known, plain, and simple rule, in relation to which, there could be no difficulty. The amendment would also prevent districts from being cut up for the purpose of increasing the number of Justices of the Peace, and would obviate all the difficulty at present complained of, of the vast number of these officers. As the provision, in his opinion, was well calculated to relieve the community from many of the evils under which it is now laboring in relation to the great number of Magistrates appointed, he hoped it would be adopted.

:

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, called for the reading of the proposed amendment, and the amendment thereto; which being done, he proceeded to say, that he was anxious that the delegates would keep in mind the business for which we had assembled. Our business here is to settle the great and fundamental principles of Government, not to legislate and prescribe details that would be an interminable work. There is a vast difference between the duties of a Convention and the ordinances to be passed by them, and ordinary legislation. The doings of the one were to last for years, and to bind unborn thousands; they were not to be easily or lightly changed. The doings of the other, if found not to answer the purpose intended, could be changed, altered or repealed. Hence, we could only settle principles, and declare them by general provisions; and for this reason, unless something better were brought in view, he should prefer the amendment to the amendment, to the amendment itself, although he thought something more appropriate than either might be had. Independent of the objection stated, which, in his judgment, was insuperable, the amendment proposed by the delegate from Lycoming, (Mr. FLEMING,) was objectionable in its details; it proposed to give an additional Justice or Alderman for each fifty taxable inhabitants. In the city of Philadelphia there were fifteen Aldermen-one for each ward. The smallest ward had four hundred and ninety-two, the largest, one thousand, three hundred and three taxables. The taxables of the whole city exceed fourteen thousand, and this would give seventy odd Alderman to the city-upwards of four to each ward-when not more than half the existing Aldermen did business enough to induce them to keep offices open. Again, Pittsburg and its environs, had nearly five thousand taxables, and I ask the gentleman from Allegheny, if they need twenty-five Aldermen or Justices? [Mr. FORWARD here shook his head.] Lancaster city has one thousand, six hundred and forty-seven taxables; Reading, one thousand, two hundred and seventeen, and Easton, one thousand, one hundred and twenty-three. The people of those places had no idea of such a host of Justices of the Peace being saddled on them. The townships of the Commonwealth varied from fifty to six hundred or eight hundred taxables: these may be scattered over a considerable district of country; and in the townships where the population is sparse, they will need, for the convenience of the inhabitants, more Justices in proportion to the population, than where it is dense.— The ratio in most of the townships would be too low-in none too high ; it would more than double the Justices and Aldermen in the populous districts. But we cannot legislate in these details; we should only lay down general rules, to be carried out by legislation.

I have (said Mr. P.) been struck with the course of argument pursued in this Convention, and the utter want of confidence evinced by many del

the subject of impeachment up, many gentleman were afraid to trust the Senate as triers, lest they should not be honest and faithful. Next the Legislative department came in review, and many gentlemen expressed their great apprehensions of the corruption of that body, and were unwilling to trust them with power. Then came on the article relative to the Executive, and fearing to trust him, you stripped him of every appointment. except that of his own Secretary: and, in regard to the Judicial officers, directed that they should only be appointed with the concurence of the very Senate which was so much feared and dreaded. When we determined to give the election of county officers to the people, a number of gentlemen feared to trust them, and were for restraining them in reposing their confidence, for fear they might be cheated or corrupted. For the last few days, we have had the poor Justices of the Peace in hand, and if the charges and denunciations of some gentlemen are to be credited, a greater set of rogues and villains are not unhung. In a few days we shall have the Judges in tow, and if I mistake not the signs of the times, they are fated to almost an equal amount of denunciation.

I ask the members of this body to pause-to ponder over these things. Is not this course of denunciation calculated to undermine our republican institutions, by destroying the confidence of the people in the integrity of all public servants? Is it not the very course which the enemies of free Governments would desire to see? It is calculated to lead to that anarchy and confusion, the horrors of which man is so anxious to avoid, that, rather than endure it, he too often is content to rest in the greatest security, even, of despotism. I believe man to be frail and liable to corruption; but I do not believe that he is so lost to virtue-to a sense of honor, and to a regard for fame, that none can be trusted. I could not endure existence in such a state of society. And let me ask, who are we that are to set up our judgment thus unsparingly on our fellow-men? Are we possessed of su perior purity and intelligence, to the rest of the world? Can we arrogate to ourselves more worth-more moral excellence, than will pertain to the persons who shall be selected by the people, (who selected us) to represent them in the State Legislature? I apprehend not. I am, therefore, favorable to leaving all these details to the action of the Legislature. I do not fear that they will abuse this power. It is true, representatives have sometimes gone contrary to the wishes of their constituents. They do not, however, generally do so; and when they do, the people have the corrective in their own hands, and can exercise it, by dismissing them from their

trusts.

