their appointment was taken from the courts. We destroyed the symme try of our institutions, by thrusting in between the courts and their records, officers of political appointment. The question here, was between the principle of electing them by the people, and of appointing them by the courts. Those who prefered that the Governor should continue to make the appointments, would be called to decide between giving them to the courts and to the people. His friend and colleague, (Mr. SCOTT) had taken occasion to explain the operation of Executive patronage, and had said, that it drew every thing to one great central point, and gave the Governor a great influence in the politics of the State. He would entirely agree with him. He would ask him to look back with himself, and see whether Executive patronage ever prevailed against public opinion in the State. He had looked in vain for an instance of a Chief Magistrate being able to sustain himself in power, by his patronage. This patronage, sometimes had the effect to lessen his popularity. When Governor M'KEAN was elected, he came into power by the vote of his party; but, instead of intrenching himself in power, he could not retain the confidence of his own party, but was re-elected by his former opponents, against the influence of the office holders. Governor SNYDER, succeeded Governor M'KEAN, with the opposition of Governor M'KEAN and his administration, and all the central influence of which his colleague had spoken.He was elected for the third term; but will any one say, that he was re-elected in consequence of his patronage? He was re-elected, because the majority of the people believed him to be in favor of the principles which they had espoused, and would to God, he said, they had never held any worse principles. Governor FINDLAY, was next elected, by the powerful party that sustained Gov. SNYDER. He was true to that party. He filled the county offices with his partizans, and with all his patronage, was defeated on the first trial for a re-election. He was rejected by the people beacuse, in the exercise of his power, he trampled on his adversaries, and wounded the generous feelings of the people of Pennsylvania. Governor HIESTER Succeeded him, and held the office but for one term. He was elected on the ground which had been stated in opposition to Mr. FINDLAY, ard came into power with a party, which had long been in the opposition. They opposed many salutary measures, and did, what other parties often do-overshot the mark-and he was rejected by the people. He declined a re-election, but all his central influence was exerted in favor of Mr. GREGG, but without effect. But Governor SHULZE, succeeded by a large majority he was re-elected for a second term without much opposition; but with all his patronage, he could not control his own party, and lost his nomination for a third term. The same thing happened to Governor WOLF, who was so far rejected by his own party, that he could not rally his party vote, with all his patronage at his command. The present Governor, came into power with the influence of both the general and State administrations against him; and if he is re-elected, it will not be owing to the central power at Harrisburg, nor the patronage of his office; but it will be in consequence of sustaining the interests of the Commonwealth, regardless of popular prejudices. The fear, then, of his central power, does not seem to be borne out by the experience of the Commonwealth.

He believed that all this idea of Executive influence was unprovoked.

prehended, but if it were so, the course which was proposed here was calculated to increase it. While we were surrendering some five penny bit offices to the people, what were we doing with the vast army of officers connected with internal improvements. They are left to the Governor and Senate, or to be disposed of according to the de'ermination of the Legislature. He believed that the Legislature would determine to elect them themselves in all future time, and then there would be a central power indeed, which might be dreaded. All would be elected in caucus, and the public offices would be disposed of by an irresponsible cabal. Look into the State of New York, and you will see that the Albany regency governs the State by this machinery. The Legislature elect these officers, and that Legislature is controlled by a central power, which is unknown in Pennsylvania. Go through that Commonwealth, and you will find no oasis-no green spots in the desert of politics--where volunteer candidates ate elected, and where the minority flourishes in opposition to central domination. In this State there were always some counties, where, after you have drawn the party line just as strictly as you will, men will still be chosen merely to represent the people, without reference to the interest of parties; men who will not sacrifice any thing to party, and who, feeling their powerful influence at home, care nothing for the party lines. But, if all officers should ultimately be elected by the Legislature, as he believed they would be under this system, it would then become a great object, in every county, to elect a strict party man to the Legislature, in order to control the appointments. All the elections will be made with a view to the distribution of these offices. If we wanted to have centralization and strict party elections, we should get them in this way. For these reasons he could not agree with his friend and colleague in his views of this subject. These clerkships were not to be considered as political offices; and he would as soon think of giving the election of clerks in the Auditor General's office to the people, as of clerks of the courts.

