of election on the ground of the ability of the people to choose their own. officers, did not travel over half the ground. The ability of a people for self-government by no means requires as a consequence that they should, in every particular, exercise that ability. There were instances where it would be improper, not for any defect in their ability, but in the consequences flowing from the exercise of it. This was one of those cases. He hoped, therefore, that the committee would consent to a term of at least seven years.

Mr. DARLINGTON then modified his amendment, so as to leave it in blank.

Mr. FULLER considered this subject, he said, a very important one, and one that was intimately connected with the chief object and design of this Convention. One of the evils complained of, under the present Constitution, was the great number of Justices of the Peace, but the proposition of the gentleman from Chester would tend to increase that number. He wished to diminish it, and was, therefore, opposed to the amendment.If we left it to the respective townships to fix the number, it would be in the power of a few influential men in each township, by combining together, to increase the number to any extent they pleased. If this proposition was negatived, he would offer another which he had prepared, and which, he hoped, would meet with the acceptance of the committee.— He would propose that such a number of Justices of the Peace and Aldermen, as the majority of voters of each district should determine by ballot, should be chosen for the term of five years, at such time as might be provided, after the adoption of this Constitution, and every seven years thereafter. There were many towns, the inhabitants of which wanted no Justices, and the people should be the sole judges of the number they needed, or whether they needed any at all. If they should elect more than they wanted, they could, at the end of every seven years, relieve themselves from the burden, by electing a smaller number. The idea had struck him, while the gentleman from Beaver was speaking, that, in order to get through this and the fifth article, it was necessary that those who addressed the committee, should confine their remarks to the subject immediately before us. But the gentleman from Beaver (Mr. AGNEW) had gone across the line of the question, and had addressed his remarks to his constituents upon the general subject. It was now necessary to restrict the debate, because the weather was warm, and the time for adjournment was, he believed, fixed in the minds of members of this body. Though the subject was an important one, yet the minds of the committee had been for weeks, and, indeed, for months, drawn to it, and every gentleman, he presumed, had made up his mind as to the mode of appointing the Justices, and the term for which they should serve, and if three or four days discussion upon it was not sufficient, a week would not be sufficient. He had little doubt, that before the main question could be called, the previous question must be resorted to.

Mr. AGNEW said, his remarks were strictly applicable to the question. If he was not mistaken, the amendment proposed the election of Justices of the Peace, and that, he believed, brought into view the mode of appoint ment, and the existing mode of appointment was by the Governor. Did

But he wanted to know who this SOLOMON was, who, in his wisdom, had undertaken to set himself up as a censor over his conduct.

Mr. FULLER called the gentleman to order. The gentleman's remarks had a personal bearing.

The CHAIR decided, that the gentleman from Beaver was not in order. Mr. STEVENS wished to know, he said, whether it was in order to appeal from this decision. It was certainly in order, for the gentleman to reply to what had been said by the gentleman from Fayette.

Mr. AGNEW Continued. He was wrong, he said, in applying that epithet to the gentleman, and acknowledged that he was totally mistaken, in supposing, for a moment, that it was at all applicable to him; but, he said, he was not mistaken in believing. that the amendment of the gentlernan from Chester, (Mr. DARLINGTON) proposed the election of Justices of the Peace for a term of years, and he believed that proposition contemplated a change of the present method of appointment and term of office, as well as the means of removal from office. Had he said one word which was irrelevant to these subjects? Not a word. Who, then, he said, in this committee, had the self importance and confidence of his own great wisdom, to place himself over the members as self created dictator or censor over their minds and their remarks? Who is it that attempts to measure other men's understandings by his own obtuseness or obesity of intellect? For his part, he felt that the change, attempted to be introduced by this amendment, was one of great importance-no less than making a Judicial office elective and he considered it, not only his privilege, but his right, to express his sentiments in justification of his course, not only here, but that it might reach his constituents, who were the only judges to whom he held himself amenable.