Mr. READ said, he saw no other objections to the amendment of the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. DARLINGTON,) than that it was a round-about mode of getting at what was in the report of the committee. He could discover no difference, in substance, between it, and the report of the committee. The amendment goes somewhat more into detail, and preserves one or two expressions which were in the old Constitution, when there was not the least use in them, as the occasion for them had passed away. What was the use of the words "in each convenient district", when it is said, that every borough, ward, or township, shall be a convenient district. Then there was no necessity for it, and the insertion of it, would be going out of the way, and was mere surplusage, for the purpose of preserving that peculiar expression. The only difference between the amend

ment, and the report, was the expression in the amendment, "if they so long behave themselves well", but this case was met in the tenth section of the report of the committee, by the general provision, limiting every of ficer to such term as he shall behave himself well, including Justices of the Peace. Then there was no necessity for introducing it; neither was it necessary to say that the Legislature should carry out in detail the principles here introduced, because it was a matter of course that the Legisla ture would have to carry it out; neither was it necessary to say, that in the absence of a commission, the certificate of the return judges was to stand as an evidence of election, because that was a matter of course. It was a matter of course that this certificate would stand in the place of the commission, and it was entirely unnecessary to introduce it here. It is true that we did insert, in relation to Sheriffs, and some other county offi cers, that the Governor should commission them, but he could see no benefit to be derived from it. Where could be the necessity, after these officers were elected by the people, and the certificate of the return judges filed, in requiring them to come to Harrisburg to get a commission, which the Governor had no power to refuse, and which was a mere ceremony, and nothing but a ceremony. He should be glad if some mode could be introduced for limiting the number of these officers, without refering it to the Legislature; but he had heard of none which would operate well in every part of the State, and he did not believe any general rule could be adopted, which would answer in every section of the Commonwealth, and under every circumstance of the diversity of the population of the State. He had not been able to discover any general rule to insert in the Constitution, which would suit all parts of the State: therefore, all that we could do, was to establish the elective principle, and as a matter of course, the Legislature would have to carry out the details. From the best consideration which he had given the subject, he did not believe that we could put it in any better shape, than the report of the committee, as it stands, which left the carrying out of all the details to the Legislature. If, however, any gentleman can suggest a mode by which we can limit the number, and it will operate well, he would vote for it; but unless some better mode is introduced than any we have seen yet, it seemed to him that we had better adhere to the report of the committee. He was only anxious to establish the elective principle, and he did not care how gentlemen carried it out, provided they carried it out in a manner satisfactory to the people.

Mr. BIDDLE said, it is generally admited, that the Justice of the Peace system has proved unsatisfactory, burdensome, and oppressive. Complaints have reached us from all quarters, and a remedy is loudly demanded. The evil complained of, however, does not proceed from the existing Constitution; that Constitution only provides for the appointment of a competent number of Justices of the Peace-it confers on them no civil jurisdiction. It is the superstructure which has been erected on it, by Legislative enactments, which has caused the mischief. As Justices of the Peace, independent of the powers confered by laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, they are conservators of the Peace, and not Judges between man and man in questions of individual wrong, or of property. The evils of the system are inherent in the system, as applied to

