fierce which heir of ces gave them for the purpose of securing their re-election. He had voted against a sin ilar provision to this, in regard to certain ministerial of cers. He had voted against restrain ng the Leople in the election of their Prothonotaries and county officers; and he had done so, simply, because these officers possessed no patronage and influer ce, which could, in any way, be used to the injury of the community at large. Then, the only question was, whether there was a y difference between these mere ministerial officers, and Justices of the Peace. He conceived there was a marked difference-a difference which must be seen at the first glance, by every person who examined the subject. The mere county officers could exercise no infiuence, whatever, over the people of a county; while it must be admited, on all hands, that the influ ence and power, which a Magistrate had it in his power to exercise over the poor of a township, was very great. Before his election comes on, he may so shape his judgments and decrees, as to secure his re-election.— This, Magistrates, undoubtedly, might do, and they, undoubtedly, would do it, if we gave them the opportunity. Was it not, then, of the utmost importance, that we should remove from them every thing which would have a tendency to tempt them from the path of duty, so as not to permit them to consult their desire of promotion and feelings of ambition, in the administration of justice. He had thought it to be his duty to bring for ward this proposition for the reasons he had given; and all he asked for it was, a calm, candid and dispassionate consideration: and if it was not agreed to, he would submit cheerfully; but, in conclusion, he would ask of genil men, whether, if they left these officers eligible for a second term, they would not give them the opportunity of violating law and justice, and every thing else, for the purpose of securing their election; and whether it was not our imperious duty to place them in such situation, as to leave them to exercise their official duties, with honor to themselves, and with benefit to the whole people of their district, as well the poor and the weak, as the rich and powerful.

Mr. HOPKINSON rose to reply to a remark which had fallen from the gentleman from Chester, that he (Mr. H.) had compromised the independence of the Judiciary, by the report for the election of Justices of the Peace. This was not the first time that this opinion had been expressed here, and he had submited to it, because he knew the time would come when he would be able to explain fully his views on this subject. The gentleman had regreted that in the report of the fifth article of the Constitution, he (Mr. H.) had consented to sacrifice the independence of the Judiciary. It was the last thing he knew of on earth, which he would consent to sacrifice. He was not so lost to his duty, to himself, and to his country, as to make any such sacrifice. When the subject comes fairly up, and when the fifth article of the Constitution shall be under conside ration, he thought he would be able to satisfy the gentleman from Chester, and every other gentleman in the Convention, that he had not and would not sacrifice one jot or tittle of the independence of the Judiciary. It was not the proper place now to enter into a discussion of this kind, and all he asked of gentlemen was to suspend their opinion until he had the opportunity of acquitting himself of this charge. He should vote against giving the election of Judges to the people, and against every

Mr. CLARKE, of Indiana, should vote against the proposition of the gen tleman from Chester, an I he hoped it would not prevail. The gentleman and himself, by some means or other, had exchanged sides, as he had voted against the rotation principle the other day, and called it a restriction of the people, and now he comes forward with a similar restriction. If the gentleman would so sh pe his amendment, as to make it the two term principle, he (Mr. C.) would go with him; because he thought if they got a good Magistrate, they ought to give the people the opportunity of re-electing him at the end of five years. There appeared to him to be an inconsistency in introducing this amendment. It was admited there were evils in relation to this matter, and we must balance these evils, as we

cannot get rid of them all. What was the evil complained of by the gentleman? It was that the Magistrate would so shape his course as to procure his re-election. He admitted that they were liable to this temptation; but on the other hand, there are evils to be looked to. It must be recollected that the Magistrates keep a docket. He did not know that it could properly be called a record, but it was a kind of record, and many suits which were entered thereon, would be in a state of progress-some would be just commenced-some would be further on, and some would be near their close; well, what was to become of these suits? Was the docket to be transfered to the new officer, and he to, proceed with them as they stood there; or would the persons bringing these suits, have to go to a new Magistrate, and begin in a manner de novo? Were new judgments to be taken out, or were the old judgments to be renewed by scire facias, or something of this kind? If so, it would increase the cost, and make it extremely burthensome upon the poor man. He took it, that by attempting to avoid one evil, the gentleman had got into a greater one. Besides, if the Magistrate was a good man, his experience would be worth something, which we would have the benefit of, and if he was not a good man, he could be removed by the people at the end of his first term. If the gentleman would modify his motion, so as to allow these officers to be elected for two terms, he did not know but that he would go for it; but as it stood at present, he must vote against it, and he hoped it might not be adopted.

The amendment of Mr. BELL was then disagreed to.

Mr. HASTINGS moved to amend the amendment, by adding the following: "provided that no more than three shall be elected in any ward, borough, or township".

