township and borough in the State, shall hold his office three years from the first day of April next, and no longer; and all other Justices of the Peace, Aldermen, and Notaries Pablic, shall hold their offices two years from the first day of April next, and no longer; and no Justice of the Peace shall be appointed in any township, borough, or ward, as aforesaid, unless the number therein shall be less than is allowed herein, or by law; or they shall be reduced below such number by death, resignation, removal, or othe wise".

Mr. FLEMING modified his amendment in the sixth line, by striking out the words "one hundred and fifty", and inserting the words "two hundred".

Mr. STERIGERE said he had risen to offer this amendment before, and had requested the gentleman from Chester to adopt this principle. If he had done so, and thus taken the sense of the committee on the principle, he (Mr. S.) would not now have offered the amendment. It appeared to be the intention not to send these appointments to the Governor. The majority seemed to be in favor of the election of Juctices of the Peace by the people. If the committee would not adopt his proposition, then he would go for that of the gentleman from Lycoming. He wished it to be settled now, that these appointments were not to be vested in the Governor, or in the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He had examined the returns of the taxable inhabitants. The list of boroughs and townships were about two thousand, and there are not more Justices of the Peace, unless the population in every township or borough was so large as to require more, and the Legislature had authorizęd more. One was generally sufficient. The principle of the five year term seemed to have been established by a solemn decision. He regarded this branch of the Judiciary as respectable and important, and the amendment, going to turn out so many, ought to create alarm. Therefore his amendment proposed that they gradually go out. He would be satisfied with the decision of the committee, if it should be against him. He asked for a decision of the question, so as to have the vote taken on so much as ends with the word "Legislature", and requested that the question be taken by yeas and nays, which were ordered.

Mr. FLEMING wished to make a word of explanation on his modification. He found, in reference to the returns of taxables, that the number of townships, wards, and boroughs, was one thousand and nine, and not two thousand, as the gentleman from Montgomery had assumed. Every district containing not less than fifty taxable inhabitants, as the provision runs, would have one Justice. There are but twenty-seven districts with not less than fifty taxable inhabitants, but less than one hundred and fifty; so that deducting these twenty-seven from the one thousand and nine, it would leave nine hundred and eighty-two Justices. The amendment went to provide that there should be an additional Justice in every such district, polling one hundred and fifty taxables in said district, exceeding one hundred. According to that, the residue of the taxables, taken together, would give one thousand three hundred and ninety-one Justices, making a sum total of two thousand three hundred and seventy-three, a number, which, he thought too great, and therefore he had modified his amendment. He had stricken out one hundred and fifty, and inserted two hundred,

thousand. Perhaps it would be better to say, three hundred taxables, which would reduce the whole number of Justices to about sixteen hundred. There would be some difficulty, however, attending the appointment. If a Justice of the Peace should apply for a township, and the township should be a district, there are provisions in the laws, which require two Justices of the Peace in some districts; where there is but one, he must act at some convenient and given place, and not run about the county, and play Justice where he pleases. There must be some established place, where he is to discharge the duties of the office. That might prevent a difficulty. If called from another district, he might not be well able to comply with the law. He must reside in the district. To all these objections he hoped to hear some explanation, and he would be happy to fall in with any suggestions which might be offered.

The question was then taken, on the first division of the amendment of Mr. STERIGERE, and it was decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Bell, Biddle, Carey, Chauncey, Hopkinson, Ingersoll, Jenks, M'Sherry, Meredith, Reigart, Russell, Saeger, Scott, Scrril, Sterigere, Sergeant, President-17.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bedford, Bonham, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chambers, Chandler, of Chester, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cleavinger, Cline, Crain, Crum, Cummin, Curll, Darlington, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Dillinger, Donnell, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gerhart, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hicster High. Houpt, Hyde, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Maclay, Martin, M'Call, M'Dowell, Merrill, Merkel, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Read, Riter, Ritter, Rogers. Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, Smith, Smyth, Snively, Stevens, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young-88.

The question was then taken on the second division of the amendment, which was also decided in the negative.

Mr. DARLINGTON moved to amend the amendment, by striking out the section, and inserting the following: Such convenient number of Justices of the Peace shall be elected in cach district, &c., as is or shall be established by law; that they shall hold their offices for five years, if they shall so long behave themselves well; but shall be removed for misbehavior in office, or on conviction of any infamous crime, or on address of both Houses of the Legislature".

