You

his reasons for that vote. It seemed to him, that the gentleman could not have considered this amendment well before he submited it to the Convention. The great evil, undoubtedly, under the old Constitution, was the unrestrained patronage of the Governor, and the strong desire that he should be restricted to a period of years, and all gentlemen have said about two terms has been in reference to the election of Governor of Pennsylvania for a short term. He had been all along in favor of limiting the patronage of the Governor so as to destroy this evil, and preventing its being brought into play for the purpose of securing his re-election. But the reasons which influenced the minds of a great portion of our fellow citizens in wishing the term of the Governor limited, do not apply to these county offices which it is now proposed to limit to two terms also. It is proposed by the amendment under consideration, to give the election of county officers to the people, who have heretofore been appointed by the Gover nor; and now the gentleman from Susquehanna, (Mr. READ) proposed to say to the people, although you are entitled to elect these your officers, still you shall not re-elect them more than for the term here proposed. shall not have the services of your Registers, Recorders, and Prothonotaries, however faithfully they may have performed their duties, or however important their services may be to them, for more than six years in any term of nine years. The gentleman's amendment will either reduce the people to this self restriction, or it will compel them to reject all the other amendments submited to them. They will be placed under the necessity of restricting themselves in the selection of their own agents, or of rejecting all the amendments submited to them in connexion with this. It seemed to him, that the gentleman from Susquehanna was proposing altogether too much. He is asking the people to impose restrictions upon themselves which he has no right to ask, and for which there has been no good reason assigned. Why, sir, the evil has not been that the people cannot trust themselves; but the evil complained of has been, that the Governor has inflicted upon them bad appointments for political purposes. This will be remedied by the first amendment under consideration, and the people will, no doubt, select the very best men, and why then limit them? Why, if it becomes necessary to have a limit, the people will impose a limitation practically, by refusing to elect the officer at a second or third term. should not say to the people, you shall not exercise this sovereignty.The idea now, of imposing this limitation on the people which we have not hitherto imposed upon the Executive, in the appointment of them, seemed to him, to be looking altogether in the wrong direction. people require no such limitation. Their officers do require it; but this was a limitation upon the department of the Government, and upon the officers of the Government, but the limitation proposed by the gentleman from Susquehanna, was a limitation upon the sovereignty of the people.— Now, he (Mr. W.) was willing to trust the people in these restrictions. He was not afraid they would continue an incompetent officer in office; and he was not afraid they would elect a man to office who would abuse his trust; because, if he did so abuse it, it would be a death blow to his prospects thereafter, when the people came to pass upon his merits. He wished the gentleman from Susquehanna to reconsider this mitter, and ask himself whether it was expedient to introduce a proposition of this kind

We

The

sylvania in wishing the Governor limited, does not apply to this case. nor do the reasons why the Sheriff of the county should be limited. apply to the case of the other county officers. The Sheriff of the county is the agent of a large class of the citizens of the county, having collected moneys for them to a large amount, which gives him a very considerable power, and then again, in the exercise of his duties he has the power of extending favor to some, and of enforcing the law upon others, all of which might be used for the purpose of securing the votes of his fellow citizens, and of procuring for himself a continuance in office. These reasons might be abundant for limiting the term of the Sheriff, but these reasons do not apply to the other county officers. They have no patronage in their hands to be used to procure the public favor, and have no means of prejudicing the public interest except by a neglect of duty; but in that case, the people who are always jealous of their rights, will see it, and turn them out. for that neg. lect. Why, sir, if we agree, as seems to be agreed to on all hands, that we should give to the people the election of their officers, why should they not be invested with the right to select them, as with the right originally to elect them? And what reason can any one assign for giving the elections to the people, which will not apply with equal force, and in all its length and breadth to the giving the re-election of those officers to the people. When an election comes on. some one must be elected, and if the officer who has held the office is better qualified and more worthy than a new man, what reason was there for forbidding the people from re-electing him, which would not apply with equal force against their right originally to elect him. There was, he apprehended, no reason for this, and there was a strong reason why this attempted limitation should not be introduced into the Constitution. He did not know of any stimulus