Mr. DUNLOP would, he said, respectfully call the attention of the Committee to the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, remarking it deserved much more attention than the Committee seemed disposed to give it. He was very desirous that it should be attentively considered. The fifth section as reported by the gentleman from Susquehanna was in these words: "Justices of the Peace aud Aldermen shall be elected in the several wards, boroughs, and townships, for a term of five years". It was manifest that there was something wanting in the section. There was some defect in it. There was nothing said about a competent number, or convenient districts, in the tenure of office, or the means of removal. True, it was provided, in another section, that, with other civil officers, they might be impeached. But the proposition of the Committee was wanting in other essential particulars. The Constitution says the Governor shall appoint a competent number of Justices of the Peace, in such convenient districts, in each county, as are, or shall be directed by law, &c.

Most certainly some provisions of the same kind were necessary to the proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna. The amendment of the gentleman from Chester was greatly preferable to the report, because it adhered to the provisions and language of the Constitution. All the provisions of the Constitution on this subject, not appertaining to the mode of election, ought to be preserved. All the phraseology of the Constitu tion ought to be preserved, when it could be consistently with the changes that were made in its provisions, because its language was then well get

of election on the ground of the ability of the people to choose their own. officers, did not travel over half the ground. The ability of a people for self-government by no means requires as a consequence that they should, in every particular, exercise that ability. There were instances where it would be improper, not for any defect in their ability, but in the consequences flowing from the exercise of it. This was one of those cases. He hoped, therefore, that the committee would consent to a term of at least seven years.

Mr. DARLINGTON then modified his amendment, so as to leave it in blank.

Mr. FULLER considered this subject, he said, a very important one, and one that was intimately connected with the chief object and design of this Convention. One of the evils complained of, under the present Constitution, was the great number of Justices of the Peace, but the proposition of the gentleman from Chester would tend to increase that number. He wished to diminish it, and was, therefore, opposed to the amendment.— If we left it to the respective townships to fix the number, it would be in the power of a few influential men in each township, by combining together, to increase the number to any extent they pleased. If this proposition was negatived, he would offer another which he had prepared, and which, he hoped, would meet with the acceptance of the committee.He would propose that such a number of Justices of the Peace and Aldermen, as the majority of voters of each district should determine by ballot, should be chosen for the term of five years, at such time as might be provided, after the adoption of this Constitution, and every seven years thereafter. There were many towns, the inhabitants of which wanted no Justices. and the people should be the sole judges of the number they needed, or whether they needed any at all. If they should elect more than they wanted, they could, at the end of every seven years, relieve themselves from the burden, by electing a smaller number. The idea had struck him, while the gentleman from Beaver was speaking, that, in order to get through this and the fifth article, it was necessary that those who addressed the committee, should confine their remarks to the subject immediately before us. But the gentleman from Beaver (Mr. AGNEW) had gone across the line of the question, and had addressed his remarks to his constituents upon the general subject. It was now necessary to restrict the debate, because the weather was warm, and the time for adjournment was, he believed, fixed in the minds of members of this body. Though the subject was an important one, yet the minds of the committee had been for weeks, and, indeed, for months, drawn to it, and every gentleman, he presumed, had made up his mind as to the mode of appointing the Justices, and the term for which they should serve, and if three or four days discussion upon it was not sufficient, a week would not be sufficient. He had little doubt, that before the main question could be called, the previous question must be resorted to.

Mr. AGNEW said, his remarks were strictly applicable to the question. If he was not mistaken, the amendment proposed the election of Justices of the Peace, and that, he believed, brought into view the mode of appoint ment, and the existing mode of appointment was by the Governor. Did

But he wanted to know who this SOLOMON was, who, in his wisdom, had undertaken to set himself up as a censor over his conduct.

Mr. FULLER called the gentleman to order. The gentleman's remarks had a personal bearing.

The CHAIR decided, that the gentleman from Beaver was not in order. Mr. STEVENS wished to know, he said, whether it was in order to appeal from this decision. It was certainly in order, for the gentleman to reply to what had been said by the gentleman from Fayette.