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, remarked, that he could see no use in binding the people hand and foot. There appeared to him to be a great disposition here to enslave the people of the Commonwealth. He could not vote for any proposition which went to shackle them. We had already determined that the elections should be held by the people in each borough, ward, and township. Thit was, if he understood it, the proposal of the amendment of the gentleman from Fayette. And, after having left it to them, we now say that they shall have no voice in it. After having given them the pri vilege of electing as many as they please, we now turn round and say that they are to elect but three. If they are not fit for self-government, he would be glad if gentlemen would say so, and not slip it in side

The question was taken on the amendment to the amendment, and it was negatived.

The question then recured on agreeing to the amendment as amended. Mr. DARRAH asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FARRELLY, of Crawford, was opposed to the amendment, and prefered the report of the committee to it, because the effect of it was to increase the number of Justices unnecessarily. He would much rather that the number should be left to the decision of the Legislature.

Mr. AGNEW, of Beaver, would vote against the amendment. In his opinion, all the arguments which had been urged in support of it had entirely failed to prove, that it would at all restrict the number of Justices. Aspirants and influential men would combine together, and the consequence would be to increase the number of Justices indefinitely. He was opposed to the term of five years, as being too short, and having a tendency to abridge the independence of the Justices-besides, it opened the door to great evils and inconveniences.

The question was taken on the amendinent as amended, and it was decided-yeas, 54; nays, 53-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Banks, Bedford, Brown, of Northampton, Brown, of Phildelphia, Butler, Clavinger, Crain, Cummin, Curll, Darrah, Denny, Dickerson, Dillinger, Doran, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gamble, Gilmore, Grenell, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, High, Hyde, Ingersoll, Keim, Kennedy, Kerr, Krebs, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, M'Dowell. Merrill, Miller, Montgomery, Myers, Nevin, Overfield, Pollock, Porter, of Northampton, Purviance, Riter, R tter, Rogers, Saeger, Sellers, Scheetz, Shellito, Sill, Smyth, Stickel, Swetland, Taggart-54.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Barclay, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bell, Biddle, Bonham, Carey, Chambers, Chauncey, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of D uphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline. Cochran, Cope, Crum, Darlington, Donnell, Dunlop, Earle, Farrelly, Fleming, Gearhart, Harris, Hastings, Henderson, of Dauphin, Hopkinson, Houpt, Jenks, Konigmacher, Maclay, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Pennypacker, Porter, of Lancaster, Reigart, Read, Russell, Scott, Serrill, Snively, Sterigere, Stevens, Thomas, Todd, Weidman, Young, Sergeant, President-53.

On motion of Mr. BALDWIN, the committee rose and reported progress. The Convention then adjourned.

FRIDAY, JULY 7. 1837.

Mr. GRENELL, of Wayne, moved that the Convention reconsider the vote, by which the resolution offered a few days ago, by the gentleman from Munroe, (Mr. OVERFIELD) fixing the adjournment of the Convention for the 14th of July, to meet again on the 16th of October, had been rejected.

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, hoped the Convention would not reconsider the resolution, which was in an imperfect state. He did not believe that twenty could be found to vote for meeting here in October, and he would not be willing to take up the resolution, with its rigid tyrant-the previous question-attached to it, cutting off all amendments. Let a new resolution be offered, which could be fairly considered, without a gag between onr

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, asked if it was the opinion of the Presi dent, that the reconsideration would not bring up the previous question.He would not vote for the resolution, unless with an amendment. He would agree to go away, so as to meet here again on the 1st of September. Then there would be a reasonable prospect of avoiding a collision with the Legislature. If we were to meet again in October, it would bring us in collision with the House of Representatives.

Mr. EARLE, of Philadelphia, would vote for a proper resolution, but not for reconsideration with the gag law, so as to cut off all amendment. He asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

The question was then taken on the motion to reconsider, and decided— yeas 47, nays 56-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Barclay, Biddle, Brown, of Northampton, Carey, Chambers, Chauncey, Craig, Cummin, Curil, Darlington, Denny, Dillinger, Farrelly, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Grenell, Hastings, Henderson, of Allegheny, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Kennedy, Krebs, Maclay, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, Merrill, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Riter, Russell, Sargar, Scott, Sellers, Serrill, Scheetz, Sill, Snively, Swetland, Sergeant, President-47.

NAYS-Messrs Agnew, Ayres, Baldwin, Banks, Barndollar, Barnitz, Bayne, Bedford, Bell, Bonham, Brown, of Philadelphia, Butler, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin, Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cochran, Crain, Crum, Cunningham, Darrah, Dickerson, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Gamble, Gearhart, Gilmore, Harris, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Hopkinson, Keim, Kerr, Konig macher, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkel, Montgomery, Nevin, Purviance, Read, Ritter, Shellito, Smyth, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Taggart, Thomas, Todd, Weidman-56.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, moved to take up the following resolution, offered by Mr. REIGART, of Lancaster.