Mr. Scorт did not wish, he said, to be understood, in his remarks on this subject, as disagreeing with his colleague in reference to the extent to which it was proper to reduce the patronage of the Governor. When we struck off his whole appointing power by one blow, leaving him no appointment but that of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, he strongly expressed his dissent from that course. His views on that subject were not changed. But his last remarks were limited to the county officers, the question as to whose appointments stood on an entirely different footing from that in relation to the higher offices. He had observed in these county officers the seeds of a disease rapidly developing, which would, if suffered to come to maturity, go to destroy the vital principles of our Constitution. He wished to apply the remedy to the disease, and that was seated in the political management of these county officers. If, however, we should find the same disorder growing from the appointment of other officers, we should apply the same remedy to them. His colleague (Mr. MEREDITH) thought that there is no danger of creating a central power by making the county officers dependent upon the Executive. To prove that he is right, he has quoted instances of the elections of Gover nois in opposition to the patronage. What do these instances prove ?— They prove nothing more than that the people rose superior to the obsta

barriers of patronage. But it should be recollected that power in the hands of the Executive never grows weaker. The avenues to corruption and venality grow broader and deeper; and although the people have, in the early days of the Commonwealth, been able to overcome patronage and party; yet, in after times, when there is less public virtue, and the patronage may be stronger, they may not be able to do it. Who are now the party orators? Who distribute party papers? These county officers. Take away this dependence upon party, and these officers will not be required to enter the arena of politics as the price of their offices.

The question being then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. MEREDITH, it was determined in the negative-yeas, 15; nays, 92-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Chauncey, Cochran, Crum, Dillinger, Dunlop, Hopkinson, M'Call, M'Sherry, Meredith, Porter, of Northampton, Royer, Serrill, Snively, Weidman-15.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Bigelow, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Clea vinger, Craig, Crain, Cummin, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Donnell, Doran, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Foulk rod, Fry, Fuller. Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenel!, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helfenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Heister, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konig nacher, Krebs, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Dowell, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pollock, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Seltzer, Sheetz, Shellito. Sill, Smith, Smyth. Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Swetland Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Young. Sergeant, President-92.

Mr. DUNLOP offered the following amendment: strike from the first line the word "except", and from the second and third lines the words, "who shall be appointed by the court for the term of three years, if they so long behave themselves well".

He offered this amendment, he said, in pursuance of views which he ●xpressed to the committee some time ago.

The motion was negatived.

Mr. KONIGMACHER moved to amend the amendment by striking out therefrom the words following: " of the Supreme court who shall be appointed by the court for the term of three years, if they so long behave themselves well"

Mr. DUNLOP would just remark, he said, that these words ought to be stricken out, and put in a separate section. As they stood, the sentence was inconsistent and ungrammatical.

Mr. STERIGERE said, some alteration was necessary in the phraseology of the section.

The motion of Mr. KONIGMACHER was negatived without a division. The question recuring on the amendment of Mr. STERIGERE, as amended. Mr. EARLE said, he should vote against it, because it left some appointments to the courts, and enabled the Judges to bring into office their own relatives.

Mr. PURVIANCE asked the yeas and nays, and they were required.

The question being taken, the amendment was agreed to-yeas, 105; nays, 1-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Bigelow, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown of Philadelphia, Butler, Carey,

Clarke,of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cochran, Craig, Crain, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickey, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Foulkrod, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helfenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hiester, Hopkinson, Houst, Hyde, Jenks, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay, Magee, Mann, Martin, M'Call, M'Dowell, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance,Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers, Royer, Russell,Saeger, Scott, Sellers, Serrill, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, Snith, Smyth, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Woodward, Young, Sergeant, President-105.

NAY-Mr. Earle-1.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, moved to amend the amendment as adopted, by adding to the end thereof, the following, viz: "Provided, That no person related within the fourth degree, by blood or marriage, to any Judge of any court, shall be appointed by such court to any office or trust to which any compensation shall be attached." He said, the appointment of relatives to office, was calculated to produce very pernicious effects in a republican Government. Unless some restrictions shall be imposed, the evil will become as prevalent here as it is in Europe. It was not merely with that view, that he moved the amend nent, but because it led to the appointment of public officers who were not competent.