vous. There are many Justices in every county, all having concurrent jurisdiction, and a plaintiff may select whichever Magistrate he pleases, while the defendant cannot object, but must submit to his jurisdiction. Surely that cannot be called equal justice which enables the one party to select his tribunal, and to render the other amenable to a trial before a single Judge, selecte, perhaps, because his opinion was known beforehand, or on account of individual regard, bias, or political favor. But this is not the whole mischief. Not only docs the plaintiff select the Magistrate; but it is his interest, as he is dependant on his fees for support, to encourage plaintiffs to resort to him by giving judgments in their favor, thereby to increase his business, and promote litigation. A Judge should never feel an interest in his own decision: justice should be not only pure, but unsuspected. Again-the costs in suits for small sums, are necessaily oppressive, particularly in those cases in which, from the smallness of the amount in controversy, there is no appeal, not unfrequently amounting to several hundred per cent. Another evil is the insecurity of the dockets of Justices, containing matter involving the rights and interests of numerous suitors, which, on their death, or removal, are frequently lost or destroyed; the law, providing that they shall be handed over to another Justice, being, to a considerable extent, inadequate as a remedy. The civil jurisdiction of Justices is also a violation of the spirit, if it be not of the letter, of the Constitation, which should be scrupulously respected, and which provides that the trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate. In the Constitution of 1776-which, with some gentlemen, is a great favorite-in the eleventh section of the first chapter, it is provided, "that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred". The gen leman from Northampton, (Mr. PORTER) to whom I always listen with pleasure and respect, has said that the Justices of the Peace are a part of the Judiciary. I do not so consider them, they being, excepting in cases where their decision is final, little more than commissioners of bail, to fix the amount of security to be taken, in the nature of special bail, before the removal of the cause into the court of Common Pleas.

Mr. PORTER here rose, and read from the first section of the fifth article of the Constitution, which includes Justices of the Peace, in the enumeration of those in whoin the Judicial power shall be vested.

Mr. BIDDLE continued: I am happy to receive correction at the hands of my friend from Northampton; but I still contend that, as Constitutional officers, their functions are not of a Judicial character. My belief, then, is, sir, that it is the civil jurisdiction of Magistrates which is a grievance, and that if they be limited to their proper sphere of duty, the mode of appointment by the Governor will cease to occasion clamoi. I am, then, sir, opposed, not to any thing in the Constitution of 1790, but to this Legisla tive excrescence; and the remedy I would apply is this-in the proper place, let the confering civil jurisdiction on Justices he prohibited, and let it be provided that all controversies between man and man shall, if suitable for litigation at all, be determined in a court of Record: justice should never be administered in an obscure or unknown place, by a weak, an ignorant, or a wicked Judge. I am not for having one rule for cases of large

rich, another for the poor. I am for extending protection, and adminis tering equal justice to all men. Courts should be open to all, and their decrees awarded "without sale, denial, or delay". Is this the case under the Justice system? I speak not of my own knowledge, but on the testimony given on this floor, by gentlemen from various quarters of the State, who speak of the people as groaning under an intolerable bur den. If the system, however, cannot be abandoned, let there be in each district a single Justice, having exclusive jurisdiction to a certain sum, so that the one party shall not, at the expense of the rights or interests of the other, select the Judge whom he may consider best calculated to subserve his ends-let there be one tribunal, and only one, so that defendants may have a fair trial. Let our Justices be conservators of the peace, with power to take acknowledgements of papers in writing, deeds, and other like powers, and we shall no longer hear of abuses in the appointing power. I am not disposed to disturb the provision of the present Constitution. I would never elect, by the people, one whose duty requires that he should be influenced by neither popular applause nor censure, but act uprightly, and with independence. So far as regards claims not sufficient in amount for the consideration of a court, perhaps the best course would be to take away all legal redress; and then the honest, industrious, and meritorious poor would find credit, and the unfortunate not be exposed to be harrassed by oppression. Suits for trifling sums have become monstrous abuses, and require a corrective. I cannot vote for the amendment, because it contains a provision for the election of Justices of the Peace.

Mr. STERIGERE said that this matter of restricting the number of Magistrates had been agitated in the Legislature more than once, and upon all these occasions, it was determined that they had no power to limit them, so that the Governor was left to make appointments at his discretion. He considered that the amendment was liable to objections, inasmuch as many of th districts were composed of two, three or four townships in which several Justices must be appointed. He knew that this was the case in the county of Montgomery; and it would be far preferable, in his view, if the districts were made smaller with a single Justice. He was, therefore, opposed to the amendment, and hoped it might not be adopted.

Mr. INGERSOLL hoped he would be excused for saying a few words on this amendment, which were entirely unpremeditated, so far as respects the subject before the committee, and which might, perhaps, be somewhat out of order; but he thought he would stand excused by the Convention, in following the example of some of the gentlemen who had preceded him, and addressing himself rather to the subject, at large, than to the matter immediately pending before the committee. This was, undoubt edly, a very interesting subject to the members of this Convention, and one in which the people felt a deep and an abiding interest. It is a subject which had led as much as any other to the convocation of this Convention; and the determination of it would be as decisive, in determining the fate of the amendments which we may propose altogether, as any other subject, which will be brought forward here. As it was a question so important, he wished to have the views of gentlemen, on all