Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

mery, (Mr. STERIGERE,) had not added very considerably to his amendment, and if so, we should know what it was. He was about to say, that it must strike every one, that if the committee were going to vote for giving the election of county officers to the people, we were compelled by the course of proceeding pursued by the CHAIR and the committee, to adopt any proposition that a gentleman may choose to offer, whether we liked it, or not. We must either adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, or that of the gentleman from Montgomery, or put upon the record that we were opposed to the election of county officers by the people. This was just the condition in which we were placed. He confessed that he did not like the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, nor would he vote for it if he could get any thing better. He desired that the people should have the election of their county officers, and yet we were obliged to take this nauseous dose, or appear before the people as hostile to the principle of giving to them the election of these officers.He was at a loss to ascertain why we should not give to the courts the power of appointing their clerks, as well as to the Supreme court the right to appoint their Prothonotary. The gentleman from Adams, however, did not like to do that. He (Mr. D.) was not at all averse to the courts appointing their own officers. But what he objected to was the appointment of them for three years. If appointed by the courts, they ought to hold their offices at the pleasure of the courts. For, when a clerk was appointed for three years, he was perfectly independent of the appointing power. Why, then, should he not hold his office during the pleasure of the court? Did not gentlemen know that in a court in Philadelphia, a clerk had held his office for seven years, and during the whole time was never once in his office? He transacted the business by a clerk. There were some prothonotaries who could not spell scire facias to save their souls from perdition. One prothonotary he had heard of, who spelt scire facias, scurry furry. The gentleman from Northampton (Mr. PORTER,) said he had known a clerk in that county, who spelt writ" rit, and "write" rite.

[Mr. PORTER said: Not in Nothampton, but in]

.6

Oh! not in the county of Northampton. The gentleman from the county near him (Mr. EARLE) then remarked, that it made no difference, as every one knew that rit must be "writ," and rite “right.” But he would like to know how that gentleman would construe scurry furry.— What sort of a writ was that? How was it possible to designate such words? He had known the orthography of a document to be so bad that the court could not make it out, and the paper was sent back to be put into good English. It was evident that the mode of appointment by the Governor had not met the expectation of the framers of the Constitution.Incompetent men were appointed on account of their political services. Political partizans, accustomed to wrangling, lying, cheating, and swearing, and who were totally unfit to discharge the duties of their office. He knew of several instances of men who could scarcely write their own He would maintain, then, that a court should have the power of appointing its own clerk. He was an officer of it, and was learned to record the decisions and decrees of the court, and in the manner in which they should direct. He (Mr. DUNLOP) had mentioned an instance of an

names.

appointment. Now, he had known such officers set themselves in opposition to their duty, and refuse to record the proceedings of the court at the time he was directed. What a predicament that was to be placed in, and that, too, without having the power to remove the clerk from his office! As he (Mr. D.) had already remarked, the officer was entirely independent of the court-as independent as though he had been appointed by the Governor himself. These clerks, at present, if inattentive to their duties, or not conducting themselves with propriety, could be removed by the Governor, and others appointed by him to fill their places. And, that was, perhaps, one reason why they conducted themselves as well as they did. There was a controlling power over them, and if they misbehaved themselves the Governor would certainly remove them. With regard to the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, it seemed we were to be compelled to take it; for, according to the decisions of the CHAIR We had no right to change it in any shape or form. When the yeas and nays were called, there appeared a great majority in favor of giving the election of the county officers to the people, and notwithstanding this, we were obliged to go for an amendment which we did not like. He really thought that the question should be reconsidered by the Convention. His opinion was that the gentleman from Adams had no right to move to strike out the report of the committee, and to insert his proposition. On the motion of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. STERIGERE) the report was stricken out, and his own proposition inserted in lieu of it, which covered the whole ground assumed by that report. But, here was an amendment to an amendment, the object of which was not to modify, or arrange, or change the amendment which was before the committee, but to strike out the report of the committee, and insert an amendment to an amendment. He (Mr. DUNLOP) would ask, if such was the Parliamentary usage, and if we should not be placed in the most awkward position imaginable?

The CHAIR here called the gentleman to order on the ground that he was taking too wide a range.

Mr. DUNLOP: The reason I have said what I have

Mr. STEVENS explained what his motion was.

