Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

STERIGERE) and although on yesterday he thought he should vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, on further reflection, he had come to a different conclusion. He had no doubt, if we had taken up the business in its proper order, and determined in the fifth article what courts we would have, that the report of the committee would have been the most acceptable proposition to the committee. But as we have passed over the fifth article, and the committee on that article have showed an unwillingness to anticipate any alteration in the county courts, we must do the best we can. Was it come to this, that by the irregular course of proceeding adopted here, we are reduced to the absolute necessity of either taking the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, or the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery. Much as we have been cramped and restricted in our proceedings here, by constructions of rules of order, it di l not seem to him that we were yet reduced to this degrading situation. It seemed to him there was a way of getting round the irregularities which have been sanctioned here, and disentangling ourselves from the embarrassing situation of being compelled to take one of two propositions, and of rejecting the other one hundred and thirty-one propositions which the emaining members of this Convention are entitled to bring forward. The gentleman from Adams, on yesterday, attempted to make a rally for his reform to this section, after having on a former occasion moved an adjourn ment, because of the breach made in the old Constitution, with a view of going into mourning because this venerable instrument had been delivered over into the hands of the Phillistines. Yet this same defen ler and upholder of the old Constitution came forward, on yesterday, with a proposition of reform to suit himself and then told those in favor of reform, you dare not vote against my proposition, because you dare not vote against the elective principle. This was the manner in which the gentleman from Adams attempted to drive the reformers into a support of his proposition. Why were these cabalistick appeals made? Why should gentlemen be told that they dare not vote against a proposition because it contained the elective principle? Was it a fact that gentlemen, in recording their votes against this proposition, were voting against the elective principle? It was not-and why? Because the proposition of the gentleman from Adams proposes to strike out not only the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, but also the report of the committee, both of which are based upon the elective principle. Now, by the rule established here, if this amendment should be agreed to, we cannot strike out any thing which has been put in, and, consequently, all other members are cut off from amendment of the proposition in such manner as to make it acceptable to them. Now we must take this rule as it is, because we do not know that we can get it reversed, but there is still a way of getting a different proposition before the House; a proposition different from either of those brought forward on this occasion, one of which is supposed must be thrust down our throats, nolens volens. He proposed then to the friends of reform to vote down the proposition of the gentleman from Adams; and then we can offer something in the place of it more acceptable, as he believed to a majority of the Convention. If this should be done, he then proposed to bring forward a proposition to which he would now call the attention of the committee. He proposed to introduce a proposition to strike out of the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, all after

of the special or professional capacity of an individual. A knowledge of the first qualities is best derived from a long and general acquaintance; while a knowledge of the latter is derived from a close particular acquaintance, and an enquiry on that subject alone. In accordance with this principle, I prefer the proposition of the gentleman from Adams to that of the gentleman from Montgomery, because the former requires all officers mentioned in it to be elected, except the Clerk of the Supreme Court, while the latter requires the appointment of Clerks of other courts besides the Supreme.

I have another objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, because it requires one person for each office. Now, in the county which I have the honor here to represent, the perquisites or fees of the inferior clerkships are insufficient to support an officer to attend to that duty alone; and hence we always have several of them bestowed upon one individual. This is also necessarily the case in several other counties.— In this respect the proposition of the gentleman from Adams has the advantage, because the regulation of this matter is left to the Legislature, and will enable the inhabitants of these counties to arrange these matters as they please.

The only thing in the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, which militates against my principle is, that the Clerk of the Supreme Court is to be appointed by the court. I am still disposed to support the amendment, notwithstanding it crops a corner off from my rule; and, perhaps, strictly speaking, this may be scarcely an opposition to the principle, because this officer may require rather a special than a general qualification.

I mean by saying a special qualification, those which require some particular professional knowledge, in opposition to those which require only a general knowledge. For instance, I am for appointing the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Presidents of the Common Pleas, the Attorney General, and the Surveyor General; and for electing the State Treasurer, Auditor General, the County Treasurer, and other county officers. While I am for electing the Canal Commissioners, I am in favor of appointing the Engineers, because they require a particular scientific qualification; while I am for electing a Colonel, I am for appointing the Surgeon.