so strong to influence the officer in a faithful discharge of his duties, as that of securing the favor of the people for re-election. Take the Prothenotary or Register, whose term is to expire at the end of three years. At the end of three years his character as an officer, and the fidelity with which he discharges the duties of his office, will pass under review before the people. If he is desirous of being re-clected, will he not discharge his duties faithfully? Will not those who have business with him always find him in his place, attending to those who need his services? Will not he be anxious to have the people say of him, "we never suffered in having our business done in the office in which this man was, and we will restore him to his office, we will re-elect him". Will not this be the language which every officer will desire to hear of himself, and will not every one who desires to remain in office use every exertion to merit it? Well, sir, how will it be with the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna? Will it not take away this resistless motive for a proper discharge of duty? Will it not deprive the people of the benefit of this motive operating on the mind of the officer? He was unwilling to deprive them of all the benefits of this motive, but he would leave it to operate with its full force, and let the officer feel the full value of the approbation of his fellow citizens. Let him feel all the impulses which an honest man may feel in reference to his devotion to the people to whom he owes his official trust. Let us not deprive him of the influence of this motive in his efforts to serve the people, and let us not deprive the people of the

him. in no event, however you may conduct yourself, shall you be elected to this office. These were the reasons which would influence him in going against the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, and he could not bring himself to believe but that the gentleman had introduced it, before he had weighed its merits properly, and without due reflection.

Mr. PORTER, of Northa npton, said that the doctrine of rotation in office was a republican one; that as power had a tendency to corrupt, it was one of the principles of all republican Governments, that all power, which the sovereign people delegated to individuals, should, at state.l periods, be returned to them. Although all power tended to corruption. in consequence of the infirmities of human nature, yet it did not necessarily follow that every person to whom power is commited becomes actually corrupted, or abuses the trust reposed in him; therefore, when the trust was thus restored, or the delegated power returned to the people, they either re-delegated it to the same individuals, or confered it on others found to be more worthy. This was the true doctrine of rotation in office, and left the people perfectly free to reward merit, or discharge incompetency or dishonestv. Rotation in office did not mean that the people must discharge faithful servants at a given time, whether there was any occasion for it or not: it only intended to give the people the right, at stated periods, to review and pass upon the conduct of their servants. It would not be deemed proper to compel a merchant to discharge his clerk, whom he hired from year to year, at the end of three or six years, whether he satisfied him or not, and compl him to try another; and it would be equally improper to compel the people to do so: it should be left to their own free will. I am opposed to putting such a constraint upon the people, and I confess I did not expect to see such a proposition finding favor with those radical gentlemen, who seemed so horrified at the proposition which I stated yesterday, and now state again-I mean to offer to this section, so soon as I can find an opportunity, to require that before any per. son shall be elected Prothonotary or Clerk of a court, he shall have been first examined by the Judges of the court, or by a board of exa uiners to be appointed by them, and certified to be qualified to discharge the duties of the office. I say, sir, I little expected to see gentlemen who profess so much confidence in the people, and who are so continually taking the dear people under their special care, that they will scarcely let any other member name them, now urge the necessity of bridling the people for fear they would injure themselves, whilst they object to requiring any qualification whatever of capacity in the officer to be elected. I like consistency, and think this is evidence of any thing else. I was astonished to hear my friend from Mifflin, who was for many years a Prothonotary, and one of the best in the State, say that he did not think it important that a Prothonotary should know how to write very well. [Mr. BANKS explained: he said that he did not think it necessary that he should be able to spell accurately.] I never knew a man fit for Clerk of a court that could not spell ordinary words. Good writers and competent Prothonota · ries should always be such-they usually, though perhaps not always, spell, as well as write with ordinary accuracy, and this is all I should require in the way of qualification, superadded to ordinary intelligence and capacity. The gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. DORAN) has depreca

sylvania in wishing the Governor limited, does not apply to this case. nor do the reasons why the Sheriff of the county should be limited. apply to the case of the other county officers. The Sheriff of the county is the agent of a large class of the citizens of the county, having collected moneys for them to a large amount, which gives him a very considerable power, and then again, in the exercise of his duties he has the power of extending favor to some, and of enforcing the law upon others, all of which might be used for the purpose of securing the votes of his fellow citizens, and of procuring for himself a continuance in office. These reasons might be abundant for limiting the term of the Sheriff, but these reasons do not apply to the other county officers. They have no patronage in their hands to be used to procure the public favor, and have no means of prejudicing the public interest except by a neglect of duty; but in that case, the people who are a'ways jealous of their rights, will see it, and turn them out. for that neglect. Why, sir, if we agree, as seems to be agreed to on all hands, that we should give to the people the election of their officers, why should they not be invested with the right to select them, as with the right originally to elect them? And what reason can any one assign for giving the elections to the people, which will not apply with equal force, and in all its length and breadth to the giving the re-election of those officers to the people. When an election comes on. some one must be elected, and if the officer who has held the office is better qualified and more worthy than a new man, what reason was there for forbidding the people from re-electing him, which would not apply with equal force against their right originally to elect him. There was, he apprehended, no reason for this, and there was a strong reason why this attempted limitation should not be introduced into the Constitution. He did not know of any stimulus