The question being taken, the amendment was decided in the negative. Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, moved to amend the amendment, by adding to the end thereof, the words following, viz: "Inspectors of flour, and all other Inspectors within this Commonwealth, who are now appointed by the Governor, except Brigade Inspectors, and all Deputy Surveyors, and Deputy Attorney Generals, Lazaretto Physicians, Health Officers, Wardens of ports, and Notaries Public, shall be elected by the citizens of the respective cities or counties within which they are to keep, and exercise the duties of their offices."

Mr. DICKEY would suggest to the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. STEVENS,) that his amendment would come in very appropriately to the fourth section of this report. Then, the gentleman would have the opportunity to discuss it, and under the present state of anxiety to get the question, he would not have this opportunity.

Mr. STEVENS said, his opinion was, that after the section under consideration should be adopted, all the rest of the report ought to be rejected; and with this view, he could not accept the suggestion of the gentleman from Beaver; (Mr. DICKEY.) If this section was agreed to, then he would not have the privilege of offering his amendment. He, therefore, submited it now, and only asked that a vote might be taken upon it, as it stands.— He then called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

Mr. EARLE was in favor of proceeding understandingly in this matter. If he understood the matter rightly, we have amended the report of the committee, and to that report, as amended, the gentleman from Adams has offered an amendment. Now, his colleague (Mr. BROWN) had moved an amendment to the amendment, which the Chair had decided to be out of order, and he held that that amendment was as much in order, as the amendment of the gentleman from Adams.

The CHAIR said, he had decided the amendment of the gentleman's colleague to be out of order. It was proposed in a different manner from the

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, enquired if the previous question was moved and sustained, whether the main question would be on the report of the committee, as amended.

The CHAIR replied, that it would be on the report of the committee, 'cutting off the amendment.

Mr. STERIGERE said, we have struck out the report of the committee, therefore, it appeared to him, that the previous question would be on the amendment, as the amendment had been agreed to.

Mr. AGNEW hoped the gentleman from Adams would withdraw his amendment, He did not now feel prepared to vote on the question, although he might be disposed to vote for it at its proper place. There is a report of a committee relative to these officers, and he should like to have the opportunity to examine it, and make up his mind fully upon it before he gave his vote. There was a section to the report of the committee, section four, which related particularly to this subject, and the gentleman could have the opportunity of offering his proposition to that section, and then we will have some time to examine it, and make up our minds. He disliked to be forced into a matter of this kind, and should certainly vote against the proposition, if it was pressed now, when it might be possible that he would vote for it if he had the opportunity to examine into the matter. This thing should not be forced upon the committee in its present state of excitement and anxiety, and he hoped the gentleman would see the propriety of withdrawing it.

Mr. STEVENS said, he saw no excitement in the committee. It appeared to him to be as sluggish a body as he had ever seen in his life. If he had seen any feeling here, which would have precluded a calm and dispassionate consideration, and discussion of the matter, he should not have troubled the committee with it, but there was no such feeling here, and it must only exist in the mind of the gentleman from Beaver, (Mr. AGNEW.)Mr. S. thought it had long since been decided, that all appointments were to be taken from the Executive and given to the people. Well, he had gone for this as far as the people desired it, whether right or wrong. He felt disposed to satisfy the judgment, or gratify the whims of the people, so far as the interests of the Commonwealth would permit of it. He would, therefore, go for giving them the election of those officers which could be given to them with convenience. Where he thought the people were misled, as they might be misled in many things, he would not yield to their wild frenzy, but he would go as far with anodynes as any gentleman could go, always keeping in view the permanent interests of the Commonwealth. He believed we could give to the people, with perfect safety, the election of these officers, which would go to show them, that none of us here are unwilling to entrust them with the appointment of their servants. There was a whole army of officers connected with the port of Philadelphia-health officers, wardens, notaries, &c., the election of every one of whom can be entrusted safely to the people. Then, are we to stop short in our work? Are we to commence by saying, that all appointments shall be taken from the Governor, and at the same time, have a host of officers, in a single city, to be appointed by him. This appeared to him to be entirely inconsistent, with what we have been all along professing, When this part of the report of the committee shall be