinion as to what is democracy and what is not. He had heard a great deal about the distinctions between the people and the real people, and he supposed the real people were a better kind of democracy than the people generally. He, however, was disposed to legislate for the people generally, and not for the real people, as gentlemen were pleased to term them. He was opposed to perpetuating offices in the hands of any man or any set of men, and there was no democracy in any principle which went to carry out this matter. It was well known, that after a man has had an office for some considerable length of time, he begins to look upon it as his right, or his property, and he takes it as an offence for any one to oppose him. He looks upon it as his property through life, and considers that his children are the persons best entitled to it after he is gone. This was the origin of aristocracy, which he wished to see nipped in the bud. He did not desire to see any man bring up his children in idleness, with the expectation of having them placed in some office which would support them in that idleness, but he wished them to take the same chance of getting those situations with the rest of the community. One man is as much entitled to office as another, and there is no democracy in a principle which goes to perpetuate offices in the hands of the favored few. As to the objections to the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, he contended that the people should have the election of all the officers in the county. Now they had a Mayor's court of the Northern Liberties, established by that celebrated Legislature which has been so frequently spoken of here, and there was no provision made by the amendment for the election of the clerks to that court. All these officers should be elected by the people. He was opposed to allowing any patronage to their courts, or to the Supreme court, and for this reason he should oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Adams. The amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery was objectionable, because it went to provide for the election of a set of officers whose offices might not be in existence when the amendments to the Constitution are all made. He hoped that the distinction between courts of Quarter Sessions, Oyer and Terminer, and Orphans' court, all consisting of the same officers, would be done away with, and that we would have but two courts, a civil and a criminal. For this reason we should not provide for the election of the officers to these various courts, at present.

Mr. STEVENS said, if he was not desirous that the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia should not put upon the record a statement which was incorrect, he would not have risen to correct his error. That gentle man had said that this amendment does not provide for the appointment of the clerks to the Mayor's Court of the Northern Liberties. This was not

a fact; because the amendment does provide for their appointment by saying that they shall be appointed by the Court. The gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. STERIGERE) had enquired how these officers were to

would ask the gentleman how the sheriffs were to be removed from office, if they did not behave themselves well. There was no provision in the Constitution to meet that case, any more than this, yet there was an easy and plain mode of proceeding in those cases. If those officers are convicted of malfeasance in office, they are removable at once, and there is no difficulty about it. Thus they were easily removed for misconduct, but he objected to this matter of having them removed upon the address of the Legislature, without any official misconduct. What was the use of allowing to the people the right of electing these officers, if the Legislature is to have the power of removing them at pleasure. The proposition he had submited, contained the very principle for which gentlemen have been contending, ever since the meeting of the Convention, namely, the election of county officers; and he was of opinion it would be adopted by the Convention; therefore, he would warn gentlemen of the danger they would fall into by voting against it. He would caution them against putting their names on the record, against the principle of allowing the people to elect their county officers. They must recollect their names will stand there in opposition to one of the amendments which has been most loudly called for by the people, and for which they have been contending, and how are they going to explain away this inconsistency? He thought the better plan would be to go for his amend

ment.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia, said that it might be that he was not so radical as some other gentlemen, but it had always been a matter of doubt with him whether the clerks of courts should be elected. He, however, yielded his opinion to the opinions of persons who knew more about this matter than himself. He was not tenacious with regard to the Mayor's Court, which had been spoken of. If it should hereafter be found expedient to elect all those clerks, we can leave it with the Legislature to provide for it; or if, when we get through with the Judiciary article, it shall be found most proper to provide for it in the Constitution, we can return to this article, and make the proper provision here. He should vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, because he thought it as good a one as we could get, except, perhaps, the rotation principle; but he thought that had better be left to the people, to rotate them in and rotate them out, as suited the public interest best; and he did not think it necessary to have a Constitutional provision on the subject.

Mr. STERIGERE said, in answer to the enquiry of the gentleman from Adams, he would ask him why there was such a provision in the old Constitution, as the removal of Judges by the address of both Houses of the Legislature. It was proper, there should be some mode of removing officers who were appointed for good behaviour, and that mode was provided for in the case of Judges and other officers by impeachment; but there was a still easier mode, and that was by address of the Legislature. This was considered the most easy mode of getting rid of officers under the old Constitution, and he thought it would be the most easy in the case in which he had introduced it.

Mr. DUNLOP, of Franklin, said that he now understood the amendment to the amendment, as being offered by the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. STEVENS,) and modified at the suggestion of the gentleman from Butler,