I am also for appointing the County Surveyor, because it requires a man of a particular profession to discharge the duties of that office; yet if a proposition should come in all other respects good, I would vote for it, though it contains a proposal to elect that officer, because I believe it to be quite too trivial to be worth spending time about. For the same reason, I would prefer appointing the Prosecuting Attorney in some way.

Now, there may be something in the phraseology of the proposition not exactly in accordance with my view; yet, as it contains my general principles, and because it is impossible to frame a section so as to meet the views of every gentleman on this floor, I am disposed to vote for it, and I hope it will prevail

Mr. MANN suggested the propriety of amending the proposition, by inserting in the seventh line, the words "unless the Legislature shall otherwise provide", which was accepted.

Mr. READ, said he preferred the proposition of the gentleman from

STERIGERE) and although on yesterday he thought he should vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, on further reflection, he had come to a different conclusion. He had no doubt, if we had taken up the business in its proper order, and determined in the fifth article what courts we would have, that the report of the committee would have been the most acceptable proposition to the committee. But as we have passed over the fifth article, and the committee on that article have showed an unwillingness to anticipate any alteration in the county courts, we must do the best we can. Was it come to this, that by the irregular course of proceeding adopted here, we are reduced to the absolute necessity of either taking the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, or the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery. Much as we have been cramped and restricted in our proceedings here, by constructions of rules of order, it di l not seem to him that we were yet reduced to this degrading situation. It seemed to him there was a way of getting round the irregularities which have been sanctioned here, and disentangling ourselves from the embar rassing situation of being compelled to take one of two propositions, and of rejecting the other one hundred and thirty-one propositions which the emaining members of this Convention are entitled to bring forward. The gentleman from Adams, on yesterday, attempted to make a rally for his reform to this section, after having on a former occasion moved an adjourn ment, because of the breach made in the old Constitution, with a view of going into mourning because this venerable instrument had been delivered over into the hands of the Phillistines. Yet this same defen ler and upholder of the old Constitution came forward, on yesterday, with a proposition of reform to suit himself and then told those in favor of reform, you dare not vote against my proposition, because you dare not vote against the elective principle. This was the manner in which the gentleman from Adams attempted to drive the reformers into a support of his proposition. Why were these cabalistick appeals made? Why should gentlemen be told that they dare not vote against a proposition because it contained the elective principle? Was it a fact that gentlemen, in recording their votes against this proposition, were voting against the elective principle? It was not-and why? Because the proposition of the gentleman from Adams proposes to strike out not only the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, but also the report of the committee, both of which are based upon the elective principle. Now, by the rule established here, if this amendment should be agreed to, we cannot strike out any thing which has been put in, and, consequently, all other members are cut off from amendment of the proposition in such manner as to make it acceptable to them. Now we must take this rule as it is, because we do not know that we can get it reversed, but there is still a way of getting a different proposition before the House; a proposition different from either of those brought forward on this occasion, one of which is supposed must be thrust down our throats, nolens volens. He proposed then to the friends of reform to vote down the proposition of the gentleman from Adams; and then we can offer something in the place of it more acceptable, as he believed to a majority of the Convention. If this should be done, he then proposed to bring forward a proposition to which he would now call the attention of the committee. He proposed to introduce a proposition to strike out of the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, all after

the words "prothonotaries", and insert an amendment to make that amendment read as follows: "Prothonotaries and clerks of the several courts (except the Clerks of the Supreme Court who shall be appointed by the said Supreme Court during pleasure,) recorders of deeds and register of wills, shall at the times and places of the election of representatives be elected by the citizens of each county, or the citizens of the judicial districts as the case may be. They shall hold their offices for three years if they shall so long behave themselves well. The Legislature shall by law determine how many and which of said offices shall be held by one person. Vacancies in any of the said offices shall be filled by an appointment to be made by the Governor, to continue until the next General election, and until a successor shall be elected and qualified. But no person shall hold any of the said offices more than two terms in any period of nine years,"