so strong to influence the officer in a faithful discharge of his duties, as that of securing the favor of the people for re-election. Take the Prothonotary or Register, whose term is to expire at the end of three years. At the end of three years his character as an officer, and the fidelity with which he discharges the duties of his office, will pass under review before the people. If he is desirous of being re-clected, will he not discharge his duties faithfully? Will not those who have business with him always find him in his place, attending to those who need his services? Will not he be anxious to have the people say of him, "we never suffered in having our business done in the office in which this man was, and we will restore him to his office, we will re-elect him". Will not this be the language which every officer will desire to hear of himself, and will not every one who desires to remain in office use every exertion to merit it? Well, sir, how will it be with the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna? Will it not take away this resistless motive for a proper discharge of duty? Will it not deprive the people of the benefit of this motive operating on the mind of the officer? He was unwilling to deprive them of all the benefits of this motive, but he would leave it to operate with its full force, and let the officer feel the full value of the approbation of his fellow citizens. Let him feel all the impulses which an honest man may feel in reference to his devotion to the people to whom he owes his official trust. Let us not deprive him of the influence of this motive in his efforts to serve the people, and let us not deprive the people of the

him. in no event, however you may conduct yourself, shall you be elected to this office. These were the reasons which would influence him in going against the amendment of the gentleman from Susquehanna, and he could not bring himself to believe but that the gentleman had introduced it, before he had weighed its merits properly, and without due reflection.

It

Mr. PORTER, of Northa npton, said that the doctrine of rotation in office was a republican one; that as power had a tendency to corrupt, it was one of the principles of all republican Governments, that all power, which the sovereign people delegated to individuals, should, at state.l periods, be returned to them. Although all power tended to corruption, in consequence of the infirmities of human nature, yet it did not necessarily follow that every person to whom power is commited becomes actually corrupted, or abuses the trust reposed in him; therefore, when the trust was thus restored, or the delegated power returned to the people, they either re-delegated it to the same individuals, or confered it on others found to be more worthy. This was the true doctrine of rotation in office, and left the people perfectly free to reward merit, or discharge incompetency or dishonestv. Rotation in office did not mean that the people must discharge faithful servants at a given time, whether there was any occasion for it or not: it only intended to give the people the right, at stated periods, to review and pass upon the conduct of their servants. would not he deemed proper to compel a merchant to discharge his clerk, whom he hired from year to vear, at the end of three or six years, whether he satisfied him or not, and compl him to try another; and it would be equally improper to compel the people to do so: it should be left to their own free will. I am opposed to putting such a constraint upon the people, and I confess I did not expect to see such a proposition finding favor with those radical gentlemen, who seemed so horrified at the proposition which I stated yesterday, and now state again-I mean to offer to this sec tion, sɔ soon as I can find an opportunity, to require that before any per son shall be elected Prothonotary or Clerk of a court, he shall have been first examined by the Judges of the court, or by a board of examiners to be appointed by them, and certified to be qualified to discharge the duties of the office. I say, sir, I little expected to see gentlemen who profess so much confidence in the people, and who are so continually taking the dear people under their special care, that they will scarcely let any other member name them, now urge the necessity of brilling the people for fear they would injure themselves, whilst they object to requiring any qualification whatever of capacity in the officer to be elected. I like consistency, and think this is evidence of any thing else. I was astonished to hear my friend from Mifflin, who was for many years a Prothonotary, and one of the best in the State, say that he did not think it important that a Prothonotary should know how to write very well. [Mr. BANKS explained he said that he did not think it necessary that he should be able to spell accurately.] I never knew a man fit for Clerk of a court that could not spell ordinary words. Good writers and competent Prothonota. ries should always be such-they usually, though perhaps not always, spell, as well as write with ordinary accuracy, and this is all I should require in the way of qualification, superadded to ordinary intelligence and capacity. The gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. DORAN) has depreca

: