pose. The first clause of his own amendment did not differ from the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, and the report. It provided that the Justices of the Peace should be chosen by the qualified voters in such convenient districts in each county, at such time, and in such manner, as by law may be provided; it then provides that there shall be one Justice of the Peace in every such district, containing not less than fifty taxable inhabitants; next it provides, that there may be chosen an additional Justice in every such district, for every one hundred and fifty taxable inhabitants, in said district, exceeding one hundred. There could therefore, be but one Justice of the Peace in a district which does not contain more than two hundred taxable inhabitants. The experience of the committee would satisfy them, that one Justice could perform all the duties of that office for three hundred individuals. It might be said that this proposition compelled the citizens to make an election of Justices, whether they wanted them or not: but it did not compel them to elect more than one Justice of the Peace, unless they found it necessary for their own convenience.— This amendment provided there "may be chosen" an additional number, but did not make it compulsory on the citizens to choose more than one. The present number far exceeded the number which his proposition would give. Why should not this limitation be incorporated in the Constitution? The proposition did not compel the citizens to elect three or four Justices for every thousand taxables. It left it to their choice to have more than one or not, but it prevented them from electing more than a fixed number. There would be no difficulty in carrying out this plan. This amendment next provided, that the Justices thus appointed, should hold their offices for the term of five years, from the time of their choice as aforesaid". The next clause from the word "except " to the word "thereafter", inclusive, he would, at the suggestion of a gentleman near him, strike out. He now modified the amendment by omiting that clause, because that principle could be better carried out in the schedule hereafter, and might embarrass the proposition. He had also provided, that the "said Justices shall be commissioned by the Governor". This was undoubtedly the best mode of providing the necessary evidence of the election and qualification of the officers. The amendment further provided, that these Justices" may be removed by the Governor on conviction of misbehavior in any office, or of any infamous crime, or on the address of the Senate; and that the said Justices shall give security to the Commonwealth for the faithful discharge of the duties of their office, in such form and manner, as the Legislature may direct". The provisions carried out the principles of the amendinent offered by the gentleman from Chester, and would limit the number of Justices of the Peace, thereby relieving the people from their present embarrassment on this subject. It provides for the election of the Justices by the people; it fixed the term of service; it limited the number of the Justitices; and it provided for the evidence of their authority to execute their office; and for the means of their removal. If the committee were in favor of fixing a limitation to the number of Justices, they would adopt this amendment; unless some better and more certain mode could be found for effecting that object. If any better rule should be offered, hereafter, he would cheerfully go for it. He knew of no rule by which to fix a data, unless it was the number of taxable inhabitants. He knew of no other

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 cured 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,

pose. The first clause of his own amendment did not differ from the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, and the report. It provided that the Justices of the Peace should be chosen by the qualified voters in such convenient districts in each county, at such time, and in such manner, as by law may be provided; it then provides that there shall be one Justice of the Peace in every such district, containing not less than fifty taxable inhabitants; next it provides, that there may be chosen an additional Justice in every such district, for every one hundred and fifty taxable inhabitants, in said district, exceeding one hundred. There could therefore, be but one Justice of the Peace in a district which does not contain more than two hundred taxable inhabitants. The experience of the committee would satisfy them, that one Justice could perform all the duties of that office for three hundred individuals. It might be said that this proposition compelled the citizens to make an election of Justices, whether they wanted them or not: but it did not compel them to elect more than one Justice of the Peace, unless they found it necessary for their own convenience.— This amendment provided there "may be chosen" an additional number, but did not make it compulsory on the citizens to choose more than one. The present number far exceeded the number which his proposition would give. Why should not this limitation be incorporated in the Constitution? The proposition did not compel the citizens to elect three or four Justices for every thousand taxables. It left it to their choice to have more than one or not, but it prevented them from electing more than a fixed number. There would be no difficulty in carrying out this plan. This amendment next provided, that the Justices thus appointed, should hold their offices for the term of five years, from the time of their choice as aforesaid". The next clause from the word "except " to the word "thereafter", inclusive, he would, at the suggestion of a gentleman near him, strike out. He now modified the amendment by omiting that clause, because that principle could be better carried out in the schedule hereafter, and might embarrass the proposition. He had also provided, that the "said Justices shall be commissioned by the Governor". This was undoubtedly the best mode of providing the necessary evidence of the election and qualification of the officers. The amendment further provided, that these Justices " may be removed by the Governor on conviction of misbehavior in any office, or of any infamous crime, or on the address of the Senate; and that the said Justices shall give security to the Commonwealth for the faithful discharge of the duties of their office, in such form and manner, as the Legislature may direct". The provisions carried out the principles of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Chester, and would limit the number of Justices of the Peace, thereby relieving the people from their present embarrassment on this subject. It provides for the election of the Justices by the people; it fixed the term of service; it limited the number of the Justitices; and it provided for the evidence of their authority to execute their office; and for the means of their removal. If the committee were in favor of fixing a limitation to the number of Justices, they would adopt this amendment; unless some better and more certain mode could be found for effecting that object. If any better rule should be offered, hereafter, he would cheerfully go for it. He knew of no rule by which to fix a data, unless it was the number of taxable inhabitants. He knew of no other

thing should be clearly laid down. The Justices ought to be commissioned, 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 Legislature". The only difference between the two, was the mode of appointment. The evils complained of, under the present system, would not be cured 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,

pose. The first clause of his own amendment did not differ from the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, and the report. It provided that the Justices of the Peace should be chosen by the qualified voters in such convenient districts in each county, at such time, and in such manner, as by Jaw may be provided; it then provides that there shall be one Justice of the Peace in every such district, containing not less than fifty taxable inhabitants; next it provides, that there may be chosen an additional Justice in every such district, for every one hundred and fifty taxable inhabitants, in said district, exceeding one hundred. There could therefore, be but one Justice of the Peace in a district which does not contain more than two hundred taxable inhabitants. The experience of the committee would satisfy them, that one Justice could perform all the duties of that office for three hundred individuals. It might be said that this proposition compelled the citizens to make an election of Justices, whether they wanted them or not: but it did not compel them to elect more than one Justice of the Peace, unless they found it necessary for their own convenience.— This amendment provided there “ may be chosen" an additional number, but did not make it compulsory on the citizens to choose more than one. The present number far exceeded the number which his proposition would give. Why should not this limitation be incorporated in the Constitution? The proposition did not compel the citizens to elect three or four Justices for every thousand taxables. It left it to their choice to have more than one or not, but it prevented them from electing more than a fixed number. There would be no difficulty in carrying out this plan. This amendment next provided, that the Justices thus appointed, should hold their offices for the term of five years, from the time of their choice as aforesaid". The next clause from the word "except " to the word "thereafter", inclusive, he would, at the suggestion of a gentleman near him, strike out. He now modified the amendment by omiting that clause, because that principle could be better carried out in the schedule hereafter, and might embarrass the proposition. He had also provided, that the "said Justices shall be commissioned by the Governor". This was undoubtedly the best mode of providing the necessary evidence of the election and qualification of the officers. The amendment further provided, that these Justices "may be removed by the Governor on conviction of misbehavior in any office, or of any infamous crime, or on the address of the Senate; and that the said Justices shall give security to the Commonwealth for the faithful discharge of the duties of their office, in such form and manner, as the Legislature may direct". The provisions carried out the principles of the amendinent offered by the gentleman from Chester, and would limit the number of Justices of the Peace, thereby relieving the people from their present embarrassment on this subject. It provides for the election of the Justices by the people; it fixed the term of service; it limited the number of the Justitices; and it provided for the evidence of their authority to execute their office; and for the means of their removal. If the committee were in favor of fixing a limitation to the number of Justices, they would adopt this amendment; unless some better and more certain mode could be found for effecting that object. If any better rule should be offered, hereafter, he would cheerfully go for it. He knew of no rule by which to fix a data, unless it was the number of taxable inhabitants. He knew of no other