This was the pro osition he proposed offering to the committee, if they should reject the proposition of the gentleman from Adams. It differs from his proposition in this particular: he proposes that the Supreme Court shall appoint their clerks for three years, and thus make them independent of the appointing power. which certainly is a great objection to that part of his proposition. If they are to be appointed by the court, they should be appointed during pleasure, or with a limitation that they should not serve more than a certain term of years, so that the court might have the power of controling these officers. In this particular, then, his proposition differed from that of the gentleman from Adams, and he took it that his proposed amendment was an improvement on the amendment before the committee. In the next place, his proposed amendment differed from that of the gentleman, in the commissions to be issued by the Governor, to those officers. This he had omited in his proposition, and it seemed to him to be an entirely unnecessary formality. It the Governor had any thing to say in the appointment of these officers, or had any control over them, then there might be some reason for it, but as he had not, it was a mere useless ceremony. But it differed from the amendment of the gentleman in another, and a most important particular. He meant in the last clause of his amendment, in the following words: "But no person shall hold any of the said offices more than two terms in any period of nine years. He was aware that many of the friends of reform are oppo. sed to the two term principle, and he was sorry that they were so, but for the purpose of enabling them to vote against that principle, he would, himself, when it came up in the committee, move to divide the proposition so that they might vote for the former part of the proposition, and against that part. He wished to say a word in relation to that principle. He knew that many were opposed to it, and the gentleman from Chester (Mr. BELL) is opposed to it, as he tells us, because, in the first place, it goes to control and limit the action of the people, and in the second place, he tells us, that it is anti-democratic. Now, let us examine the matter, and see if he is not mistaken in both these positions. It is said that it is a proposi tion calculated to put a limit upon the power of the people. Now, is this so! It is not, because we have not the power here to limit the people. It would amount to nothing more nor less than this: that if we inserted it in the Constitution, and the people adopted it, that they imposed upon

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

nothing more than this. If the people desired to impose this general rule of action upon themselves, they ought to have the opportunity of doing so, and they cannot do it in a Constitutional provision, unless we give them the opportunity, by submitting to them an amendment to this effect. Every man who conducts business properly, imposes upon himself some general rule of conduct, and every wise man imposes upon himself some rule to which he intends to adhere through life, and did it ever occur to the mind of any man, that by this he took from himself any power. Why, sir, every good man imposes upon himself sonie general rules. The Deity, himself, acts by general laws, and was it any detraction from the power of the Supreme Being, because he chose to impose on himself general and unalterable laws, by which his proceedings were conducted? No, sir. Then the supposition of the gentleman from Chester, that the adoption of this principle goes to limit the people in their action, will not bear an examination; because this principle is nothing more nor less than the principle which the people have told us, in the strongest and most emphatic and undisputed language, they wished to adopt for themselves. In the first place, the item of reform, perhaps, lying nearest the hearts of the people. is the abolition of life offices In the second place, the election of county officers; and in the third place, the two term principle. Well, what is there anti-democratic in the two term principle? If there was any thing anti-democratic in it, the gentleman from Chester must have sanctioned an anti-democratic principle in limiting the Governor to two terms, and the Sheriffs to one term. No, sir, this was not anti-democratic; it was one of the cardinal principles of democracy. The people wish to adopt this principle now as a leading principle of action. It is a principle which they have asked for in the most emphatic language, and if we insert it in the Constitution, it will be more satisfactory to the people than almost any other, and will have the tendency of making your other amendments the more acceptable to them. In conclusion, he hoped that the friends of reform, with one voice, would negative the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, with a view of getting, what may, perhaps, be more acceptable. It appeared to him that the amendment he had proposed, would be more acceptable to the Convention, and to the people, than the one of the gentleman from Adams. Besides, he proposed to call a division, so as to separate the two term principle from the balance of the proposition.

Mr. STERIGERE said as the gentleman from Adams had modified his resolution from time to time, until it had came very near to the proposition he had first submited, he felt disposed to yield a little in this matter. He should therefore, endeavor to put an end to this discussion by accepting the gentleman's amendment as a modification of that submited by himself. Mr. READ then moved to strike out the words "for three years" where it applies to the Clerks of the Supreme Court.

Mr. WOODWARD rose for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Susquehanna (Mr. READ) to so modify his motion, as to strike out the words "The Legislature shall provide by law for 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".

Mr. READ said if this was struck out something must be inserted in its

« ZurückWeiter »