Mr. DARLINGTON explained his reasons for offering this amendment. From the very decisive vote taken on the question submited on the other day, and again this morning, he took it as determined, that no appointment of Justices should be hereafter made, either by the Governor alone, or by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, so that other means of appointing Justices of the Peace must be provided. Any vote on this question he should give with reluctance, but he would take what seemed to him to be the least evil, and, he had therefore brought forward this proposition, that the Legislature should have the duty of making a provision for the number and arrangement of Justices of the Peace. If he was not mistaken, this proposition would meet with rather more favor than his former amendment. He hoped a majority would be found to adopt it. He did not like the proposition of the gentleman from Lycoming, (Mr. FLEMING,) which limited the number of Justices according to townships, wards

depend so much on the number of the population, as its character. In Somerset, where there were but two representatives in the Legislature, there was more business brought before the Justices of the Peace, than in Chester which had four representatives. In Allegheny he believed there was more business of this kind than in Lancaster. This character of business could not depend on the amount of population, for various reasons. He did not think any specific number of taxables could be taken as a proper basis; neither fifty, nor one hundred and fifty, nor two hundred, could be sufficient in proportion to the number of Justi ces required, neither would the limiting of one Justice to each township be satisfactory. A harder duty could not be inflicted on some townships than to require such election-a greater injury could not be inflicted on them. He did not agree in the denunciations which had been thrown out, against Justices of the Peace. He believed they are generally respectable. The appointments, taking them as a body, have given satisfaction; they are as honest and upright as any men in the country. They had been found competent to perform all the duties before, and since the arrangement of the districts in 1802, and he did not know any cause of complaint. It would be simple and easy, for the Legislature to fix two or three Justices of the Peace to a district, and, through the medium of the local authorities, to say how they should be divided, and in process of time they might be changed at the desire, and at the request of the people. If any gentleman would suggest a more suitable proposition, he would be glad to hear it; what he mainly wished was, to avoid the appointing of Justices according to the number of taxables, which was wrong; and the giving of one to each township, which he regarded as equally wrong. His amendment contemplates the election of such a number of Justices of the Peace, as shall be provided by law, for the term of five years. He had no particular preference for five years, but, as there had been a decided vote in favor of that term, he had inserted it. He would prefer seven years, but would not move that term. If any other gentlemen would move that term, he (Mr. D.) would vote for it. The words in the latter part of his amendment, were retained from the old Constitution. There was no reason for change, if no fault was found with the provision. He had not introduced Aldermen, because they were principally creatures of law, not known to the Constitution.

Mr. AGNEW said, that the amendment proposed by the delegate from Chester appeared to meet his views of the subject better than the previous propositions, although there were some of its features he did not like. But there was a great principle contained in all of the propositions upon which he desired to express his opinions, and claimed the indulgence of the committee while he did so. The amendment proposed a change in the mode of appointing Justices of the Peace, by giving their election to the people of their respective districts. The principle contained in this, was the election of Judicial officers. This was so much opposed to the principles which he thought should govern the organization of the judicial departments generally, that he felt it incumbent upon him to give those reasons which would induce him, to part from principles, acknowledged to be generally correct.