The CHAIR: It was acquiesced in by the committee.

Mr. DUNLOP would ask the CHAIR whether the gentleman from Adams had a right to move to strike out the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery in order to insert his own? He would ask, if such a motion could be entertained, and if so whether he could not appeal from the decision of the CHAIR?

The CHAIR said that it was not now in order to present such a question. The time had gone by for raising a question of order. It should have been raised when the gentleman from Adams made his motion to amend. The committee having already acceded to the decision of the CHAIR, no appeal could now be taken,

Mr. DUNLOP said that he would take an appeal from the decision of the CHAIR on the ground that it was not now too late to raise the question of order. It had been decided by the CHAIR once, and the committee twice, that a motion to strike out an entire amendment with a view to insert one in its place, was not in order. The Parliamentary rule was that an amend

mery, (Mr. STERIGERE,) had not added very considerably to his amend. ment, and if so, we should know what it was. He was about to say, that it must strike every one, that if the committee were going to vote for giving the election of county officers to the people, we were compelled by the course of proceeding pursued by the CHAIR and the committee, to adopt any proposition that a gentleman may choose to offer, whether we liked it, or not. We must either adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, or that of the gentleman from Montgomery, or put upon the record that we were opposed to the election of county officers by the people. This was just the condition in which we were placed. He confessed that he did not like the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, nor would he vote for it if he could get any thing better. He desired that the people should have the election of their county officers, and yet we were obliged to take this nauseous dose, or appear before the people as hostile to the principle of giving to them the election of these officers.He was at a loss to ascertain why we should not give to the courts the power of appointing their clerks, as well as to the Supreme court the right to appoint their Prothonotary. The gentleman from Adams, however, did not like to do that. He (Mr. D.) was not at all averse to the courts appointing their own officers. But what he objected to was the appointment of them for three years. If appointed by the courts, they ought to hold their offices at the pleasure of the courts. For, when a clerk was appointed for three years, he was perfectly independent of the appointing power. Why, then, should he not hold his office during the pleasure of the court? Did not gentlemen know that in a court in Philadelphia, a clerk had held his office for seven years, and during the whole time was never once in his office? He transacted the business by a clerk. There were some prothonotaries who could not spell scire facias to save their souls from perdition. One prothonotary he had heard of, who spelt scire facias, scurry furry. The gentleman from Northampton (Mr. PORTER,) said he had known a clerk in that county, who spelt writ” rit, and "write" rite.

[Mr. PORTER said: Not in Nothampton, but in]

66

Oh! not in the county of Northampton. The gentleman from the county near him (Mr. EARLE) then remarked, that it made no difference, as every one knew that rit must be "writ," and rite " right." But he would like to know how that gentleman would construe scurry furry.— What sort of a writ was that? How was it possible to designate such words? He had known the orthography of a document to be so bad that the court could not make it out, and the paper was sent back to be put into good English. It was evident that the mode of appointment by the Governor had not met the expectation of the framers of the Constitution.Incompetent men were appointed on account of their political services. Political partizans, accustomed to wrangling, lying, cheating, and swearing, and who were totally unfit to discharge the duties of their office. He knew of several instances of men who could scarcely write their own names. He would maintain, then, that a court should have the power of appointing its own clerk. He was an officer of it, and was learned to record the decisions and decrees of the court, and in the manner in which they should direct. He (Mr. DUNLOP) had mentioned an instance of an

appointment. Now, he had known such officers set themselves in opposition to their duty, and refuse to record the proceedings of the court at the time he was directed. What a predicament that was to be placed in, and that, too, without having the power to remove the clerk from his office! As he (Mr. D.) had already remarked, the officer was entirely independent of the court-as independent as though he had been appointed by the Governor himself. These clerks, at present, if inattentive to their duties, or not conducting themselves with propriety, could be removed by the Governor, and others appointed by him to fill their places. And, that was, perhaps, one reason why they conducted themselves as well as they did. There was a controlling power over them, and if they misbehaved themselves the Governor would certainly remove them. With regard to the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, it seemed we were to be compelled to take it; for, according to the decisions of the CHAIR We had no right to change it in any shape or form. When the yeas and nays were called, there appeared a great majority in favor of giving the election of the county officers to the people, and notwithstanding this, we were obliged to go for an amendment which we did not like. He really thought that the question should be reconsidered by the Convention. His opinion was that the gentleman from Adams had no right to move to strike out the report of the committee, and to insert his proposition. On the motion of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. STERIGERE) the report was stricken out, and his own proposition inserted in lieu of it, which covered the whole ground assumed by that report. But, here was an amendment to an amendment, the object of which was not to modify, or arrange, or change the amendment which was before the committee, but to strike out the report of the committee, and insert an amendment to an amendment. He (Mr. DUNLOP) would ask, if such was the Parliamentary usage, and if we should not be placed in the most awkward position imaginable?