Resolved, That this Convention do adjourn on the 1st day of July next, and meet again on the 16th of October, in the city of Lancaster".

The question being on the second reading of the resolution, the yeas and nays were ordered on the motion of Mr. KEIM, of Berks, and the question being taken, it was decided-yeas 67, nays 42-as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Baldwin, Barclay, Barnitz, Bedford, Bell, Biddle, Brown, of North ampton, Brown, of Philadelphia, Carey, Chambers, Chandler, of Philadelphia, Chauncey, Cleavinger, Cope, Craig, Crum, Cummin, Cunningham, Curll, Darlington, Denny, Dillinger, Donagan, Farrelly, Forward, Fry, Fuller, Gilmore, Grenell, Harris, Hastings, Henderson, of Allegheny, Hopkinson, Houpt, Hyde, Jenks, Konigmacher, Krebs, Maclay, Mann, Martin, M'Cahen, M'Call, Merrill, Miller, Myers, Overfield, Pennypacker, Pollock, Porter, of Lancaster, Porter, of Northampton, Reigart, Read, Riter, Rogers, Russell, Saegar, Scott, Sellers, Serrill, Scheetz, Sill, Snively, Swetland, Todd, Weidman-87.

NAYS-Messrs. Agnew, Ayres, Banks, Barndollar, Bayne, Bonham, Butler, Clarke, of Beaver, Clark, of Dauphin. Clarke, of Indiana, Cline, Cochran, Crain, Darrah, Dickerson, Doran, Dunlop, Earle, Fleming, Gamble, Gearhart, Hayhurst, Helffenstein, Hiester, High, Keim, Kerr, M'Sherry, Meredith, Merkle, Montgomery, Nevin, Purviance, Ritter, Shellito, Smyth, Sterigere, Stevens, Stickel, Taggart, Thomas, Sergeant, President-42.

The resolution was then read a second time.

Mr. REIGART modified the resolution, so as to read "Friday, July 14", instead of "1st of July".

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, moved to amend the resolution, by striking out all after the word "Resolved", and inserting as follows: "That this Convention will adjourn on Friday, the 14th of July instant, and meet

Mr. BELL, of Chester, moved to amend the amendment, by striking out "14th", and inserting twenty-second".

66

Mr. READ accepted the amendment as a modification. If this amendment was agree to, he would vote for the resolution, but he would not vote for any which postpones the meeting beyond the 1st or 4th of September. The reason which had been operating in favor of adjournment, was to avoid the hot months of July and August. The resolution, as amended, therefore, would effect the object of those who deemed this situation unhealthy, during these months. He thought, however, that there was not a more healthy place in all Pennsylvania. If we are to meet about the 1st of September, we might possibly get through, without the inconvenience or labor of being here at the same time with the Legislature. Three months might be sufficient to perfect our labors. He wished to avoid a change of location, and a vacation of six weeks would be sufficient. After this continuance of uninterrupted labor, a recess was requisite to enable members to recruit themselves, and to consider matters as they ought to do. He thought there was no reasonable objection to the amend ment, as the weather begins to be cooler in September.

Mr. DARLINGTON, of Chester, moved to amend, by striking out “22d", and inserting 15th".

66

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, suggested to the gentleman from Chester, (Mr. DARLINGTON) to modify his amendment, so as to make the day of meeting the sixteenth of October", and to strike out the words " at this place", and the amendment was so modified by the mover.

Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, said, he hoped the amendment to the amendment would not be adopted. If we come back on the 16th of October, we shall only come back to adjourn again, with a new charge of mileage home, and mileage back again, doubling what it would be, if we did not adjourn until our labors were finished. No one could suppose that we were half through the first reading; and, when we come back refreshed, our store houses piled up with new ideas, we should not get through in three months, and then the Legislature would meet here. Striking out "this place" would be tantamount to adjournment to meet in this Hall, because the law fixes this as the place, unless otherwise ordered. If we were to come back on the 16th of October, let it be known we mean to come here, and sit a little time, and do another little patch of business, and then adjourn some where else, at a new charge to the State. He asked for the yeas and nays on the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. M CAHEN, of Philadelphia: Every gentleman comes here to act according to his best judgment. Too much had been said about expenses. Conventions of this character were seldom called together, and the people would not look at the expense. He thought it would subserve the interests of the Commonwealth, that we should adjourn. The public mind was disordered, and was not able to turn that attention to the subject which its importance demanded. Much had been said, which was calculated to injure the character of this Convention, and to make it unpopular. It was proper and becoming, in every gentleman, to discard all efforts at political effect, and go on calmly and deliberately with the public business. În reference to his personal feelings, he was indifferent whether the Convention adjourned or not. Some newspaper had made it the subject of a