He could not join with those who attacked the whole body of Justices

and incapacity; nor could he, on the other hand, agree with others who claimed for their respective counties a total exemption of that body of men, from any obnoxious charge. He knew many honest, honorable, and capable Justices of the Peace; and he also knew some, who were neither honest nor capable. But he did not propose treating the question upon such grounds. He had viewed the subject as an organized system, and with regard to its general practical results, so far as it had been subjected to the test of experience, which alone could establish the perfection or imperfection of any institution. He could not deny that the theory of the present Constitution was one which recommended itself much, by its plausibility and apparent simplicity; but the reasons which influenced his mind were founded upon its practical results. With regard to these practical results he had in view not only the primitive Constitution of this department, but, also, the superstructure which had been erected upon that Constitutional foundation by subsequent legislation, which enlarged their character as conservators of the peace, to that of Judicial officers, in controversies not exceeding the sum of one hundred dollars. The whole formed a system with which, he presumed, it would be inconvenient, and the people would be unwilling, to dispense. The first object of enquiry, he thought, was the evils of the system, if any, and then the remedy. The evils of the system, as they struck him, grew out of two featuresfirst, the manner of appointment; and, second, the tenure of office. In relation to the mode of appointment, the evils were two-fold-those which regarded the appointing power, and those which had respect to the people. What is the great enquiry to be made in every appointment to office? Is the applicant honest? Is he capable? By the present mode, the Governor, who resides at the seat of Government, appoints. According to the theory of the Constitution, the Governor is supposed to be acquainted with the several portions of the State, and with the principal inhabitants of these portions, and thus to be able to make good selections. This theory might do very well as it regards the higher officers of the government; but it cannot be extended in practice to Justices of the Peace. It is impossible that the Governor can act from any personal knowledge. What then, he said, is the consequence? Why, sir, he must be dependent on others for his information. On whom must he depend? Upon his political friends, who are interested in the continuance of his power, and the maintenance of their party. Hence, sir, said he, you have a little band of partizans in every county, who are the lucky ones, who have his ear, and who regulate and control every appointment, not out of regard to the interests of the public, but for the perpetuation of the power of their party. What man can ever expect that the streams of justice will be kept clear by fountains so impure as these? Then, look again, sir, to the influence which this immense patronage exercises over the Governor himself. He is eligible to re-election, and is it to be supposed that he will never exercise that power for sinister ends? No: so long as the love of power exists in the human breast, and so long as ambition fills the mind with schemes of elevation and distinction, so long will it be found that the patronage of the Governor is one of the most corrupting influences. It exhibits itself in the appointment of political partizans and favorites, as a reward for their zeal and fidelity in his cause. It exhibits itself in the vast increase of the number of officers beyond that requisite for the

depend so much on the number of the population, as its character. In Somerset, where there were but two representatives in the Legislature, there was more business brought before the Justices of the Peace, than in Chester which had four representatives. In Allegheny he believed there was more business of this kind than in Lancaster. This character of business could not depend on the amount of population, for various reasons. He did not think any specific number of taxables could be taken as a proper basis; neither fifty, nor one hundred and fifty, nor two hundred, could be sufficient in proportion to the number of Justices required, neither would the limiting of one Justice to each township be satisfactory. A harder duty could not be inflicted on some townships than to require such election-a greater injury could not be inflicted on them. He did not agree in the denunciations which had been thrown out, against Justices of the Peace. He believed they are generally respectable. The appointments, taking them as a body, have given satisfaction; they are as honest and upright as any men in the country. They had been found competent to perform all the duties before, and since the arrangement of the districts in 1802, and he did not know any cause of complaint. It would be simple and easy, for the Legislature to fix two or three Justices of the Peace to a district, and, through the medium of the local authorities, to say how they should be divided, and in process of time they might be changed at the desire, and at the request of the people. If any gentleman would suggest a more suitable proposition, he would be glad to hear it; what he mainly wished was, to avoid the appointing of Justices according to the number of taxables, which was wrong; and the giving of one to each township, which he regarded as equally wrong. His amendment contemplates the election of such a number of Justices of the Peace, as shall be provided by law, for the term of five years. He had no particular preference for five years, but, as there had been a decided vote in favor of that term, he had inserted it. He would prefer seven years, but would not move that term. If any other gentlemen would move that term, he (Mr. D.) would vote for it. The words in the latter part of his amendment, were retained from the old Constitution. There was no reason for change, if no fault was found with the provision. He had not introduced Aldermen, because they were principally creatures of law, not known to the Constitution.

Mr. AGNEW said, that the amendment proposed by the delegate from Chester appeared to meet his views of the subject better than the previous propositions, although there were some of its features he did not like. But there was a great principle contained in all of the propositions upon which he desired to express his opinions, and claimed the indulgence of the committee while he did so. The amendment proposed a change in the mode of appointing Justices of the Peace, by giving their election to the people of their respective districts. The principle contained in this, was the election of Judicial officers. This was so much opposed to the princi ples which he thought should govern the organization of the judi cial departments generally, that he felt it incumbent upon him to give those reasons which would induce him, to part from principles, acknowledged to be generally correct.

He could not join with those who attacked the whole body of Justices