Mr. AGNEW continued. He was wrong, he said, in applying that epithet to the gentleman, and acknowledged that he was totally mistaken, in supposing, for a moment, that it was at all applicable to him; but, he said, he was not mistaken in believing. that the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. DARLINGTON) proposed the election of Justices of the Peace for a term of years, and he believed that proposition contemplated a change of the present method of appointment and term of office, as well as the means of removal from office. Had he said one word which was irrelevant to these subjects? Not a word. Who, then, he said, in this committee, had the self importance and confidence of his own great wisdom, to place himself over the members as self created dictator or censor over their minds and their remarks? Who is it that attempts to measure other men's understandings by his own obtuseness or obesity of intellect? his part, he felt that the change, attempted to be introduced by this amendment, was one of great importance-no less than making a Judicial office elective and he considered it, not only his privilege, but his right, to express his sentiments in justification of his course, not only here, but that it might reach his constituents, who were the only judges to whom he held himself amenable.

For

Mr. DUNLOP would, he said, respectfully call the attention of the Committee to the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, remarking it deserved much more attention than the Committee seemed disposed to give it. He was very desirous that it should be attentively considered. The fifth section as reported by the gentleman from Susquehanna was in these words: "Justices of the Peace aud Aldermen shall be elected in the several wards, boroughs, and townships, for a term of five years". It was manifest that there was something wanting in the section. There was some defect in it. There was nothing said about a competent number, or convenient districts, in the tenure of office, or the means of removal. True, it was provided, in another section, that, with other civil officers, they might be impeached. But the proposition of the Committee was wanting in other essential particulars. The Constitution says the Governor shall appoint a competent number of Justices of the Peace, in such convenient districts, in each county, as are, or shall be directed by law, &c. Most certainly some provisions of the same kind were necessary to the proposition of the gentleman from Susquehanna. The amendment of the gentleman from Chester was greatly preferable to the report, because it adhered to the provisions and language of the Constitution. All the provisions of the Constitution on this subject, not appertaining to the mode of election, ought to be preserved. All the phraseology of the Constitution ought to be preserved, when it could be consistently with the changes that were made in its provisions, because its language was then well set

thing should be clearly laid down. The Justices ought to be commis. sioned, and if they were not, where would be the evidence of their having a right to officiate in the capacity of Justice. If the certificate of the return Judge was to supply the place of a commission, it ought to be so stated. The gentleman from Susquehanna had provided, in reference to the Sheriff and Coroner, that the certificate of their election, by the return Judges, should confer upon them all the powers heretofore confered on them, by the commissions issued by the Governor. The same, or some other provision should be made for ascertaining whether a Justice of the Peace was qualified to act. He asked whether the report was not too meagre, and whether it did not want some amendment, before we gave it our final sanction. We ought to form the election of the Justices in convenient districts, and form some means of shewing that they have a right to execute their functions. Until he had looked at this subject attentively, he felt disposed to vote down the amendment of the gentleman from Chester: but he found that it contained all the principles of the report, and preserved the Constitutional language. We knew what construction had been put on the language of the Constitution, and how it had been understood for half a century, and, therefore, it would be improper to detract from it unnecessarily. The amendment, while it preserved the distinguishing feature of elections of Justices by the people, provided for the evidence of appointment, and for the election of Justices in convenient districts, and was, therefore, preferable to the report. In regard to the principle of elections, as a substitute for the present mode of appointment, he should express himself at another time.

Mr. FLEMING said, that the gentleman had made an able argument in favor of his proposition, though he had not noticed the proposition. This amendment in fact, had all the merits which the gentleman from Franklin claimed for the amendment of the gentleman from Chester-which he said was defective, inasmuch as it did not limit the number of Justices, but left it with the Legislature to direct the election of as many as they pleased.— It was for the credit and reputation of the body, that their number should be limited in some way. The amendment of the gentleman from Chester did not, in effect, vary the old Constitution, except as to the mode of appointing the Justices. The amendment provides" that such convenient number of Justices of the Peace, shall be elected in each 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 crimes, or on address of both houses of the Legislature". The present Constitution provides, that "the Governor shall appoint a competent number of Justices of the Peace, in such convenient districts in each county, as are or shall be directed by law: they shall be commissioned during good behavior, but may be removed on conviction of misbehaviour in office, or of any infamous crime, or on the address of both houses of the Legisla ture". The only difference between the two, was the mode of appointment. The evils complained of, under the present system, would not be eured by this change, for it placed no limit on the number of Justices to be elected in each district. He was anxious to incorporate in the Consti tution, the principle that there shall be a limitation to the number of officers,