The CHAIR here called the gentleman to order on the ground that he was taking too wide a range.

Mr. DUNLOP: The reason I have said what I have

Mr. STEVENS explained what his motion was.

The CHAIR: It was acquiesced in by the committee.

Mr. DUNLOP would ask the CHAIR whether the gentleman from Adams had a right to move to strike out the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery in order to insert his own? He would ask, if such a motion could be entertained, and if so whether he could not appeal from the decision of the CHAIR?

The CHAIR said that it was not now in order to present such a question. The time had gone by for raising a question of order. It should have been raised when the gentleman from Adams made his motion to amend. The committee having already acceded to the decision of the CHAIR, no appeal could now be taken,

Mr. DUNLOP said that he would take an appeal from the decision of the CHAIR on the ground that it was not now too late to raise the question of order. It had been decided by the CHAIR once, and the committee twice, that a motion to strike out an entire amendment with a view to insert one in its place, was not in order. The Parliamentary rule was that an amend

mery, (Mr. STERIGERE,) had not added very considerably to his amend ment, and if so, we should know what it was. He was about to say, that it must strike every one, that if the committee were going to vote for giving the election of county officers to the people, we were compelled by the course of proceeding pursued by the CHAIR and the committee, to adopt any proposition that a gentleman may choose to offer, whether we liked it, or not. We must either adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, or that of the gentleman from Montgomery, or put upon the record that we were opposed to the e'ection of county officers by the people. This was just the condition in which we were placed. He confessed that he did not like the amendment of the gentleman from Adams, nor would he vote for it if he could get any thing better. He desired that the people should have the election of their county officers, and yet we were obliged to take this nauseous dose, or appear before the people as hostile to the principle of giving to them the election of these officers.He was at a loss to ascertain why we should not give to the courts the power of appointing their clerks, as well as to the Supreme court the right to appoint their Prothonotary. The gentleman from Adams, however, did not like to do that. He (Mr. D.) was not at all averse to the courts appointing their own officers. But what he objected to was the appointment of them for three years. If appointed by the courts, they ought to hold their offices at the pleasure of the courts. For, when a clerk was appointed for three years, he was perfectly independent of the appointing power. Why, then, should he not hold his office during the pleasure of the court? Did not gentlemen know that in a court in Philadelphia, a clerk had held his office for seven years, and during the whole time was never once in his office? He transacted the business by a clerk. There were some prothonotaries who could not spell scire facias to save their souls from perdition. One prothonotary he had heard of, who spelt scire facias, scurry furry. The gentleman from Northampton (Mr. PORTER,) said he had known a clerk in that county, who spelt writ" rit, and "write" rite.

[Mr. PORTER said: Not in Nothampton, but in]

[ocr errors]

Oh! not in the county of Northampton. The gentleman from the county near him (Mr. EARLE) then remarked, that it made no difference, as every one knew that rit must be "writ," and rite "right." But he would like to know how that gentleman would construe scurry furry.— What sort of a writ was that? How was it possible to designate such words? He had known the orthography of a document to be so bad that the court could not make it out, and the paper was sent back to be put into good English. It was evident that the mode of appointment by the Governor had not met the expectation of the framers of the Constitution.— Incompetent men were appointed on account of their political services. Political partizans, accustomed to wrangling, lying, cheating, and swearing, and who were totally unfit to discharge the duties of their office. He knew of several instances of men who could scarcely write their own names. He would maintain, then, that a court should have the power of appointing its own clerk. He was an officer of it, and was learned to record the decisions and decrees of the court, and in the manner in which they should direct. He (Mr. DUNLOP) had mentioned an instance of an

« ZurückWeiter »